The Best Laid Plans

I’ve been very, very frustrated recently with people’s misconceptions regarding atheism, and figured I would try to clarify things. Atheism is NOT a statement of belief, anymore than not believing in ghosts is a belief, or not playing baseball is a sport. Atheism is also NOT the assertion that there is no god or gods. Moreover, agnosticism is not merely a more “rational” stance on religious belief, because agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. “Agnostic” derives from the Greek word “gnosis,” (directly cognate with English ‘know’), and has to do with one’s stance on knowledge. Atheism, on the other hand, is merely a rejection of claims that there is a god, and refers to one’s stance on belief. Ergo, one can be either an agnostic atheist, or an agnostic theist.

I am agnostic regarding a god in the same way that I am agnostic in regards to all metaphysical constructions, such as ghosts, unicorns, space-aliens and celestial teapots. I recognize that these things cannot be proven nor disproven because they are claimed to have a mode of existence that is not measurable or testable.

However, I will NOT give the assertion of a god a 50/50 chance of existence, because I would then be compelled to grant the infinite number of super-substantial inventions a fair shake, and that is just asinine. The rational position is to withhold belief until the person positing a position has met his or her burden of proof. The burden of proof always lies with the person who is adding something to the world, and not the person who is rejecting the claim. To the person rejecting the claim, his or her world remains the same, until the person making said proposition is able to adequately meet his or her burden of proof with some form of evidence. Once that happens, then something new is added to the other person’s world. Being able to examine the evidence and come to a conclusion is the privilege of a rational mind. I cannot be convinced of something when the evidence for that thing is insufficient or non-existent.

I am an atheist in so far as the people asserting the existence of a god have not yet provided sufficient evidence to convince me that one exists. Period. I am not claiming that there is no god. All I am doing is saying that I remain unconvinced of a supernatural patriarch, because the people positing the existence of one have yet to meet their burden of proof.

I am, therefore, an agnostic atheist. I recognize that I cannot have any absolute knowledge surrounding any metaphysical claim, such as a god, and I reject claims of a supernatural deity, because I have yet to be provided with any good evidence to believe in one. It’s that simple. If someone can provide me with some tangible evidence for the existence of a god, I will believe (though I still wouldn’t worship the Judeo-Christian god, because he’s an asshole). Otherwise, I cannot hold a belief in anything without a good reason to, especially when said belief fundamentally drives the way one views the world.