Technically we are all agnostic because we don’t know it all. But that isn’t a prerequisite to believing or accepting an all encompassing, invisible, all watching, 3 in 1, can’t make mistakes deity. At least as it is interpreted now in these United States.

From what I have seen it is all to do with Evolution. Yes Evolution and the formation of our brains. That is the place to start and you will find the reason so many want some kind of after life, a parenting guardian of the universe, something to explain everything even if it is no explanation at all. It is a biological imperative for most humans. Those of us free of it are the usual minority in any population that have variances needed in case a severe abrupt climate change might support it.

So belief in deities is scientifically based upon Evolution! Isn’t that irony to the maximum.

Dave,

  The skeptic’s dictionary defines “the position of believing that knowledge of
the existence or non-existence of God is impossible” as agnosticism. Even
though I am not agnostic, I find agnosticism the most logically defensible
position, although not the only one.

  My belief in God is based on my own personal experience, which I am sure is
biased, but is the only thing that makes sense to me. Yet, I am not satisfied
with this cognitive dissonance, and keep challenging my beliefs constantly, to
keep myself honest.

Thanks Dave and Russian. It’s been a good conversation.

Aaron

To add on to Russian Paul’s comment: science is a method that one could say is
always agnostic: to the extent that it’s always open to change in light of new
evidence.  Whereas religion reinterprets new discoveries to fit its dogmatic
mold.  It reverse-engineers, which is inherently irrational.

Ultimately there is a God (or many) or there isn’t, so throwing one’s hands up in
the air and saying it’s an unknowable question, I think, isn’t even a real
position.

One must remain open but suspend conviction, precisely because we don’t
know. 

The only evidence to suggest there is a God are our own fabrications, which
leads me to disbelieve and dismiss those claims as nonsense.  Why not invest in
learning about nature instead of pretending the truth was revealed to us by way
of our ignorant, storytelling ancestors.

Supermassive black holes are far more interesting than burning bushes and
parting seas.

Aaron, atheists/agnostics CAN logically assume their lack of belief has more merit
than that of a “believer” simply because there is no evidence whatsoever to
substantiate the claim of God/s existing. One side is undoubtedly more logical
than the other. I am a proud agnostic, I think it is arrogant for someone to claim a
knowledge of any god or no-god; however, the no-god argument is inherently
more logical…currently, this is what all evidence points at.

Well Dave,

  Classifying atheism as a lack of belief or active disbelief does not puncture my
argument..

  I am not defending my own belief in God. I am not trying to say atheism is
not logical. What I am trying to say is that atheists cannot logically assume their
lack of belief is the correct view, just as believers have no logical basis to say
their belief is the correct view.

  Therefore it is intellectually advantageous to educate our minds with other
world views before we choose from among them. Hatred and ridicule of people
who believe differently is not intellectually honest.

Aaron

Aaron:

Unfortunately you’re continuing to propagate the incorrect meme of what
Atheism “is.”  Atheism is not a positive belief in no God.  Atheism is a *lack* of
belief.  The burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim: ie, the
believer who insists there is a God.

I have never said there is no God: only that the “evidence” presented amounts
to a hill in a one-dimensional surface.  In other words, there is none.

Natural explanations cover every action.  And in instances where we do not
know something, filling it with an answer called “God” solves nothing.  God is a
fallacy of infinite regress.  And if you say he’s a prime mover, then nature itself,
via quantum mechanics, could be its own prime mover as well.

Fact is, there could be a million gods or zero.  God is a manmade concept, like
it or not.  And until something verifiable reinforces that claim (other than
dreams interpreted as revelation, etc.), there’s no reason to believe the idea to
be objectively true.

There is nothing virtuous in faith.  But there is plenty of virtue in doubt.

Hello Ed,

Actually, What I meant was that in it is easier to hate something you don’t know. A
person who knows about astrology, it’s practice, it’s history, etc. is less likely to
hate it, whether or not they disbelieve it.

Aaron

Dave,

  Thank you for focusing on the substance of my arguments and not on me.

  You say that before there is belief there must be proof. Unfortunately, we
humans usually work the opposite way. We believe first, and then we examine
the evidence and make our conclusions. This makes us susceptible to self-
deception.

  This is the greatest problem I see in the scientific method. In order to create
experiments, we must create a falsifiable hypothesis. We must also be able to
have a control group. Even when we get the results, our observations may be
skewed by our bias.

  There are scientists who are working to recreate the conditions of the Big
Bang, and on creating living cells out of organic substances. But even if and
when they succeed, all they have proven is that the universe or life could have
evolved without a creator.

  But they cannot prove that it wasn’t created any more than a believer can
prove that there is a Creator.

  The most logical stance, in my opinion, is agnosticism. Atheism, on the other
hand goes further than logic or the scientific method can support it. It is an
active belief in the non-existence of a creator, claiming absence of proof. But if
something is impossible to prove, then it is also impossible to disprove.

  Therefore I respect atheists, but I respect agnostics more. They are more
honest with the truth. I also respect believers, even those who have not
examined the evidence, but not as much.

  Believers can be extremely obnoxious and proud. That goes for atheists too. I
find many hypocrites in both camps; their pride makes it impossible for them to
see their own hypocrisy.

  Mocking God, like what Mr. Fish does in this cartoon, reveals pride,
bitterness, and anguish. The hatred is there for a reason, and often it is a
response to the words and actions of hypocrites.

By Aaron Ortiz, June 15 at 1:40 am

You imply that, in order to have a justified disbelief in God,
one must have a deep knowledge of traditional beliefs about God.
It’s like saying that an astronomer must have a thorough training in
astrology in order to have a justified disbelief in astrology.

The proposed standard is ridiculous. By this standard, almost no one alive has
sufficient justification to reject the Sun God of the ancient Egyptians!

Aaron:

Before you can believe in something (and pretend to know what it wants, its story,
etc.) you first have to prove it’s actually there.  It’s possible that there are 148
gods, or 17 million, or one, or zero.  Seems disingenuous to pick one of those
options and then dump conviction into it when you, like all humans, have no idea.

Science, on the other hand, studies nature to see what it tells us, rather than
relying on fairy tales created by people who didn’t know about the weather, that
germs exist, or how to treat one another.

One cannot hate something that doesn’t exist.  Nice try.  And cry me a river.

Dave,

Please don’t attack me, attack what I’m saying.

I am a Christian, but I don’t take God or the Bible for granted. I examine the
evidence. I am not immune to the majesty of nature, I appreciate it. I am not an
un-thinker.

But your comments seem to prove my point…it is easier to hate someone you
don’t know. You don’t know me, why do you hate me?

My point is, with Mr. Fish, and other atheists, is that they hate God, because
most they have known of him are the ridiculous and hateful actions of people
who call themselves Christians, but fail to live up to it’s extremely high
standards.

I do not claim to live up to them either, and thus, I can understand why atheists
disbelieve in God.

Aaron

Aaron, your myth and the myths of all theists are unbelievably bankrupt when
compared with the majesty and pure apathy of nature.  Now you may find it
comforting to create an umbrella and call it “God” under which everything exists,
but that doesn’t make it true: only a delusion, as there is no evidence (aside from
empty claims) to support your spooky father-figure in whatever form you
arbitrarily decide to interpret it.

And try not type so much; I’m sure your brain is tired from all that “thinking.”

More of the same by dsmith. It is easier to hate someone you don’t know.

The 18 and 19th century philosophers that popularized atheism knew theology,
and rejected it.  Our current generation of atheists never learned theology, and
thus hate and ridicule an oversimplified caricature of a God they were never
familiar with.

Male and female humans were both created in “the image of God” according to
Genesis. Genitalia is not mentioned.

I’m guessing mr. Fish hates God because he is worshipped by hateful people who
hurt him in the past. Therefore his image of God is a projection of their worst
faults.

That’s the best representation of God ever.

Or those who see that in quantum mechanics, one can always gets something
from nothing.  Therefore, there’s no need for a petty invented deity: as existence
was born from the inevitably irregular, seething quantum foam.

Mr. Fish finds lampooning a caricature of God much easier than the ridiculous
people who have made him angry.