I should have made myself more clear on that, I apologize.

I am a fence-sitter. Both the Theists and the Atheists have valid points. Essentially, while we are researching HOW things are happening (and have happened in the universe), we still have no answers for why. In the grand scheme of things, I will live for less time than a gnat would blink (I don't think they have eyelids, but fuck it, it's late). The insane amount of ego that it takes to assume that within my tiny gnatblink's lifetime I will discover the true meaning of the universe and all that is just boggles my mind.

Maybe the Greeks were right and I'm gonna go meet Hades and (hopefully) end up in the Elysian fields. Or maybe it was the buddhists and I'm gonna get reincarnated as the badly abused gnat in this metaphor. Or maybe it's the Mormons, like they always joke about in South Park and I'll get to meet the Platypus that is God.

I don't know. We don't know. My "brand" of agnosticism is a sort of fatalism: Shit happens, we can't be sure why, but that doesn't mean we're prevented from exploring the how or anything of the sort.


I would LIKE to believe that there is some kind of afterlife. I would LIKE to believe that there is some kind of merciful and benevolent creator who loves and adores us unconditionally (but will still send us to die in sulfur and fire if we don't listen to him completely--okay, bit odd, but okay). But I can't. I just can't. It just does not compute.

I can't bring myself to believe in either Nothing or Something, so for now, I'll just sit on my comfy fence-seat and find out what happens when I die, when I die.

Hopefully several decades from now.

I can live with that

I liked your point about "Atheism is turning the TV off". It's an analogy I can't really compete with, other than that in my mind, saying "there is no god" must be falsifiable in order for me to believe it. "If not A, then B" for me just doesn't cut it. I love a lot of what a lot of the major Atheist speakers have to say, up to the point where they call Theists idiots for not believing in Nothing. ...if that makes sense.

I mean, I understand how people can get swayed either way. I just...can't. Or maybe haven't yet. Who knows. I'm still young. I got decades to figure out where I'm going.

-edit-
Ooh, I figured it out. It's like saying that there's nothing on and so that means I shouldn't read a book because if one entertainment isn't working for me then obviously nothing will.

I think.

Or maybe that's just the exhaustion getting to me.

Well said LiquidTurbo.

Another one, claiming that Atheism is a religion is like saying not collecting stamp is a hobby.

And I get your guys' points, I really do. When I was younger, I professed in the anti-god belief, but as I've gotten older (not necessarily wiser), I've come to the realization that there isn't sufficient evidence for me to feel strongly enough one way or the other.

I honestly wish I could find something which would adequately help me explain everything that goes on, whether it simply be the random chance of science or maybe even some hyper-stoner-god who was like "hey guys, dude, this is gonna be awesome, I'm gonna make 'em worship me man!".

But honestly, it doesn't bug me so much that I'll devote hours of my time to convincing other people that I'm right and they're wrong. I just do my thing and shake my head at the energy wasted on something that (to a universal degree) is impossible to explain or express.

I think we are missing the point if we simply expect science to answer everything there is. Science is merely the tool which helps us assess the likelihood of claims.

When I see intellectuals devoting their career educating the next generation, I find much respect and admiration.

Agreed. On both points.

Which, in my mind, makes the only argument that's worth fighting is that against those who believe in scientific progress. Everything else is pretty much moot. Religious, agnostic, atheist...doesn't matter unless you're anti science.

Like others have pointed out, the Bible is heavily edited and went through several translations that were often linguistically inaccurate or misleading.

Armageddon the battle between Good (light) and Evil (dark) actually refers to the Romans vs the Jews (from what I recall). The light being the good guys, the dark being the bad. Armageddon or Her Megido (sp?) is a hill that people usually waged battles on. I'm not saying that the one book about linguistics on the bible's interpretation is correct, but it's something to think about.

What do the miracles truly mean in their context? If people 3000 years later read our text messages (without any cultural context) they'll think that we literally rolled on the floor laughing. Context is key to understanding. When Jesus healed the blind and made them see, did it really mean he cured blindness? OR that he simply converted a non-believer (blinded) to a believer (sees the way)

Sadly, there are many cases of the above. I read 40% of Americans don't believe in evolution, quite a shocking statistic.

That's why I feel for someone like Bill Nye who is willing to take a stance.

Yep. But that means that 60% of all people do. And that 60% can't be all atheists and agnostics, which means that it's important to attack the anti-science mentality, not the pro-faith.

Good question, what exactly is the anti-science mentality? Acceptance without justification or evidence?