Sunday, November 27, 2011


An old theist friend I've lost contact with because of this blog berated my choice of "agnostic atheist" as a description of my mindset as being a ridiculous term.  I guess he couldn't fathom the reasons for my choice of terminology, and many others might be confused.

I'm certainly not saying I think the kind of "god" most people claim to believe in could be true.  That fantasy is completely unreal. 

James, the editor of The Painful Truth, commented on a recent comment of mine and stated what I mean in a particulary good way.  Here's what he said:

"Its not if a God exists. Its about the wonder of the development of a human life.

If a god exists, “it” would be nothing that we can fathom. Hence the god of Gerald Flurry and the rest of the minions does not exist. Religion, as in ancient days, tries to explain the unknowable by contributing it to a god.

If there be a “creator” (if you want to call “it” that), it is not seeking the worship of the “created.”
We exist by some external source beyond us, the same force that relates to the link Ralph put up above. What is behind it? Don’t know, and I really don’t care. I am, therefore, I exist.

Religion has nothing to do with creation. Religion is, an invention of men to explain away the unknowable and to ensure that life continues after death.

Religion is about hope and driven by fear. At least in some people. Not all religion is bad. It serves a purpose of cohesion within societies."

I am agnostic because, as James puts it, there is some unknown force that led to existence existing.  I just don't know and can't define what that force is.  We may never completely fathom it.  At the same time, I know all the gods people have invented are impossible figments of people's imaginations.  That makes me anti-theist, therefore, an atheist.

I'm not waffling.  I'm just recognizing the "agnostic" fact that there is something I don't know and likely will never know.  It may be impossible for the existent to explain ultimate existence, but science can never stop its quest and resort to the stultifying certainty of delusional religions.

I hope that makes it a little plainer. 


  1. What you are saying is that the worlds "gods" are man made entities and you don't believe in them. =Atheist.

    And that you believe that there may well be a driving force behind creation. But your not sure. =Agnostic.

  2. Agreed. I believe that a more precise term for your beliefs, Allen, is the same as Albert Einstein: Pantheist.

    I believe that the correct definition for someone who is Agnostic, is that they say that the likelihood that God exists is exactly 50-50. To believe less than that is to be Atheist, regardless of the degree. Albert Einsten believed that God can be described as the physical laws that govern the natural world, but that these laws do not have a personality and at best can be described as indifferent. I would call you a Pantheist, which is not a demeaning term.

  3. Pantheist? Hmmmm.

    All language terms tend to be confusing at times because they are subject to the interpretations of the hearer or reader. I respect Einstein tremendously and see exactly what he was trying to say. So, maybe I am a pantheist.