In this video my mom and I talk about how we get along even though we believe completely different things as far as religion goes. We also talk about the false messages contained in the movie: God’s Not Dead.
The term agnostic is usually referred to someone who is unsure about the existence of gods/goddesses or something like that. I think that it could easily be applied to being uncertain about any claim to knowledge.
My WordWeb dictionary has two noun definitions of “agnostic”.
1. Someone who is doubtful or noncommittal about something
2. A person who claims that they cannot have true knowledge about the existence of God (but does not deny that God might exist)
I fall under both categories given that I can’t claim 100% certain knowledge about everything that exists or not. Technically I can’t know that I don’t live in a Matrix where everything is all an illusion, but I dismiss this because there is nothing I could do about it if it was true.
I am what I like to call a practical atheist. When it comes to ideas such as the supernatural, spirits, gods, or an afterlife, there is not really anything I can do about these things even if they were true. I have countless reasons for thinking they don’t exist such as the fact that none of them can be clearly defined by the believers in them.
So when a pantheist says God is the universe, then fine, I believe God exists because it has been defined as the universe. However, this is not what a Christian, Jew, or Muslim means when they talk about God. They describe a person with thoughts, emotions, intentions, etc. What I think they are doing is just taking all their own thoughts, emotions, and intentions and combining them all into a blob named “God”.
I used to do the very same thing. I used to think: “I like ketchup so God must like ketchup. I am sad when babies are aborted so God must be the same.”. There came a day when I realized what I was doing. God was nothing more than a clone of my personality. I stopped believing in hell because I didn’t want anyone to burn forever so I figured that God must not be that way either. I was a universalist type of christian for awhile believing that everyone went to heaven after they died.
So what changed? I realized I had not one shred of proof for this. I could not convince anyone that my beliefs were true. Another problem is that I had another internal conflict that was going on. I became increasingly upset at the abortion situation and wondered why God didn’t just turn everyone pro-life, remove their reproductive organs, or just turn everyone asexual.
Of course by this time I already had dismissed the bible as a bunch of lies. I wanted to believe in a nice God instead of the one that demanded animal sacrifices and struck people dead for certain sins. It all sounded so crazy so I quit basing my beliefs on the bible and instead was entirely emotionally driven.
Perhaps I still am a slave to my emotions an what I want to believe, but I have come to understand that is what everyone is doing. What I mean is that we are all biased and have reasons for believing things based on what we believe the consequences are of believing those things.
Think about it this way, people who believe in Free Will do so because they WANT to believe they are in control of their own destiny and what happens to them. At the same time, people who believe in God WANT to believe they have an imaginary friend or heavenly father/mother that will take control over their lives and help them when they screw up.
There is no escape from our desires that compel us to believe or disbelieve certain things. I have come to see believe in God in much the same way as belief in Free Will. It may be a nice thought to believe there is someone to help you when none of the humans in your life care about you, but that does not make it true.
So could I be wrong? Could there be some type of personal guiding force or creator that people have been referring to as “God”? I suppose so, but until I meet this force I will think the concept is just something that mankind started believing to help them overcome their fears about death.
So I am agnostic about this but I use the label of atheist because belief in something is binary. You either live by it or you don’t. I will live this way until I am proven wrong or until I die.
I wasted the first 25 years of my life in christianity and I have come to hate the way it causes people to shut their brain off and just live in a state of perpetual drunkenness. I think of religion as a sort of drug that makes people feel happier but later causes them great pain.
I heard about the National Atheist Party in a podcast and was completely turned off by the whole idea. I want to explain why I am against a political party based on atheism.
The very idea that you can base an organization off of a lack of a belief is completely insane. An atheist does not believe in a God or gods, but that is all. To think that they will all agree on politics is completely insane.
Imagine a party based on not playing basketball, not having hair, not wearing pants, not eating meat, not doing sex, not watching tv, or not driving a car. Think about it and I think you will see the problem.
Atheism is a lack of a thing. There is a reason that I call myself a pro-life atheist. That is because a person must define themselves by what they are instead of what they are not.
There is a radical difference between a pro-life atheist and a pro-life christian, jew, or muslim. I don’t want to get into all the differences in this post but let me say that all matters of morality are seen slightly different when you don’t believe there is a god controlling everything in the world.
I define myself as a pro-life atheist only for the reason that I want people to know that I won’t use threats of hell or use violence against them when talking about abortion. If people would get rid of all the violence and threats often connected with the teachings of religion, it would be different.
But back to the point, any group that defines itself based on a lack of something is doomed to fail. If a member of the National Non-Basketball Association suddenly decided to try basketball, they could be called an apostate and would be told that they will be sent to a hell where they will have to watch football.
Because I want people to remain open to new ideas and to find what is relevant, true, and good, I naturally don’t like exclusive organizations. I am not against people having groups based on a similar interest but when it becomes a political party, it has become a religion like others which spread their lies.
I do not mean to pick on just one political party because I think politics in general is bad. I am naturally going to disagree with any individual or group about something. The point is to let people know why I agree or disagree. Contrary to popular belief, my decisions are not random.
My decision to not be officially part of a religion or political party is heavily based on my Pro-Life philosophy. To be part of ANY group which has the motivation to hurt, kill, or control others is a bad idea to me. I am of the opinion that religion and politics poison everything.
Since atheism is NOT a religion, atheists need to stop acting exactly like those in the religions they often leave. They become hypocrites. I do not wish to be thought of as one of them.
Make no mistake, there is no atheist great commission or power that dictates what a nonbeliever will do. That is the whole point. I use it as a sign that I am a peaceful person. Perhaps as I learn more, a better term will come to mind.
There is no law that I have to be an atheist for the rest of my life and so I remain open to change my worldview if what I am sure of right now is false.
But me being Pro-Life is one think that is nearly impossible to change without killing me or severely brain damaging me.
Atheism, by definition is not something people can gather around as if it is an actual thing. Imagine a National Non-SantaClausist party. That is how silly the idea is to me.
I am a pro-life advocate, but I am not an atheism advocate. The reason is that atheism is a lack of belief, but being pro-life is an actual belief that life is relevant, true, and good. Usually atheists believe that their life on earth is the only one they get. This means that they should think twice before killing anything. The fact that those claiming to be atheists are mostly pro-choice seems impossible to me. Something is wrong.
If atheism was an actual belief system, it could be checked for validity. Instead, I have the challenge of watching individual people who claim to be atheists. Do their words match their actions? Are they truly freethinkers or do they make the mistake of siding with popular opinion?
I understand why some theists might be pro-choice if they have been convinced that murder is God’s will, but for atheists, it is a whole different story. Since atheists don’t have a God telling them what to do, they have the potential to do things that theists can’t do. Some of these things are good and others are bad.
I am disappointed to see that relativism has infected both theists and atheists. The key difference for the atheist is that they don’t have a God to blame their actions on when they do something wrong. This makes them MORE responsible for all their actions. This is something I remember in everything I do.
I think of morality as being something that is based in reality. The Golden Rule is the standard I go by. The reason is because not only is it nice, but also because it is the only thing that makes sense!
If I consider the life of other people to be as relevant as my own, then I don’t kill them. If I kill myself, I don’t live long enough to kill someone else. I don’t understand those who kill other people and then themselves. If they would just start with themselves, then no one’s choice is violated.
Aside from the Golden Rule, there is another rule that I live by. If an action is one that can’t be undone, I should either NOT do it, or I need to have a REALLY GOOD REASON for it. Some things can be reversed and others can’t.
When someone steals something, it is bad, but if they can give it back, then the damage is reversed. If they lie, they will lose trust, but they may be able to tell the truth before more damage is done. In those cases, the damage is reversible. When someone kills someone, they have no way of bringing them back to life. This means that killing is the ULTIMATE irreversible act.
The entire point of being an atheist is that it does not actually define who I am. It only defines what I am not. It strips away all presuppositions so that I can find meaning in my life without needing other sources to tell me what it is.
Not all information is useful and there are motivations for deceiving people. Atheists who hold the pro-choice position on abortion need to stop their hypocrisy. Being pro-choice about things involving life and death means that life does not matter enough to you. If life does not mean anything, then you might as well let the world be run over by those annoying theists who force their God on you.
Avoid the relativism that says that it does not matter what you believe or do. It tells us to be so “tolerant” that we stop asking questions or thinking about things that matter. If this is the only life that we have, then pretending that all truth is relative to an individual means that truth exists only in the minds of the living and then dies. This is why I care about standards that apply equally to life everywhere.
I do not want to let fear control my life anymore. For me, being an atheist means that no God, scientist, philosopher, or king has the right to stop me from telling the truth. They can stop me by killing me, but in the end, they would only be showing their weakness. I find great humor in the way that every time someone comes along and tells people not to kill people, it isn’t long before somebody kills them.
I am convinced that protecting life is the most rational thing that anyone can do. This applies to atheists even more because they can’t expect God to resurrect everyone and make everything right. Many atheists protect their own lives at any cost, but deny the relevance of other people when they see them as a threat. This is mostly based on fear. I want to bridge the gap between theists and atheists.
To help theists understand why I have my own problems with the majority of the atheists, I need to explain that atheists also have “gods” that dictate to them what is right or wrong. Whatever they place their trust in is what they will defend in the same way that theists defend their gods.
If they are trusting in money, then everything becomes about getting money. If this means killing, lying, or stealing, then they WILL do it at the first chance. This can lead to the destruction of many lives. The worst part is that all the work people do at earning money will be completely irrelevant when they die. This is the greatest tragedy of all.
With the knowledge that money does not exist, but life does, it only makes sense to be pro-life rather than pro-money. A pro-money position usually becomes a pro-death position.
As far as whether a creator named God exists, I will let other people fight about that. In daily life, I do not see God, but every day I see the words “In God we trust” . It is written on the paper and metal people refer to as money. There seems to be a relevance between God and money.
When humans choose to murder other humans or other animals. They often say “It is okay to kill because: money.” or “It is okay to kill because: God.”. What then is the difference between God and money? What is it that people put their “trust” in.
The fact that I am not 100 percent sure that God or money exist outside of human brains means that I cannot trust in either. I cannot serve God or money. What then do I serve?
I serve relevance over irrelevance, truth over falsehood, good over bad, life over death.
I trust in what I have seen with my own eyes, heard with my own ears, and touched with my own hands.
By these rules I have chosen, I am convinced that even if I don’t stay an atheist, I will stay pro-life.
Most of the time, creationism refers to the belief in the creation stories in the book of Genesis. I don’t have a problem with people believing this if they want to, but I will explain why I do not.
Chapter 1 of Genesis describes God creating things by just speaking. It does not explain who God is talking to. Also, I don’t think that this God is involved today in the world. I can’t prove or disprove whether God exists but I can be sure that God has not given me answers to the questions I have. I do not expect humans to give me the answers because I would expect God to be able to speak to me directly and answer all the questions I have. Until this happens I have no foundation for believing anything other that what I can see, hear, feel, taste, or smell.
I can say nothing about creationism except explain that I don’t believe the biblical creation myth. I don’t know if the earth was created or why someone would want to create it or the life on it.
But the main problem I have with the book of Genesis is that it is full of things that are irrelevant and false. For example, God told Adam that the day he ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, he would die. This is not true according to the story. Adam and Eve both ate from it. Later on we find out that Adam lived 930 years and that Eve lived to be at least 130 years old to give birth to Seth. Adam didn’t “begat” Seth by himself.
Here are quotes from the King James Version of the book of Genesis to show the contradiction about death.
“And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it:for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” – Genesis 2:16-17
“And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.” – Genesis 3:4-7
“And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years:and he died.” – Genesis 5:5
The only way that all these verses can be considered true is to admit that God was wrong and the Serpent was right. Aside from that, no knowledge of good or evil came from eating the fruit. All they learned was that they were naked. Nakedness is irrelevant to good or evil.
A trinity is any group of three things that are relevant to each other. This applies to a triangle, a three leaf clover, or a pizza cut into three pieces. Synonyms of trinity include trio, triad, and triplet. You can guess that if a word starts with “tri”, it has something to do with the number three.
Most of the time that someone talks about a trinity, they are referring to the “Holy Trinity”. In Christianity, the three parts of God are referred to as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This is one of the teachings of Christianity that I never saw the relevance of. God could have three parts, but it is also possible that there is a fourth part of God that is named Bob. It is not possible to prove or disprove this theory but anyone is free to believe or disbelieve in Bob as they choose.
In case anyone asks why they have never heard of Bob, my guess is that Bob is an introvert who is not interested in showing himself to the rest of the universe. I am 99% sure that I created Bob in my own image, but since I can never be absolutely sure of this, I will not waste my time debating with anybody about the existence of Bob.
The direction of my life changed when I found out that there were many pro-life atheists out there. Looking back, I wonder why I assumed that there were none. Christopher Hitchens was the first I knew about but there are many others. With the power of the internet, I plan to learn all I can about what they are doing.
Finally theists and atheists found something that they can agree on! The reason I choose to write about pro-life atheism is because it is something that people are not as educated about. It was also a revelation to me that belief in supernatural invisible people in no way changes how someone feels about life.
There was a day when I first encountered the website: “http://www.numberofabortions.com/”. Faced with the information of just how bad it was, I could no longer stay silent about it. I would never forgive myself if I did. On that day I decided that there was no possibility of changing this problem by debate, prayer, or protest. People have already done those things for years and yet it has not stopped over one billion babies from being killed. That is not even counting the illegal uncounted abortions. Few people are honest enough with themselves to admit that this is a problem which affects them and that will not go away by ignoring it.
Most of the people in the pro-life movement have been Christians who have damaged their own efforts by teaching that those who do not belief in their God or Jesus in the correct way are going to burn in an eternal fire called hell.
The idea that somehow believing a certain religious doctrine determines an afterlife is offensive to all who had not chance to even hear of it. Think of all those who have died before birth in an abortion or miscarriage. Because of the irrationality of such a claim, I have decided that I place higher value on action than belief. I also can not even think of a way that an afterlife is possible or something that I want. I don’t want myself or anyone else to be tortured after death anymore than I want them tortured in this life.
I have meditated on the meaning of my life and have decided that my life is an awkward stage between conception and death. I do not take it as seriously anymore now that I know I will not get out of it alive.
I desire that theist pro-lifers unite with the atheist pro-lifers instead of fighting about the existence of a God or gods. I got bored with such irrelevant debates. No longer can humanity afford to waste time and money on such things.
My opinion is that pro-life atheists are relevant to me in my personal fight against abortion because they often are more honest and have learned more about science and history than other people allow themselves to.
Becoming an atheist, agnostic, or deist will not change their opinion on abortion. I learned this when I accidentally became a pro-life atheist. If the other pro-life atheists all “come out of the closet”, the world will see a change.
Here are some links to things other pro-life atheists have written.
The declaration of independence is relevant to me because it reveals something about history the country I have grown up in. The following is a quote from the beginning of it.
“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
A lot is said in this. The language of it is very different from what I have grown up hearing. Understanding it requires an accurate understanding of the Laws of Nature, Nature’s God, Life, Liberty, and Happiness. I am not sure if I can claim to know exactly what the writers meant by these terms, but it is something that I will try to learn.
Independence is what allows me the “liberty” to be relevant and irrelevant at the same time. To relate to others without having to agree with everything they say and do. Some irrelevance or independence is what brings me “happiness” in my “life”.
There is much confusion about the difference between atheism and antitheism. While atheism is a lack of belief in gods, antitheism is an opposition to the belief in gods.
I perfectly understand why many think that a belief in a God or gods is harmful, but at the same time, I admit that not one person has ever hurt me just by believing in their god. An isolated belief in a god is completely harmless.
Believing in a god can only become harmful when theists kill people in the name of their god, but the real problem is that they wanted to kill those people anyway and they used their god as an excuse.
No benefit can be gained from promoting theism or atheism. What happens in this world, whether good or bad, is mostly caused by human action. Because of this, it is relevant for me to put more time into choosing my actions and learning what is behind the actions of other humans.
I see the antitheism movement as a waste of time because without a worldwide accepted standard of what a god is, I can not believe or disbelieve, accept or reject, promote or oppose any beliefs or lack thereof.
Antitheism is one more religion that is irrelevant to me. I don’t know enough about what a god is to try to oppose it.
At a time in my life when I was questioning certain things I had been taught in church or read in the Bible, I came across some videos and podcasts of a man named Joshua Tongol. I was amazed by his honesty. It is a trait that I did not usually see coming from people who use the label of Christian.
I care only about the honesty of a person. If a person tells me I am going to hell, I would only hope that they tell me why, what I can do about it, or why they wanted to tell me. If a person like Joshua Tongol tells me that God is nicer than I think, I will listen.
Josh also has a very well designed website.
I read Joshua’s book: “So You Thought You Knew: Letting Go of Religion”. I agree with him on some major points: We should not be fighting over the correct name for God, no particular religion has a monopoly on God, and we can focus more on the here and now instead of predicting who goes where when they die.
I will not bother labeling Josh, myself, or anyone else. It is best to read and listen to what they say and do. Then I can decide how relevant they are to me. I have found that people are not as different as they first appeared.