There is no God. The Absence of God

Friday, June 1, 2012

Jesus, Which Jesus?

In 1280 B.C, a book was written about the Egyptian god Horus. You may be interested to learn (or recall) that Horus was born to a virgin on December 25th, had magical powers that allowed him to perform miracles such as healing the blind, helped the poor, was crucified, and was resurrected.

In 1280 B.C! That right there, throws away the entire religion of Christianity. To learn more, I suggest you watch this clip from Bill Maher's "Religulous."

Thursday, May 10, 2012

Religion; the Active Prevention of Common Sense


Over the course of time, polls show that the United States has progressively become less and less religious, with around 16% of Americans identifying themselves as either atheists or agnostics. Although there is no existing data regarding the percent of the Americans who considered themselves religious when the nation was originally founded, it is safe to say that there were almost no atheists back in the 1700s, which, by the way, makes perfect sense, since modern science had just started to develop in that period and God was still the best explanation for the ultimate question; how did we get here? But despite this frustratingly slow, yet definite growth in atheism throughout the country, the views religious people hold because of religion towards many issues, and atheists themselves, have scarcely improved.

Here is a brief list of problematic beliefs Americans hold, because of their respective religions, that prevent this country from moving forward: An overwhelming majority of Americans would not vote for an atheist president, doubt of evolution is higher in the United States than in any other industrialized country with the exception of Turkey, support for gay marriage is dead even in the United States, with the bulk of support coming from younger, less religious Americans. Opposition of gay marriage on the other hand, is much more frequent in the so called “bible belt states,” or the black churches who were a big reason for why the bill banning gay marriage and civil unions was passed this week in North Carolina.

As you well know, the bible condemns homosexuality, which explains the lack of support for gay marriage. But in the bible, more specifically the Ten Commandments, God makes it clear that he wishes us not to believe in any other Gods or theories, but only in him. In other words, he is a jealous God. So this very well might explain the resistance to the theory of evolution in many parts of this country, especially the 20% who are hardcore evangelists. This jealous God may also explain why so many Americans, something like 48% (with many undecided) would not even consider voting for a president or congressman who declared himself atheist.

This lack of support for any of the above ideas in the United States have everything to do with the lack of tolerance for, atheism and the push for religion to keep its almighty power, something that it has managed to keep for thousands of years without much difficulty.

Sunday, April 22, 2012

Debate on Religion Pt II






The following is a continuation of the religious debate I am currently having with a religious blogger (part 1 can be found here. What he essentially did was take my comments and one by one, responded to all my main points. Here are my respo

nses (market with the prefix: My Response).

April 21:

First of all, religion is most certainly appealing

to the human mind. It is our nature to want to know things that cannot be explained and the belief in God is a great example o

f that.
Sacerdotus writes:

Yes, but religion is not needed to attempt to find explanations for everything. This is why Philosophy exists. It is not a religion,

yet it seeks to find truth. Not everyone finds religion appealing. Only those who are willing to conform to its demands.

My Response:

While I agree that religion is not needed to find an explanation for everything, it certainly does a good job of doing so.

Not everyone finds religion appealing, but most certainly do. That is why, as you were saying earlier, religion is so widespread around the world.

What exactly do you mean by conforming "to its demands?"

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------_


You're right, religion is just too easy. There are so many questions that we want answered, which really should be looked at one by one, but instead, are all explained by the existence of a super natural being. It was an ex

planation that, until 300 years ago, stood its ground, but with t

he recent developments of the scientific age, have been put into question and rightfully so.

Sacerdotus writes:

You assume that people decided to invent th

is super being as a cause of existence, that is not so. We all are born with common sense.. well most of us. Common sense would tell us that an object living or non-living has a maker. Hence children always ask, "where do babies come from?" Things don't appear out of nowhere just for the heck of it. There is always a cause before the effect. This is where God comes in. The cause of a universe has to be a living being who is sentient, intelligent, self aware etc. The universe cannot create itself.Even Hawkings was reprimanded by other physicists for claiming the universe could have created itself. This universe is built on laws. Laws don't appear out of nowhere. They need a lawgiver. This universe is extremely mathematical. Mathematics is something only a rational intelligent mind can develop and put into practice. An unconscious agent cannot develop no

r use mathematics.
In other words, this universe is far too complex to be random. Now of course science won't say God did it because that is not the role of science. Science's role is to study the natural world and how it works, not where it comes from. It is like a forensics team that picks up clues to a crime scene, studies them and comes to conclusions. Those conclusions then are looked at by the prosecutor, defense, jury and judge.

My Response:

Here is a question that might just spoil the whole God theory. If everything needs a maker, who made God? Did He make himself, because everything you just said implied that He also would have needed a maker. So is their another super-being who made God? But who made this super-being? You can go on and on with that and still not come to a justifiable conclusion.

I absolutely hate how you say the universe is "random."


We know how parts of nature were built, the processes that the

y went through and whatnot. We also know that

these occurrences were not "random" as you claim them to be. For example, let us take the theory of plate tectonics. A recently developed theory, it states that Earths plates were all once connected to form a supercontinent called Pangea. Without going into the details, I can tell you that we know how t

he plates move, how earthquakes occur, how volcanic eruptions occur etc. These occurrences are not "random." They happen for a reason, a reason that science explains. Now, I'm not saying that we have absolute proof of everything that is going on in this world. Science

has never accepted the word proof. But we do have very good reasons to believe that such occurrences did happen.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regarding morals, science won't just write our values out for us. But as an atheist, I can tell you that I am at no shortage of values. For example, I know what is right and what is wrong, without needing to be threatened by the prospect of going to hell. The point is, you do not need to have faith in something to be a good person.
You are right that many of todays prominent religions are similar in nature, and that all of those religions have survived for relatively long amounts of time. But that can be connected to the point I made earlier: religion is an easy way to answer our most pressing questions, and to fulfill the

human curiosity.
I'll pass over you trying to define atheism because that's just no

t a conversation worth having. I do not believe in God, that's atheism. Not believe = the absence of belief. I would think that to be obvious.
Finally the part I've been eager to get to. You seem to be saying that science being rewritten through every new discovery takes away its legitimacy. Are you implying that stubbornly keeping the same theories/beliefs for thousands and thousands of year makes religion more legitimate? Does it not bother you that a man living 2000 years ago believed the exact same things that you do now?
OF COURSE religion pretends to know ev

erything. It claims to know how the world began, the values I should hold, that a super-being is watching over us at all times etc.

Sacerdotus writes:

I used to be an atheist so I know very well where you stand. The very fact that you know right from wrong can be used to prove an intelligent being instilled this into evolving man for self-preservation. Let's say God did not create us and everything happened randomly. How did this u

niverse, this planet, evolution - each unconscious agents- know that human beings needed a conscience?Other non-human animals do all kinds of violent things to each other without even thinking twice as human beings do. Would it not make sense to instill a conscience in every species in order to preserve life and order on the planet? Evolutionists hardly touch on this matter and I can understand why. It is hard.. very hard to find evidence of the "conscience" evolving in human beings.
One does not have to be religious to be a moral person; however, Atheism can often open up a person to ideas that devalue human beings s

uch as Communism, Socialism, Utilitarianism, and so on. It is very hard to find an Atheist who feels all human life deserves a chance to live, including the unborn, elderly and the sick. Many Atheists despite knowing Biology and Embryology, advocate abortion and infanticide. Nations with Atheist leaders do not have a good human rights track record.Religion will always exist in societies no matter what. Yes it may provide some answers to curiosities, but to believers they see something more.
I mentioned the definition of Atheism for a reason. Many Atheists are confused about what the word actually means. Atheism is a rejection of God/gods. That is what the word literally means. It has nothing to do with a

bsence of belief, or unbelief.
No, my saying that science is often rewritten does not mean that science is not valid. What I meant was that it is not absolute. We cannot rely on it as a means to an end. The difference between science and religious ideas that are old is that latter deal with morals not the physical

world per se.
There has been science out there claiming non-white people are not humans. Science created the atomic bomb, is the cause of the pollution we see today with its technological ideas and so on. I am assuming this man of 2000 yrs ago you referred to is Jesus and to that I say, how can ideas such as "love your neighbor as yourself, feed the hungry, clothed the naked, visit the sick

etc" be something bad for humanity?
Religion when practiced faithfully without human weaknesses, ambition and polemics is a force for good not evil. Where has science or anyone else done work similar to that of Mother Theresa? Where has science or anyone else fought for rights such as Dr. King, a Baptist m

inister?
Religion does not pretend to know everythin

g about the universe. It does not need to because its end is God not the physical world. During times of distress, sickness and death, science or any other academic field mean nothing to a person suffering. Religion is there as a comfort.

My Response:

You know how wolves stay in packs, well that's what humans did to0. Ancient humans did fight people who were not part of their packs so as to protect themselves. Such packs (or divisions of groups) still can be found in the forms of countries, ethnic backgrounds, and religions. If you think a dog doesn't have a conscience, then you're mistaken. True we are more advanced than any other species, but that unity took a long time to build up.

Let me point out to you that commun

is

m and socialism are much more idealistic systems that are meant to help the poor. Such types of systems are what Jesus would probably advocate, so it is ironic that they are tied to atheism.

There is no credible science out there that says that white people "are not humans." Yes, the atomic bomb was created thanks to science, but are you really trying to suggest that science is a bad thing?

Quotes like loving your neighbor as you love your self are great, but what about the parts in the bible where we are taught to kill our children if God tell us to, or that homosexuality is a sin, or that orders Exhort servants to be obedient unto their own masters, and to please them well in all things; not answering again. Much of the discrimination in todays society has been created by religion.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Okay fine, if my Santa Clause argument wasn't good enough for you I'll give you another example. Does the Boraflora mean anything to you? Well, I could claim him to be my God. How about the pasta monster, or Mr. Meatballs, or Palamania? I could come up with a trillion of those (hence the statistic).
Now, your right that proof was perhaps not the best word to use. But your paragraph about finding the proof of God at its source disgusts me. How do you claim to know all of these things about God if you indeed believe that religion does not claim to know everything? Also, the fact that I have to bow to him and do everything on his terms makes me a bit of slave doesn't it?


Sacerdotus writes:
People call God by any name, it does not take away from God. A father

in a family; one can call daddy, papa, old man, etc. Every society has called God by names their experience and linguistic limitations allow them to. However, calling God "pasta monster," "Mr. Meatballs," or "Palamania" would not make sense because you are defining God by using a created thing not a qualitative attribute. How can the creator be a created thing? This is why God gave Moses the name when asked, "I Am who Am" which basically means, He is the absolute.
Proving something does not mean one knows everything. I can prove to you that 2 + 2 = 4, that does not mean I know every mathematical concept in the universe. Having proof of God does not mean one knows everything about God. It means that one has ideas that show the belief in the existence of God is valid.
Bowing to God and doing things on His terms does not equate to being a slave. In America all registered voters must serve on juror's duty. This is mandatory. Does that make American citizens slaves? No, of course not. When one has authority over you, it is expected that you have deference and show duty to that authority.

My Response:

Well then, if I told you that I thought God was the equivalen

t of Satan. Someone who took life away from humans and was evil, what would you say? You couldn't disprove that could you?

A creator has to be created, because nothing can come out of nowhere right? I also think your jury example is misguided. If you were told that you had to go to jury duty for 2-5 hours every week, it would then be a different story.

And I will certainly not be submissive to any authority who probably doesn't even exist.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By saying that God is imaginary, I mean that the chances of him existing are not even worth considering. Again, if tomorrow I saw Jesus on T.V, I would say, "crap, I was wrong." But that won't happen. Your whole rant about needing to know all these things about the universe to know whether God is imaginary could be used by me to challenge the existence of God. For example, I could say:
"You say God is imaginary but that has no substance. What is your contrast for this? In order for you to make this claim you would have to know everything about everything. You would need to know about matter, space, time, dimensions. You would need to know for a fact that this universe is really all there is and there isn't a multiverse or other dimensions with other beings existing in other space/time continuum's."
This would give me the exact same affect. An argument that could be used on both sides of dispute is not a credible one.


Sacerdotus writes:

Why are chances of God existing not considerable to you?
By saying God is imaginary, that is making a claim that you saw everything there is to see in the universe and therefore concluded that there is no God. I doubt Jesus would use TV to show Himself, but He is expected to come again through faith.
Well the contrast is this: Quantum Physics. I am a science student, particularly in physics. In Quantum physics anything is possible. I do know about matter, space, time and dimensions. We can start a whole knew blog on this topic. It was actually physics that lead me to God, so to speak.
Do you know that all matter, all space, all energy is being held together by a force that we still don't know about? This force or particle is believed to be the Higgs Boson or "God particle." Moreover, subatomic particles called quarks and gluons disappear and appear out of nowhere. Where did they go? Where did they come from? It contradicts materialism/physicalism.
It is obvious there is more out there than this universe that we can perceive with our senses. The more we learn about subatomic particles, the more we see many things thought to be impossible are probably possible such as time travel, passing through walls, invisibility, bilocation etc.

My Response:

God could exist, I'm not claiming to know for sure. It's just that the chances of him existing are incredibly low. Again, I disagree that I would have to know everything to think that God doesn't exist. In fact, if anyone did, it would have to be you since you're the one claiming that he exists in the first place.

I do know much about Quantum physics, and what you say sounds interesting, but then again, God is an easy way out of the mystery.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Finally, your example of a wife is interesting but again, I don't think it proves anything. As a child, I could have loved Santa Clause (sorry to use this example again but its a good one) and wanted him to exist more than anything. But when my parents told me to dump him, I did even though I liked him so much. Loving God does not prove his existence.

Sacerdotus writes:

Well Santa Claus did exist as St. Nicholas. So children shouldn't get so depressed when they find out the exaggerated version of him is just for fun. The point I was trying to make with the rose vs diamond question is that proof is subjective. Instead of asking everyone for proof of God, ask God. Let your mind and heart do the research on their own just like your mind and heart knows how to show love to a wife or loved one in its own way.

My Response:

My Santa Claus example is a metaphorical one and your answering it as a literal argument. I do not care if he existed as St. Nicholas. It has nothing to do with my point. The point is, kids are willing to let go what they are told, while adults aren't.

Finally, your sentence on asking God is ridiculous. What do you expect to happen? Am I supposed to hear a voice answering right now? My heart and my mind do not need someone to lean on, to hope for favors from, or to spend time with. I am perfectly happy the way I am, an atheist.

Also, if God really could be anything, or the "unknown" as I like to call it. I would believe in such a God. But that is not what he really represents to most people, and you know it.

Quick Question: If God created everything, then why did he create evil?

Saturday, April 21, 2012

Debate on Religion






Hi everyone, sorry for not posting in a while. I am currently having a debate with a religious blog visitor writer (http://sacerdotvs.blogspot.com) on religion and thought it would be worth your time to read. I'll update this post regularly so as to share with you all the comments made.

Visitor Comment:April 9, 2012.
Religion is not going anywhere at any time. It will still exist and grow unless Atheismprovides empirical proof of its claims. Religion has passed the test of time and change. Faith has its demonstrable aspect that transcends the scientific method. Try convincing someone who has experienced God that God is not real. Good luck! http://sacerdotvs.blogspot.com
Response Comment:
April 18, 2012.
Your first sentence I will concede. But while it is true, as you say that Religion has stood the test of time, it is only because of religion's appealing nature, as well as the fact that their are a certain few who profit greatly from it. The bible was written by a bunch of old men 2000 years ago, and you're telling me that they could know what happened on Earth without any idea of the recent scientific developments of the last few years?
Also, keep note of the fact that different cultures have different religions, unless a religion was imposed upon a people, just as a language might be. So when you say that religion has stood the test of change, that is not true when you get down to the specifics.Atheism meanwhile, is the lack of belief in anything. We use scientific evidence, but do not claim to have proof of anything, as we do not pretend to know everything as you do. How do we know their is no God you might ask? Well, the chances are one in a trillion. The existence of God is as likely as that of Santa Clause, no proof to back up either, but still, millions of people believe in them. The difference is, kids are willing to accept Santa Clause does not exist while their parents won't do the same thing for their own imaginary being.
And maybe not being able to convince someone who is religious that God is not real has more to do with their stubbornness than anything!


VC:
April 18, 2012.

I wouldn't call religion necessarily appealing. There are religions out there that are either too demanding, too easy, too intellectual or just too strange.
People are religious because they see the fruits of it in their lives. No one wakes up, "oh gee, let me be a Christian today.." they experience something and that experience to them is proof that they are in the right place in life, so to speak.The Bible is God's Word that shows the Salvific plan from Adam to Christ in human language and experience. It is not meant to answer worldly things because what will scientific knowledge about the universe do to change people's morals?
However, there are some things there that give a hint of recently discovered scientific ideas (earth as a sphere, the universe expanding, evolution in Genesis etc), but again that is not the purpose of Scripture.
Yes each culture may have different religions, but if you take the ti
me to place them all alongside each other you will see they all have a lot of common ideas. Religion has indeed stood the test of time. Many major religious still adhere to their ideas and tenets. Only those that separate from them and do their own thing are the ones who add to those original tenets.
Atheism is not a lack of belief. The word comes from the Greek "a- Theos" which means "without god or gods" and is used in the negative in that it is a rejection of gods. The "a" means "without" for example:asexual or "without sex." This is also used in the word Agnostic which means "without knowledge" which is in turn translated as someone who doesn't think anything is knowable. So the word "Atheism" cannot mea
n lack of belief in anything. A word that would better fit your definition is "Apisteuo" which literally means, "lacking belief, without belief." So you're an Apisteo not an Atheist.
Scientific evidence is fine and dandy, but it is not objective. Years pass and ideas thought to have been fact are then rewritten. Science is only useful as far as our understanding of anything allows it. Religion doesn't pretend to know everything. We just use abstract thought to think outside the box of nature.
You say the chances are one in a trillion that there is no God, but how did you get these statistics? Santa Clause is different because we know of its origin in a Catholic saint. We know how secularism twisted the image of this saint.
"Proof" is subjective. You can give your wife a rose and to you that means you love her. However, I might say "no, that is not proof. You need to give her a diamond. That gift will show tru
e love." Who is right? You or me? Which is the real proof that you love her your rose or a diamond?
If you want proof of God, you have to go to the source. You have to ask God to reveal Himself to you and He will. Spoiler alert: it can be in any way so you have to have a keen mind and heart. God doesn't take orders from man so He will do things on His terms while taking into account your limitations as a finite being.
You say God is imaginary but that has no substance. What is your contrast for this? In order for you to make this claim you would have to know everything about everything. You would need to know about matter, space, time, dimensions. You would need to know for a fact that this universe is really all there is and there isn't a multiverse or other dimensions with other beings existing in other space/time continuum's.
People who are really religious will not be convinced because they saw the fruits of their faith. It would be like someone telling you to divorce your wife who you love and
adore. How can you? Who are they to tell you to dump her if you see her as the best thing in your life?
RC:
April 21, 2012.
A lot of points to get to:
First of all, religion is most certainly appealing to the human mind. It is our nature to want to know things that cannot be explained and the belief in God is a great example of that.
You're right, religion is just too easy. There are so many questions that we want answered, which really should be looked at one by one, but instead, are all explained by the existence of a super natural being. It was an explanation that, until 300 years ago, stood its ground, but with the recent developments of the scientific age, have been put into question and rightfully so.
Regarding morals, science won't just write our values out for us. But as an atheist, I can tell you that I am at no shortage of values. For example, I know what is right and what is wrong, without needing to be threatened by the prospect of going to hell. The point is, you do not need to have faith in something to be a good person.
You are right that many of todays prominent religions are similar in nature, and that all of those religions have survived for relatively long amounts of time. But that can be connected to the point I made earlier: religion is an easy way to answer our most pressing questions, and to fulfill the human curiosity.
I'll pass over you trying to define atheism because that's just not a conversation worth having. I do not believe in God, that's atheism. Not believe = the absence of belief. I would think that to be obvious.
Finally the part I've been eager to get to. You seem to be saying that science being rewritten through every new discovery takes away its legitimacy. Are you implying that stubbornly keeping the same theories/beliefs for thousands and thousands of year makes religion more legitimate? Does it not bother you that a man living 2000 years ago believed the exact same things that you do now?
OF COURSE religion pretends to know everything. It claims to know how the world began, the values I should hold, that a super-being is watching over us at all times etc.
Okay fine, if my Santa Clause argument wasn't good enough for you I'll give you another example. Does the Boraflora mean anything to you? Well, I could claim him to be my God. How about the pasta monster, or Mr. Meatballs, or Palamania? I could come up with a trillion of those (hence the statistic).
Now, your right that proof was perhaps not the best word to use. But your paragraph about finding the proof of God at its source disgusts me. How do you claim to know all of these things about God if you indeed believe that religion does not claim to know everything? Also, the fact that I have to bow to him and do everything on his terms makes me a bit of slave doesn't it?
By saying that God is imaginary, I mean that the chances of him existing are not even worth considering. Again, if tomorrow I saw Jesus on T.V, I would say, "crap, I was wrong." But that won't happen. Your whole rant about needing to know all these things about the universe to know whether God is imaginary could be used by me to challenge the existence of God. For example, I could say:
"You say God is imaginary but that has no substance. What is your contrast for this? In order for you to make this claim you would have to know everything about everything. You would need to know about matter, space, time, dimensions. You would need to know for a fact that this universe is really all there is and there isn't a multiverse or other dimensions with other beings existing in other space/time continuum's."
This would give me the exact same affect. An argument that could be used on both sides of dispute is not a credible one.
Finally, your example of a wife is interesting but again, I don't think it proves anything. As a child, I could have loved Santa Clause (sorry to use this example again but its a good one) and wanted him to exist more than anything. But when my parents told me to dump him, I did even though I liked him so much. Loving God does not prove his existence.

Tuesday, December 27, 2011

Religion is the Biggest Insult: A Rant for My Rights and for My Country


I believe it is time for all us atheists to rise up and let everyone know that we're mad. Why are we mad? Because everyday that we experience in our lives, we see religion actively expanding its outreach and power even as its members are not proportionally expanding. Why do churches pay no property taxes? Why do pastors have the exclusive rights to opt out of Medicare or Social Security? Why are religious books not taxed? Why are no members of our dysfunctional congress atheists, even as 15% of the country are? Why does the Jewish lobby influence our government so much? Why is today's Supreme Court constantly ruling in favor or religion? Why are open prayer and Christian symbols still occurring in schools, even after the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional? The list does not end there. Why, for example, is the teaching of creationism in our schools still highly occurring while evolution is still being ignored?

I cannot stand watching as my country actively brainwashes the new generation into believers of creationism, therefore slowing the study of science and evolution. It is these same people who put a shadow of doubt over any action to solve global warming, a scientific theory that almost all intelligent people agree on. Simply put, the United States of America is raising its new generation to be as scientifically ignorant as ever and this can only lead to problems in our future. At a time when scientists, doctors and engineers are so badly needed, we are educating our kids to be anti-science which practically ruins all hope of future economic prosperity. It used to be that this country produced the best scientists in the world, therefore giving us a priceless advantage that led to our incredibly successful 20th century. But because of the brainwashing going on in today's schools, all of this, my future and yours, has been put into both doubt and danger. Simply put, it has come the time for atheists to do something about this nonsense.

So why are we atheists standing back? Buying a few billboards won't do the trick. The fact of the matter is, we need to shine the light brightly on the unfairness religion brings to our country. How about an occupy churches movement? Why not start T.V advertising to media stations dying for money? Why not get our very brightest members on T.V, cable and local channels alike so as to debate the issue. We need to change the education kids are getting once and for all.

Furthermore, we atheists must accept the fact that we are one of the only groups still strongly being discriminated against. The fact that being an out of the closet atheist is still considered political suicide shows this clearly. This is simply not right. There are gays, women, and Muslims in the legislative branch of government, all groups who have been, and are still being discriminated against. Yet, atheists have no power. All of these groups have protested, debated, and fought to gain their rights and in some cases, the little rights they have. We atheists must do the same, whatever it takes to accomplish it.

We can't keep our thoughts to ourselves, we must fight to expand our outreach. Simple movements such as working to elect an atheist member to congress would jump start our cause to gain rights. The simple fact we must all grasp is that many of us are still scared to tell others, such as bosses or friends of our atheist beliefs. I find this ridiculous and insulting and so should you. So today, why not begin to come together, not under the millions of atheist groups out there, but rather a single, united alliance. Together we can fight for our rights, save the education system in this country, and fight to slow down the biggest threat in human history.

Immortality Is Arogant

Monday, December 26, 2011

The Agnostic Confusion


In the category of non-believers lie three groups. Atheism, Antitheism and Agnosticism. Atheism is the absence of belief in a God, while Antitheism is the active opposition to God and religion. But in this category also lies Agnosticism, the belief that nothing can be known and therefore no assumptions should be made. While people who are agnostic do not believe in a God, they refuse to take a stance on his existence, therefore denying themselves the basic right of having an opinion.

But what is even more strange to me is that agnosticism is essentially atheism in a confused manner. Speaking for myself as well as I can only assume most atheists, I cannot be certain there is no God (just as I cannot be certain there is no Santa Clause etc.). I never dare claim that I am sure there is no God because I in no way am. This in many ways is the view of an agnostic. But at the same time, I do think it is incredibly unlikely there is such as powerful being and therefore go one step further and say I don't believe in the existence of a God.

I believe with the utmost conviction that agnosticism can only exist for two reasons, 1) failure to understand the concept of atheism, or 2) simple lazyness.
Starting with 1) the confusion regarding the concept of atheist originates from the definition. What one must understand is that the absence of a belief in God is not equatable to the positivity that there is no God. We atheists, like agnostics, freely admit that we do not know how the wonders of the universe originated. But here is where atheists take a minuscule leap of faith: we believe that God is a very unlikely theory to our answers.
This leads me to 2) If a non-believer is really not willing to acknowledge that the God hypothesis is unlikely, than they are simply not willing to form an opinion which is fine until you realize that the God hypothesis is not an evolving theory. The religious arguments are not changing and therefore, one should be able to form an opinion over time. But if one refuses to, than I cannot point the blame to anything but lazyness.

Luckily, I believe that the instances of 1) are much more frequent than 2).Therefore, it is up to us atheists to clarify what we actually believe. We are not certain of anything, but we still manage to formulate a working opinion. This is something agnostics should be able to do as well so why not let them join our ranks by breaking the agnostic confusion once and for all.

Christianity Remains Dominant Religion in the United State

What is your religious preference -- are you Protestant, Roman   Catholic, Mormon, Jewish, Muslim, another religion, or no religion? (If   respondent names "another religion," ask: Would that be a   Christian religion or is it not a Christian religion?) January-November   2011 results

by Frank Newport

PRINCETON, NJ -- This Christmas season, 78% of American adults identify with some form of Christian religion. Less than 2% are Jewish, less than 1% are Muslim, and 15% do not have a religious identity. This means that 95% of all Americans who have a religious identity are Christians.


These results are based on a compilation of 327,244 interviews conducted as part of Gallup Daily tracking from January-November 2011. The detailed breakdown shows that about a third of American Christians are Catholics, while two-thirds identify as Protestants or some other non-Catholic Christian religion. All in all, 82.5% of Americans have some form of religious identity.

Gallup's methods of measuring religious identity have changed over the decades, but one major trend that is clear from Gallup's and other organizations' surveys is the increase in the percentage of Americans who do not have a formal religious identity. Some 60 years ago, in 1951, for example, just 1% of Americans in Gallup surveys said they didn't have a religious identity. At that time, Gallup classified 68% of Americans as identifying with a non-Catholic Christian faith, and 24% who were Catholic.

Separate Gallup questioning earlier this year shows that 92% of Americans say they believe in God. This suggests that the lack of a religious identity is not in and of itself a sign of the total absence of religiosity.

Additionally, in two separate surveys conducted in May and in late November/early December of this year, an average of 55% of Americans said religion is very important in their lives, another 26% said it is fairly important, and 19% said it is not very important.

How important would you say religion is in your own life -- very  important, fairly important, or not very important? Annual averages,  1952-2011

Americans' self-reported importance of religion has remained broadly stable over the past three or four decades, with a slight increase in the percentage saying religion is not very important, and a slight decrease in the percentage saying it is fairly important. Surveys conducted in the 1950s and 1960s showed a higher percentage saying religion was very important.

Bottom Line

The United States remains a predominantly Christian nation, with 78% of all adults identifying with a Christian faith, and more than 9 in 10 of those who have a religious identity identifying as Christians. Fifteen percent of Americans do not have a formal religious identity, a continuation of a dramatic change from 50 and 60 years ago, when almost all Americans identified with a particular religion. The precise implications of the increase in the "no religious identity" segment are not clear, given that more than 9 in 10 Americans say they believe in God, and that 8 in 10 say religion is a very or fairly important part of their lives.


Please Note: This article is presented exactly as published on Gallup.Com's website.