Agnostic or Atheist?

I've been asked many times why I "selected" to become Atheist and further to that, why I am so stubborn in my lack of belief. It's a rather complex question, so I guess the logical place to start would be the question of Agnosticism.

I view Agnostics as people who are intellectually unwilling or unable to make a definitive call. People will support them by saying they are open minded and use arguements usually converging along the lines of "How do you know there ISN'T A GOD". I think this is a good time to point out that I think Dawkins is a total asshole and I don't typically follow his every idea like some idiots do, but how do we know there isn't a flying spaghetti monster?

I'd like to elaborate on the aforementioned a smidge before moving on. I am a man of science. Science is NOT an opposing view to religion, it is a process. If you play by the rules, you get fair treatment and can be rejected or accepted by the community. Pretty simple, but my process is very cut throat and exceptionally black and white. You either play by the rules or you get the fuck out and if there is observable evidence, a judgement call can be made on the nature of that observation. So, to take an idea like a God which is as malleable as potters clay and then impose absolute truth ideals on it based on nothing more than analogical evidence and it becomes what is very clearly a violation of the rules, keeping in mind that analogical evidence can be a fantastic support for observable evidence if the observable evidence does indeed exist. As a parting shot for this paragraph I'll point out that you can indeed observe a Bible or Quran, but the stories contained within it are all purely analogical and therefore at face value are worthless to base a world view on. I won't even touch on the inherant hypocritical behaviours of religious folk or the clear mistakes and contradictions within the Bible and other religious storybooks, slashing it's credibility to almost zero.

So, it comes down to the question of whether or not I am willing to permit, as a possibility, something that is admittedly unproveable by the community supporting it. Hell, it doesn't even have to be a proof, but SOMETHING more observable than a feeling or unconfirmable voice in your head (By the way, if you experience that, please get it checked). I, for one, am not willing to let abstract ideas violate my world view for the simple reason that I can't observe them. If I can observe something, it is very likely real and therefore subject to a hypothesis on the nature of it. Please note at this time that I am not blindly following science as a community- I think crap like theoretical physics and astrobiology really needs to take a step back and realize they are basing entire ideas on other hypothesized ideas as if there is some shred of evidence behind it; it basically dumbs down to elaboration of unproven ideas. That is something that sounds very familiar, but I won't spoonfeed you and tell you what it is that it is reminisent of because it's really obvious. The bottom line here is that I subscribe to a black and white view of observation. It is within that observation that interpretation is allowed. Interpretation without a proper, grounding observation is scienticially irresponsible. So I really didn't "select" to become atheist. Through fair observation I have come to the conclusion that there is really no reasonable supporting evidence for a God and that means saying "well what if" has no place either.

It is true that science does base alot of its workings on prediction and that is, infact, a great confirmation for a working hypothesis. To predict that there is a god is completely and totally fair, but you need to back it up. It's a very simple thing to do: Demonstrate to me that your God exists using more than analogical evidence and demonstrate that He has the properties that you claim he has. As further example to this, I could predict that a flying shark exists. If, after 2000 years or more of searching, study and observing there is not a shred of evidence for it, it's likely the hypothesis has been beaten down. In the case of 2000 years, it's definately overkill.

Dawkins suggested that everyone is inherantly atheist- monotheistic cultures just inherantly believe in one more god than I do and obviously polytheistic cultures believe in more than one more god than I do. Agnostics aren't just "leaving the door open", infact I have yet to meet one that hasn't already selected a god that they are leaving the door open for. For example, every North American agnostic I have met leaves the door open for Jesus and likewise I imagine that an agnostic having Indian upbringing will leave the door open for their myriad of gods. If someone reading this is infact an agnostic that leaves the door open to "all gods", I'd be interested in talking to you about how and why you are wrong- there is no way that you take something like Napi or Thor with the same credibility as Jesus or whatever deity you prefer.

So what if agnostics are favoring a certain God though? Well, for one it could be said that agnostics are infact not employing a fair trial- to lean towards an atheistic existence but holding one (or more) god in higher esteem than any other god considering the same amount of evidence presented for each is most certainly not fair. Leaving the door open in that way suggests there is some semblance of belief or at the very least a free pass granted on behalf of the view holder. STOP GIVING FAITH A FREE PASS and you will open yourself to a world of ruthless scorn for faith that can only be enjoyed by a rational human being.

In conclusion I will say that agnostics need to shit or get off the pot. Either there is a god and you are adhering to the definition of faith (belief without evidence) or there simply is not. There are two ways of looking at the world: "I'll believe it when I see it" and "Believe it and you'll see it". Two ways of life work fine for various people, true or not, but walking that lines means you are unwilling to commit to your faith or lack thereof and that makes you a complete pussy.