I'm not an atheist

I've decided that I'm not an atheist. That doesn't mean I believe in "God" per se but being an atheist requires faith as well. We don't know how the universe got here. Oh, we have theories that go something like this:

Around 14 billion years ago there was a gigantic explosion from a source that was theoretically smaller than an electron. As hard as it is to imagine, the universe isn't growing to fill up some "void" because there is no void. There is nothing else outside of our universe. One of the many things we don't know is whether the universe expansion (which seems to be acceleration last time I checked rather than slowing down which was what they belief was when I was a kid) is systemic. That is, whether it occurs from time to time and repeats itself. Who knows. I do know I don't have a clue how the universe's expansion could be accelerating. It seems counter intuitive.

On the other hand, not knowing any of these things isn't likely to make me throw up my hands and say "Well, God must have done all this". I don't know means just that -- I don't know. So I guess that makes me an agnostic. But to be honest, I would like to believe in God very very much -- particularly a Christian God. Christianity is one of the easier solutions. If you believe Jesus Christ is your savior you're all set. But again, I don't know. Is he my savior? I do not know. I believe he existed. But I don't know whether he was my savior or not.

When I was younger, I used to debate with people who would come to my door. Eventually people stopped coming to my door. I'd invite them in, my wife would make lunch for them and bring them tea or a soft drink or just water and chat. They were very nice people and sincerely wanted to convince me in the validity of their beliefs. And so we would sit across from each other on our living room couches. Each of us armed with our bibles bookmarked to the hilt. They would then try to demonstrate the errors of Evolution and the proof behind Noah's Arc and other things. Meanwhile, I already owned the book "A scientific guide to the bible" that was the source material for many of their arguments along with various counter arguments. "A Scientific Guide to the Bible" contains things like "The missing day" (No, there is no way to determine whether there is a missing day), "How evolution violates the 2nd law of Thermodynamics" (No, that only applies to closed systems, Earth is not a closed system, the sun is a massive energy source), "Evidence of the flood" (No, Plate Tectonics explains that and if Noah and his sons were the only surviving males of a so-called world wide flood we'd all share the same mitochondria DNA and no UV won't make the kinds of genetic differences in 4,000 years or 40,000 years for that matter). And so on.

So eventually they stopped coming. I didn't debate them because I was trying to squash their faith. I debated them because I wanted to be convinced. I don't consciously choose to be agnostic. It is a matter of looking at the evidence available to me and coming to a conclusion. I don't consider evolution a "theory", I consider it established fact. I also don't consider evolution to contradict the bible. Heck, the Old Testament is based on Judaism and Genesis is pretty dramatically altered from what is preached in Judaism. So there's no reason to believe we should take the modern English translation of the bible literally. Not that it matters anyway because for me, personally, the bible doesn't add up. As a collection of stories that (generally) try to make us better people, it is successful. But as a way of trying to understand life and the world, I don't think it works there. As time goes on, evidence mounts against such things in my view and so I'm left again with the "I don't know".

I don't know:

• How life began on Earth other than it probably got started around 3 billion years ago in single called life forms.
• How the universe came to be in the first place.
• Whether there is a supreme being in the universe.

The evidence available doesn't allow me to make a definitive conclusion. If I had to guess, I would bet that if there is a supreme being, it is not interested in us in any personal way. But on the others I have no idea. Despite what some though a few decades ago, some electricity through a methane atmosphere won't create amino acids and even if they had, amino acids need a lot more help than just existing to get life. But like I said, not knowing the answers to these things doesn't automatically open the door to a super being being the answer. It's not like religion wins by default. I suspect my grand mother didn't know how the television worked. Probably didn't have the foggiest idea. But I am certain that she didn't believed it was magic.

The problem with religion is that people get so militant about it. Ever heard of the atheist group calling themselves "The brights"? That's pretty arrogant. Especially since atheism requires faith. Where some would throw up their hands and say "God did it" the "Brights" throw up their hands and say "Nothing did it". While I suspect there is no "God" in any sense that we think of one, I'm not prepared to go to the step of having faith that that is the case. I just don't know. On the other hand, excessively religious people bother me too. Not because they're religious but they suffer from a similar kind of arrogance as "The brights". These are the people who buy into the canned "anti-science" arguments and spit them out as fact when in reality they're just parroting nonsense. You can identify those people because they readily identify themselves "Well, you know that many TOP scientists (what's a "top" scientist?) have 'proven' evolution just doesn't work 'scientifically'." Yea, well unlike the parrots many people have actually looked at both sides at great length and made their own conclusions thank you very much.

But in the end, I just don't know. And that's why I'm not an atheist. I guess I'm an agnostic. I don't think I'll ever know. I don't foresee a day when they'll discover something that will prove one way or the other. Though admittedly, if they can create single celled life forms in a lab that might seriously persuade me that life, as we know it, occurred spontaneously as opposed to some sort of "intelligent design".

Btw, for the email starts pouring in from atheists, I realize that many atheists term themselves as such because they have rejected organized religion hence "a-theists". I am using a definition that not all agree -- atheists believe that there is no God. I am taking the view that I do not know whether there is a god and don't have a belief either way at this point hence I'm using the term "agnostic".