How I went from Atheist to Agnostic

Whenever atheists hear that I am an agnostic, they assume I am just one step away from becoming a true atheist. Then comes the bombshell…I was an atheist but moved to what I consider a true agnostic. Before I move on, I will explain the definitions that I am using. Opinions on these definitions vary and in some cases, there is no “correct” definition, but I go with the following, based on related studies.

 

Atheist-One that claims know there is no god or higher power. (This will be the more controversial definition because I know many atheists would not agree with this. This is however the popular definition that Christians or other believers would use.)

 

Agnostic-One that does not believe we can know whether or not there is a god/higher power/force or what have you. Many consider agnostic to mean simply “I don’t know.” This is not the definition I am using because it is an unsure and lazy view. I do not know because I do not think we can know.

 

Deist-One that believes in some type of higher power or god, but one that is not a personal god that can produce revelation or interfere in life in anyway. This would be what many would call the “first mover” or “unmovable mover,” the thing that set the universe in motion.

 

Theist-One that has a belief similar to the deist god, except it is a personal god that can become involved in our world. This is generally the god of their favored religion such as Christianity.

 

To continue, do not freak out and think I went from atheist to theist, or something more in that direction. I went from atheist, to agnostic because of intellectual and scientific reasons, because of the knowledge I gain. I actually consider myself an agnostic atheist. I am a true agnostic because I do not think we can know. This is the only honest intellectual position that is based on observable, empirical evidence. Agnosticism is my conclusion, atheism is my opinion. I find it more likely that there is no god as opposed to their being one. I believe we can reasonably conclude there is probably not a god, though not logically.

 

What is the reason I went from atheist to agnostic? I will explain the brief story of my change in opinion.

 

 

(I will tell my story of Atheism to Agnosticism next, but at the end of this I will also provide my story of Christianity to Atheism)

 

Atheism to Agnosticism

That experience led to my “conversion.” I had concluded that God did not exist. Using my logic, I reasoned that even if God did exist, and I was standing in front of him in heaven, being all-knowing, he would know that I did not really believe. I figured that I had given ample opportunity to see a sign or feel something and did not. This is when my fear of hell disappeared. I was no longer afraid of not believing. Overcoming this fear allowed me to proclaim myself an atheist.

 

Like many atheists, I was bitter and mad. I disliked the military’s favoritism of Christianity. I always brought up that the way they were running things favored Christians, even though we had Muslims and atheists in the military. I continued on like this. I never really disliked Christians, but I saw their reasoning as inferior. Simply put, I saw myself as smarter or better.

 

After getting off of active duty and working as a personal trainer for a year, I decided to go to college. I enrolled at the University of Minnesota with plans of majoring in Kinesiology. Being a new student, I was at the bottom of the list for signing up for classes, so I took some stuff for fun. I ended up taking Ancient History (Western) and History of the Crusades. To make a long story short, I switched from Kinesiology to Religious Studies and Ancient Mediterranean Studies. I loved history and religion plays such an important role in it. It would also give me the chance to look at the Bible as a historical work. Around this time I also became interested in Ancient Astronaut Theory. This is an important point which I will address in a bit.

 

I figured the best way to validate or invalidate the Bible was to actually study the context and history of it. I thought the most logical place to start with the beginning, so I started with the study of the Hebrew Bible. I started learning about the historical context of the Bible and the link to other cultures and religions during the time. Another thing I studied was how religious beliefs in general came about. I started to see Ancient Astronaut Theory a legitimate possibility. Remember, I considered myself a pretty smart person.

 

Over the next few semesters I took additional classes in philosophy (of religion, morality, logic epistemology, and others, ) science, history of science and the philosophy of science. I also started interacting with a campus atheist group called CASH (Campus Atheists, Skeptics, and Humanists.) During this time and continuing on, I really had my eyes open on a number of things and come to come conclusions.

 

First: The God of the Hebrew Bible does not exist. There is nothing extraordinary or unique about the Bible. I have another blog about this topic… http://athans-athansblog.blogspot.com/2013/06/rejection-of-god-due-to-bible.html I also learned that pointing out contradictions in the Bible is childish because if one actually understands what it is, we would expect this.

 

Second: Ancient Astronaut Theory is a joke. I know most of you already know this, but let me explain my errors. First, they doom themselves by coming out with more and more material. They think it is evidence, but it is all just contradictions. But here were the big errors in my reasoning. Logic, Ignorance, Authority.

 

Logic

Their entire argument is not a logically sound argument and uses deductive reasoning from a flawed premise. They start with the premise that aliens exist. As is the case with arguments that begin with “God exists.” THIS is the exact premise they need to prove. They assume it to be correct and work backwards. This is not a logical argument.

 

Ignorance

They made claims such as “we don’t know how the pyramids were built, therefore aliens built them.” Well actually, we do know how they were built. We actually have answers to nearly every single question they ask and ways to explain their points. Their entire argument is dependent on an ignorant audience. They need people that do not know much about history. When I realized this, I became upset and tried to figure out if the proponents were trying to deceive people, or if they were just idiots. This leads to the finial bit.

 

Authority

I made the assumption that the people talking about this stuff were actually in the position to be talking about it. When I looked into it, almost none of their “experts” even had degrees. Of the ones that did, they were in a totally unrelated field. But all of a sudden these people know more than Ph.D.s in the area? There is a reason Ph.D.s have spent their entire lives studying a topic…

 

Third: Logic, Epistemology, Scientific Reasoning, History, Science. I learned that we actually have methods of knowing things and logic is actually more than someone’s opinion of what makes sense. Logic is very different than one’s reasoning ability. I also took classes in biology, philosophy of science, and the history of science. We have very precise ways of doing science and knowing things and also that scientific thought has changed over time. It is this part that led me to my agnosticism. To start, the question of a god is not a scientific question. God falls into the realm of supernatural. Supernatural things cannot be scientifically tested because they cannot be falsified. We simply cannot prove there is no god. That being said, I see no reason to invoke a god and I have not seen any reason to NEED a god. Historically, the idea of a god is not unreasonable and actually most of the smartest people did believe in a god. Newton and Darwin both believe in a god. It has not been until fairly recently that we could make the conclusion that a god is more unlikely than it is likely. On that same note though, there are VERY important details that have yet to be answered.

 

If we are scientifically honest, we cannot conclude that the universe has a creator or a purpose, or does not. To quote astrophysicist Neil DeGrasse Tyson:

 

Does the Universe have a purpose?

 

“Not sure. Anyone who expresses a more definitive response to the question is claiming access to knowledge not based on empirical foundations. This remarkably persistent way of thinking, common to most religions and some branches of philosophy, has failed badly in past efforts to understand, and thereby predict the operations of the universe and our place within it. …

So in the absence of human hubris, and after we filter out the delusional assessments it promotes within us, the universe looks more and more random. Whenever events that are purported to occur in our best interest are as numerous as other events that would just as soon kill us, then intent is hard, if not impossible, to assert. So while I cannot claim to know for sure whether or not the universe has a purpose, the case against it is strong, and visible to anyone who sees the universe as it is rather than as they wish it to be.”

 

You can read the full answer herehttp://www.templeton.org/purpose/essay_Tyson.html

 

Besides not being able to answer THE question, we cannot even answer all of the questions here on earth. Another thing that has never been demonstrated or observed is how exactly the first life came about. We can show that the foundations of life can be created from non-living elements, but we have not shown how we can go from simple proteins to life.

 

Though I believe we have enough evidence to reasonably conclude there is no need for a god, the fact of the matter is that we have not answered the two biggest questions that need explaining. This is why I went from an atheist to an agnostic and that is why that should be the correct progression. It was not due to the need or want of a god or some personal revelation, it was science. Though atheism is my opinion, many people that are much smarter than I, would disagree with that opinion. (Click on that link above for opinions of other experts.)

 

I will end this bit here, but I do want to talk about what I learned about atheists from the CASH group and other interactions. That will be posted in an attached blog in the near future.

 

As promised, Christianity to Atheism…

 

Christianity to Atheism

Like many reading this, I was raised Christian. But I was raised a “liberal Christian.” I do not mean this in political terms, rather the degree of Christianity. My parents and Church were pretty open to progressive views. I was baptized, went to Sunday School, and was Confirmed. My family went to Church mainly only for the holidays and even less after my sister was Confirmed. My dad now makes the claim that he does not believe in God. I did occasionally go on Church trips and youth nights at the Church (mainly to see the girls though.) These experiences actually started leading me AWAY from the Church.

 

I remember asking Jesus into my life during a Church camp thing. You know what I felt? Nothing. Numerous times I asked God for a sign or feeling…anything at all. Again, nothing. It irritated me that God would not give me an answer and I started to doubt him, but was still afraid of not believing because of the possibility of hell. I also took a World Religions course in high school that exposed me to different views and religions. I found Wicca interesting, but I did not become a Wiccan like many rebellious teens decided they were.

 

After graduation I went straight to Active Duty Air Force. Like many, I sought after religion for comfort while in basic training. I had some ups and downs. I acquired a Rosary. Not knowing what it was, I simply wore it like a cross. Apparently someone in my flight was extremely offended by that and went off on me. I remember thinking what an asshole he was. I meant no disrespect, but was simply looking for comfort, yet he could not see this. Naturally this made me bitter. At the same time I was forming a friendship with another person. He was a Mormon. I started to go to the Mormon services with him and reading The Book of Mormon. Like many, I found their beliefs laughable. At the same time, I enjoyed spending time with them because they were good caring people.

 

In Tech School I was a Chaplin assistant. Not much to say about it, it was a good experience. My first station was Ramstein Airbase in Germany. Naturally I started going to the Chapel on base. I was rubbed the wrong way there, especially after hearing about the crimes the previous Chaplin had committed. I went to a couple different Churches, one being a place off-base. This Church was off base, but was generally made up of Americans. This place was the final straw for me. Being a new member, he singled me out (I was a very shy person.) He asked me if I had ever sinned. I said of course I had. He told me that it is possible for me to live a life without sin. I told him that was not possible (this is what I had always been taught.) He still continued to single me out and assured me I could. I left very bitter. I went back to my dorm and asked God for a sign. Guess what happened? Nothing…

 

20 thoughts on “How I went from Atheist to Agnostic

  1. While i do disagree with you about God, i can appreciate the fact that you are being open minded and not closing off any and all suggestions as most atheists do. I believe the truth is somewhere in the middle of science and Christianity, but most of the time both sides are to stubborn to meet in the middle and discuss it.

    • Thanks for reading. No problem in not agreeing with me. I do not expect everyone to agree with me. I simply ask people to keep an open mind, be respectful of each other and hopefully understand each other better. My wife is a believer, after all. The main reason I am doing this blog is because of my disagreements with other atheists. I have found that religious people are typically friendlier than atheists when you disagree with them. Anyways, thanks for reading. I hope you check out some of my other stuff.

      • Sure thing, my sister sister claims to be an atheist, but she isn’t she is angry with God, and you can’t be angry at someone who doesn’t exist. I think this is tje case with a lot of atheists, not all, but a lot. But i think that is why it is so hard to even discuss religion with some atheists, if it was just disbelief they would not be so bitter

      • You hit the nail on the head. It is WAY MORE than just a disbelief. As you will see in future posts, I argue that many atheists are just as religious as those they hate. They are hypocrites. Many of them are just reformed fundamentalist Christians. They carry those same traits to their atheism.

  2. I am a true atheist who doesn’t know for sure what is out there. The lack of proof to the absolute does not really make me an agnostic, the not believing in gods does. I see your position, but I believe that most rational people who have gone away from gods are atheists. The term agnostic, in my opinion, just doesn’t cover it well enough.

    • I consider myself an agnostic atheist. Agnostic is my intellectual and scientific conclusion, atheism is simply my opinion. It is a complicated situation. On your statement about being anti-theist, I hope you check out my other posts…

  3. I completely agree with you. While I see no evidence to suggest there IS a “God”, and my feelings on the Bible are that (at best) it’s a fairie tale written hundreds (+) of years after the events it purports to be instructing us on (truly a patriarchal book if ever one was published), I see no reason for nastiness. Reasoned debate on faith is just that: debate. You cannot force your beliefs on someone else and expect reason and respect in turn. Good job, Kevin. More, please!

    • Exactly. There is no reason for hostility unless those beliefs are force upon other people. I do not care if someone worships their toaster in their bathroom, unless it affects me. There is no reason to be disrespectful of personal beliefs if they are just that, persona…

  4. OK…*deep breath*…ATHEISM AND AGNOSTICISM ARE TWO SEPARATE THINGS. Atheism is a claim on belief and agnosticism is a claim on knowledge. You can’t go from one to the other because THEY DO NOT FALL UNDER THE SAME DEFINITION. Saying you’ve gone from atheism from agnosticism is like saying, “I don’t take the bus anymore because I like coffee!”

    You can be an agnostic atheist (someone who doesn’t believe in God, but says it’s possible he might) or a gnostic atheist (someone who doesn’t believe in God and claims for certain that he doesn’t exist) or an agnostic theist (someone who believes in a god or gods, and claims we can’t know him or they or it) or a gnostic theist (someone who believes in God and claims for certain that he exists).

    You cannot say that you’ve gone from atheism to agnosticism, nor can you say you’ve gone from theism to gnosticism. You can only claim you’ve gone from agnosticism to gnosticism, or vice versa. Your belief in a god or gods is irrelevant when it comes to agnosticism because it makes no claim on belief.

    • I understand what you are saying and I have heard that before. I have seen all of the little charts and the different definitions, and that is exactly the point, different definitions. Everyone has a different definition and slightly different beliefs and it is not ones right to criticize them for their DEFINITION.

      I consider myself a true agnostic but if you want to get technical I would consider myself an agnostic atheist because if I were forced to make a guess as to a higher power, I would say no, but I generally do not try to go to that level. It sounds like your gripe is that I should have said I went from Gnosticism to Agnosticism, which is fair, but I stand by my terms and definitions.

      Here is the thing, I have my lumping disclaimer at the beginning of this blog, but definitions aside, I call it like I see it. The majority of atheists I run into on twitter are making fun of religion and call religious people stupid. They then throw in there that they are an agnostic atheist and cannot know for sure. If you do not know for sure and you are making fun of religious people it is because you are either make a truth claim i.e. not agnostic or you are an asshole for making fun of people when you yourself do not have the answer. Most of these “agnostic atheists” are either lying, ignorant, or assholes. That is why I used the terms I used in describing myself. And honestly you are getting a little too upset. I was simply telling my story. If you want to get upset, go read the blog where I call atheists bigots…

      • Here’s the problem with having “different definitions”: They are wrong. It doesn’t matter what you think a word means or what it means to you, it is not an accurate definition. You can claim all you want that you’re not an atheist, you’re an agnostic, but it doesn’t matter. You are not using the correct definitions of these words.

        Atheists (a least a vast majority) DO NOT claim God cannot exist.

        My gripe isn’t that you should have said you went from gnosticism to agnosticism. My gripe is that you know these two terms are not referring to the same concept, yet you lump them together anyway. That is intellectual dishonesty. My upset in this has nothing to do with you type of belief. Tell all the stories you want. But do not try to pass off wrong definitions as accurate.

        A majority of the atheists I encounter also mock the religious, but not for their belief, but for the conviction that they hold in terms of their knowledge on the subject. I have yet to meet an atheist who says God can’t exist, but they will call you out when you try to propose that he absolutely exists, yet provide no proof of this claim, outside of an unverifiable book. You can mock someone all you want when they claim to have the answer, but don’t show you how they got there.

        If you want to play this game, then I will also call it like I see it. The majority of theists I encounter on Twitter are hateful people that will berate and verbally abuse atheists, yet cry foul when the same is done to them. Outside of Twitter, go on YouTube and watch any of the big name apologists pass judgment on atheists, saying they can’t have morality because they don’t believe in God. How is that any better than being a dick to a theist because you think their belief is nonsensical?

      • Also, one huge problem with incorrectly defining these terms: If you interact with anyone who understands the proper definitions of these words and tell them you went from atheism to agnosticism, they’re going to think, “What the hell are you talking about?”

      • I understand what you are saying, but you too are picking your definitions if you want to get technical about it. Here are a few definitions…

        Atheist-a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supremebeing or beings.-Dictionary.com
        a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.-Google

        a person who believes that God does not exist-merriam-webster.com

        Here are three examples that can mean very different things. One of them clearly says an atheist can be a person that denies the existence of a god. One also supports how you are defining atheism, a lack of belief in god.

        Agnostic-
        a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.-Google

        a person who holds that the existence of theultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature ofthings are unknown and unknowable, or thathuman knowledge is limited to experience.-Dictionary.com

        a person who does not have a definite belief about whether God exists or not-merriam-webster.com

        Once again, very different definitions. You state agnosticism is about knowledge, and I tend to agree. The second definition certainly supports your argument, but the first one is certainly to a lesser extent and the third one clearly says nothing about knowledge.

        You can question the rest of my blog and intelligence, or question my honesty, but I clearly have the ability to access an easy definition and as I have shown there is not one standard definition, but I can clearly make my case with the definitions provided. You are also actively choosing which definition to use because it supports the argument you are trying to make or your personal beliefs.

        If you want to get into a philosophical argument about semantics and the history of terms, be my guest. We can read into the terms more, which I have by expressing my experience of what atheists say they believe and how they actually act. But to suggest I do not know how to find a definition of a word, is silly.

      • Your lumping disclaimer is meaningless. It does not matter how you define the word, or how you intend to use it. You cannot change the definition of a word to fit your narrative if you want to be honest with your readers. Word have set definitions for a reason: So we as a society have an understanding of language so we can properly communicate. You can go on and on about how you intend the word to be described or what you intend it to mean, but it does not matter. The word has its definition and you cannot change that.

      • My suggestion that you cannot find a definition comes from the fact that you incorrectly defined atheism throughout your entire blog.

        You automatically assume that because someone says they “deny” that a god or gods exist, they mean that they cannot exist. This is not the case. I deny that a god or gods exist. I will freely admit that. But I also do not say that a god or gods cannot exist. I deny because I have no evidence, but I will never say that a god or gods cannot exist. This is called pragmatism.

        Here’s the big difference between how we define terms: I get my definition from what the dictionary says, an unbiased source. You get your definition because you had a few run-ins with some atheists you thought were rude. How is doing that honest in any manner? This is why I call you dishonest: because your words come from a source of bias.

Leave a comment