Atheist vs Theist: A Weigh-In

I’m feeling compelled to point out a couple of things: 

First, the “debate” between theism and atheism is a non-issue, a disagreement that people are keeping alive for no good reason, because there is no reason involved and, if there was, the topic would have worn itself out long ago. 

Part of the problem is that while debating the theists, atheists fail to recognise that they too are arguing from a point of faith. The basic question is not about how the universe was created. The root question is about the existence or non-existence of some kind of transcendental “supreme being.” Now, the definition of “faith” is the decision to believe in something without the benefit of concrete or existential knowledge. In the light of this, the existence of the aforementioned “supreme entity” can neither be factually proven or disproven. Everyone has the freedom to choose whether to believe in the existence of a “God” (which is much easier to type than Supreme Being) or to deny the existence of a “God” but, people on both sides of the argument should have reason enough to recognise that neither position can be empirically proven to be true. If, for whatever motivation, you feel compelled to take a stand on the question, please do have the presence of mind to realise that you are making a choice to believe something that can never be empirically proven. Ironically enough, it is most often the atheists who allow themselves to wallow in the belief that their stand is somehow a “scientific” one. What hogwash. All they’ve done is chosen one of two hypotheses, neither of which can be demonstrated by direct observation or repeatable experiment. Where is the “science” in that? The religious folks are at least self-aware enough to know that their position can’t be proven. That’s why they have faith in the first place. Only one more point is required to put an end to this ridiculous argument that has accomplished nothing over the centuries except build walls between people, causing divisions instead of unity. Once both sides recognise that they have chosen to participate in a needless argument, they must then also allow for the possibility that the arbitrary position they have chosen might be wrong. Not that it matters when the issue will never be resolved but, it would reduce the amount of acrimony we’ve set loose in the world. 

Personally (if I haven’t made it clear yet), should I be asked where I stand in this (absurd) debate, and my questioner is not satisfied with “I really don’t care,” I will say that I’m an agnostic. In an argument with neither substance nor purpose, sitting on the fence is the responsible position of the reasonable. I see no reason to choose to believe in a hypothesis that is impossible to prove so, the agnostic neither claims that transcendental Powers exist, nor does he claim the equally powerless position that such Powers cannot exist. It’s much like what do you do in an election with two candidates, neither of which you approve of? You stay home; you simply don’t vote.

In closing I’ll reiterate: in the God argument, both atheists and theists hold onto a faith and, in too many cases, neither side is able to cope with the possibility that they might be wrong. And in most cases, neither side is willing to acknowledge that the argument they are keeping alive is just stupid on the face of it and, even more ridiculously, absolutely NOTHING depends on the argument they apparently enjoy to the fullest. Talking heads and rifle rounds: twits, the lot of ‘em.…