God and Bigfoot: Together at Last!
by Sara on 12/09/07 filed under religion
You’d probably never be convinced that God exists, no matter what happens. Even if that bush over burst into flames right in front of us, you still probably wouldn’t believe it.
This was an argument presented to me by a theist I met at work. In a way, he was right. A burning bush wouldn’t convince me once and for all that God exists (I live in Arizona, where spontaneous brush fires can be par for the course) but if I ever witnessed something that appeared miraculous, I’d certainly be willing to explore the issue further. And I certainly wouldn’t say that NOTHING would ever convince me; if the clouds suddenly parted and God spoke to me purposely (as he did rather often in the Old Testament) I’d probably become at least a deist.
Yet, many theists seem to think that atheists are so blind to the truth that we’ll never see it, even if it’s right in our faces. I find that to be an odd accusation. I do find certain religions distasteful; for example, I would be happier if the fundamental Islam extremists don’t have the one true faith. Buddhism, however, would be a much better deal. And reincarnation sounds very tempting. I would jump at the chance to become a Buddhist…but first, someone would have to show me some verifiable proof that reincarnation really does happen
It’s not as though we atheists walk around all day denying very obvious,
I calmly told my
Atheist or Agnostic…and Does it Matter?
Theists seem to feel a great sense of accomplishment any time they can claim that an atheist might really be an agnostic in disguise (see www.wayofthemaster.com) but I fail to why this is such a
I began calling myself an atheist not because I decided there was no chance at all that God existed (admittedly, I don’t have ultimate knowledge) but because I finally realized that I did not have to consider as a realistic possibility something that had never even come close to being proven.
So What Does This Have to Do With Bigfoot?
God is not the only claim for which I demand further proof. Take Bigfoot, for example. I don’t believe in Bigfoot. I don’t hate or feel bitter in any way towards Bigfoot. It’s just that I’ve simply failed to be convinced by all of the sketchy pictures, videos and «eyewitness» accounts that claim to prove Bigfoot’s existence. I also find it highly suspicious that we’ve yet to find a Bigfoot carcass, baby Bigfoots (Bigfeet?) genuine Bigfoot fossils, etc. I can’t actively prove that Bigfoot doesn’t exist, but the burden of proof is on those who claim that he does (and the obvious lack of evidence isn’t helping their case).
Now, if we did find a real carcass of a creature that matched the general Bigfoot description, and if this finding led us to a colony of
Conclusion
Does my willingness to accept credible
If you would like me accept either as reality, please present your case.
Nick Greco
Dec 17th, 2007
I’d say the writer is pretty smart, and one great daughter…her dad must be proud
Diane Landoll
Jun 26th, 2008
To me athiests and agnostics are the same: one doesn’t believe in God at all and the other believes that God might exist, but neither believe. I myself am a Christian. I am Catholic. I do believe in God, have always believed in Him, and will hopefully always believe in Him. Reading this article makes me realize that I have always know that God is with me. Not ever not believing in God, I don’t know what you feel like or what you think about. But you said that you were waiting for proof that God does exist. All of the great scientists wondered about things too, and what did they do about their wonderings? They went out and found answers, and that’s what I encourage you to do. Look for God. Search for Him and I promise that you will find Him. Please take my advice to heart and good luck!
Sara
Jun 26th, 2008
Hi Diane,
I agree with several of your points. As far as your comment that atheists and agnostics are the same–I would say they are similar. The only difference, in my experience, is that atheists are usually more willing to take a stand on matters of religion, whereas agnostics are usually more willing to let things go. I once considered myself an agnostic, but I switched to atheist once I decided that evidence was the most important thing to me. Still, the differences are minimal; this is why I fail to undertand why some theists waste their time arguing that atheists are really agnostics are disguise. Seem like semantics to me.
As far as going looking for god, I also agree that god’s existence is an important subject to examine. I spend a great deal of time researching different religions, trying to see things from their point of view. I often come across Christians, is particular, who claim they can “prove” that god exists. I always eagerly check out what they have to say, but so far I have been dissapointed.
When you say you promise that I will “find Him,” I’m curious about what you mean. Will I find evidence, or will I just feel his presence? Unfortunately, feeling his presence wouldn’t be enough for me, at this point. I was raised Catholic myself, and I can say that I did genuinely believe in god for a long time (although I was never a “true Christian” by evangelical standards, but that’s another story). However, the warm feelings I had for god turned out to be very similar to the warm feelings I had for, say, Santa Claus and Mickey Mouse (both of which I beleived to really exist at some point). The great scientists saught (and still seek) observable, repeatable evidence before a hypothesis can become a law or even a theory. In my opinion, the god hypothesis should not be exempted from those requirements.
Ric
Mar 31st, 2009
I know I’m WAY late to your article, but I feel I have something relevant to say.
To change from agnostic to atheist not really a great way to put it. The actual definition of agnostic is that they think the question of god is unknowable. But knowability has nothing to do with belief. So by that account, you could be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic christian.
However, the popular definition for agnostic in reference to the god question is “I don’t know”.
All this is for a point: You can be an atheist without a strong knowledge of science and still be unsure about things, but if you DO have a strong knowledge of science, you can know for sure that god does not exist… It is definitionally impossible.
Sounds like a strong statement, but there are ways to “prove” this.
1. All things in the universe have either matter or energy. if something is said to have neither, then it doesn’t exist. If it exists, it is bound by the laws of nature. Sorry theists, there’s no way around that. This goes to the “definition” of a god or god-like creature…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLlSySWuoiA for a nice video explanation of the idea.
2. The basic assumption of science is that THING DO NOT EXIST until they “show up” to a scientifically substantial degree. This is why we don’t worry about santa, the tooth fairy, garden gnomes, bigfoot or the loch ness monster. Isn’t it funny that bigfoot and Nessie have more tangible (and more credible) evidence than god? hmmmmm…… I doubt if someone claimed to find a fossil of “god” that anyone would believe them.
This one is important: it shows us that although we could “assume” that some things might exist, but it is ALWAYS better to assume that they don’t. once proof shows up, then we can “worry” about it.
3. To assume things DON’T exist is a “falsifiable” claim, and thus a scientific claim. It can be proved wrong by the existence of something or evidence thereof. To assume things exist is NOT falsifiable, and thus, not scientific.
So if we put it all together we get this… If something exists, it can’t be god, because nothing in the universe can have “supernatural” powers, rather only natural powers. therefore, it can’t be omniscient or omnipotent, because it is bound by the same natural laws as ourselves. at best it may only be a more knowledgeable creature, no more, no less.
If we don’t see this being, it is likely because it doesn’t exist, and we don’t have to worry about it. However, if anything current system of knowledge can actually find a new life form, then hands down it is science…
AND, because of falsifiability, Atheism is the ONLY claim (the affirmative claim that there “is no god”) that has even the POSSIBILITY of being wrong, because it is still and always will be FALSIFIABLE.
Therefore, if god shows up and shows he’s really god (or as much as he could be, a demi-god or creator at best), then Atheists will rejoice, and then ask a metric shit-ton of questions. Since this is not a “belief”, atheists will have no problem accepting this newly discovered creature into the record of scientifically verified knowledge.
And you’d think this creator/demi-god/architect would look at the “believers” and honestly ask “why’d you close your eyes to the truth of the universe i created and make all that other shit up???”
So there’s a difference between subjective belief and objective disbelief, and as long as objective disbelief comports with science, then it is the superior position.
Like you said “seeing isn’t believing, seeing is KNOWING.”