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, clearly-proven things. Recently I was skeptical of global warming, but the overwhelming evidence put forth in Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth caused me to re-examine my position. I still wouldn’t call myself a devout global warming believer, but these days I consider it a very real possibility.

I calmly told my well-meaning Christian opponent that I’d certainly be open to accepting the idea of God, just as soon as some reliable evidence could be presented. Upon hearing this, he promptly declared that even though I clearly didn’t know it, I was more of an agnostic than an atheist. Everyone nearby (including a liberal-Christian acquaintance who was supposed to be on MY side) immediately agreed. I was an agnostic; apparently, I just wasn’t astute enough to correctly diagnose myself. Apparently, these people thought that in order to be a true atheist, you most close your mind to every other possible viewpoint. If you aren’t willing to do that, well, you simply aren’t an atheist.

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 go-to argument. Does it really matter whether someone is an agnostic or an atheist? Either way, that person is still not a believer. The line between agnostic and atheist is, I suspect, extremely thin. I’ve been an agnostic in the past; at that point, I felt God was a more realistic possibility then I do know, but I also just felt like stirring up less controversy when declaring my non-religious affiliation (for some reason, people react to an atheist with far greater disdain than they do to an agnostic). In reality, «atheist» and «agnostic» are just labels we give ourselves, and theists are welcome to call me whatever they like; their opinions do not change my beliefs, or lack thereof. They can go ahead and start referring to me as an evangelical for all I care; I still think God is imaginary.

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 Bigfoot-esque creatures, and if the world’s leading zoologists got together and added Bigfoot to the endangered species list, well, I’d look pretty silly if I was STILL DENYING the existence of Bigfoot. And you know what? Because there would now be SOLID Bigfoot evidence, I’d have no reason to deny its existence. So I wouldn’t have to become a BELIEVER of Bigfoot; I’d just become when of the millions of people to now KNOW that Bigfoot is, in fact, reality.

Conclusion

Does my willingness to accept credible evidence-should it ever come up-make me an agnostic as far as the legendary beast is concerned? No; it makes me a reasonable, logical human being who is just trying to differentiate myth from reality. My current opinion is that there is no Bigfoot, just as there is no God. As of now, there’s no reason to believe otherwise.

If you would like me accept either as reality, please present your case.

You can follow the discussion to this entry through its RSS 2.0 feed. This feed will update you with the latest comments in the discussion below. Of course, you may unsubscribe any time you'd like. Comments are currently open, fire away!