In this short essay I hope to set out my reasons for being an atheist rather than an agnostic, so to begin I will define the terminology as I will use it.

Atheism

An atheist believes that there are no conscious powers concerning themselves with the human race other than material living organisms.

Here I use the phrase 'concerning themselves with the human race' since it is of no concern to an atheist whether or not there is a prism-shaped set of multi-dimensional gods presiding over their own prismatic minions on a tiny planet orbiting Sirius. It does not turn an atheist into an agnostic to feel it unnecessary to speculate as to the existence of all such powers. I similarly do not care if there once was a creator who no longer takes an interest in the human race. None of the arguments for and using atheism will fail if we propose such an irrelevant creator. An atheist merely believes that the simplest and best course of action is to assume that there are none.

Agnosticism

An agnostic believes that the existence or non-existence of conscious powers concerning themselves with the human race is a question necessarily beyond our comprehension, so we should not attempt an answer to it.

I look upon agnosticism here as a conscious decision. An individual who has never given a thought to the question of whether or not gods exist is not an agnostic; I would think that any such individual is either fortunate enough never come into contact with the idea of a god, or is a moron. Agnosticism is an intelligent viewpoint, and the world would no doubt be a far better place if everyone subscribed to it. Can you imagine A killing B for refusing to disagree with A's opinions? Agnosticism is a greatly superior point of view to mindless religiosity, and it is impossible to disprove it, but I personally would opt for something else.

Let us think carefully about the basis of agnosticism.

An agnostic believes that the existence or non-existence of conscious powers concerning themselves with the human race is a question necessarily beyond our comprehension, so we should not attempt an answer to it.

There is certainly no refuting this. Agnostics are right. Even given all the proof in the world one way or the other, there would be no logical difficulty with the idea that we could pinch ourselves and wake up to find the entire episode had been a dream. Of course we cannot be sure one way or the other. There is virtually nothing we can be absolutely sure of, except perhaps our own existence.

Consider the recent rival adverts, which have adorned some London buses in 2008/09. The first offering by the Atheist Bus Campaign was:

"THERE IS PROBABLY NO GOD, SO QUIT WORRYING AND ENJOY YOUR LIFE",

followed by the response from the Christian Party:

"THERE DEFINITELY IS A GOD, SO JOIN THE CHRISTIAN PARTY AND ENJOY YOUR LIFE"

The response is logically utter garbage. "Definitely" is just plain wrong, and agnostics, atheists, or any generally sensible person will regard the advert as philosophical tripe (though probably good advertising). The wording of the prior advert is logically viable, and here is where the difference arises between atheists and agnostics. The atheist bus campaign read

"THERE IS PROBABLY NO GOD, SO QUIT WORRYING AND ENJOY YOUR LIFE"

The agnostic bus campaign might read

"GOD OR NO GOD? WE'LL NEVER KNOW, SO QUIT WORRYING AND ENJOY YOUR LIFE"

Absolutely valid sentiment, but I am far more drawn to the first one. To see why, consider the question "will I be murdered before tomorrow?"

The murder-atheist says 'no', the murder-agnostic says 'not sure' and the murder-believer says 'yes'. No one can know that there is a 100% or 0% chance of them being murdered before tomorrow, so the murder-agnostic's answer is the only correct one. But for the murder-agnostic there is a flicker of uncertainty (unless he assumes that he won't be murdered, in which case he is actually a murder-atheist), whereas the murder-atheist will act upon the assumption that tomorrow will come.

Imagine now that every crime gang in the world is trying to murder you. If you are a murder-agnostic then you are still spot-on with your assessment. If however you are a murder-atheist then you must change your tune. Personally if I had but a few days left to live I would live differently. Does this make the murder-atheist foolish to have lived her previous days under the assumption that tomorrow would come? No it doesn't. As a murder-atheist you must be prepared, if the situation changes, to abandon your murder-atheism for murder-agnosticism, or even to become a murder-believer if there are enough people with guns outside your door.

There is a fence when it comes to belief, and it is perfectly logically justifiable to sit upon it. Personally I would rather spend my time on one side with my toes in the grass than perched on the top for fear of choosing incorrectly. If you're comfortable on the fence then good for you, but the atheist side is fertile ground, and there's fun to be had there for those who can admit there's always a chance they could be wrong.

Giles Hayter
London
February 2009