I started a new blog, which will mostly be political, philosophical, religious, social etc..

http://agnosticatheist.blogspot.com

Check it out if you wish

Often, I hear people claim that they are ‘Agnostic’. This is entirely a misnomer, due to misunderstanding of Agnosticism, using it as a softened version of atheism, rather than its true meaning. What such people mean to claim, is that they are weak atheists, or negative atheists, who lack belief in god. Such a description applies to babies, and so on, people who have never heard of the idea of a god. Some would argue that it applies to people who simply don’t know what they believe yet. However, not knowing implies a lack of conviction. A belief is a conviction in something’s truth. If they lack that conviction in the existence of god, that means that they are at least an implicit atheist. Furthermore, that claim of simply lacking a belief in a god, does not take somewhat of a middle ground. The fact that they lack belief in all gods they know of, means that they have rejected all the gods possible, which is a position of strong atheism, or disbelief, at least of all gods they know of. Therefore, all people who have no specific belief in god are strong atheists, at least towards the deities they know of. Thus, the only people who are complete weak atheists are babies, or people with no knowledge of any supposed deities.

Agnosticism has two general meanings. One is that knowledge of the divine is impossible. This definition is not to be mistaken with an alternative to atheism. Atheism and theism deal with belief, agnosticism and Gnosticism deal with the basis for such belief. For example, Agnostic Atheism holds that knowledge of the divine is impossible(or currently unheld) and thus belief in God is unjustified and illogical. On the other hand, ever hear a theist say ‘just have faith’? That is an agnostic position, as they are admitting that they have no knowledge of whether God exists, and yet still believe in light of that. Gnostic atheism and theism are pretty much self-explanatory given that the definition of Gnostic to be ‘believing that knowledge of the existence or nonexistence of the divine is possible or currently held’.

We once believed the earth to be the center of the universe, until Galilei Galileo showed the world to be wrong, in that the earth moved around the sun. We once believed the earth was flat, and a line, the shortest distance between 2 points. We know the former not to be true, and many people now know about the existence of a geodesic in relation to the latter. The greatest Empire in the world, even pre-industrialization, believed in individual gods that ran everything, from the gods of agriculture, to the gods of refrigerators, to the gods of bathing, to the gods of coin flipping. I’m sure I exaggerate, but there were numen(divine forces) in many forms of things we now know to be scientific, such as gravity. We know that Jupiter does not hurl lightning bolts at people, in fact, lightning goes from the object being struck, in the form of a positive energy charge, up to the cloud, of which the lower molecules are generally negatively charged. Of course, now we know that and take it for granted, but 2000 years ago… People believed in many cults, man sacrificing animals and people to appease various superstitions. Latin druids believed that knowledge could only be given to chosen people, and only memorized, never written and scattered to the hoi polloi. Now, countries have public schools, which greatly aid in democratic processes where applicable. Everything which we consider part of old culture, outdated, has been replaced, modified, fixed.

In 1954, President Eisenhower signed into law the addition of “under god” to the pledge of allegiance. While his full reason can only be speculated at, one of the major ideas behind it was to signify a difference between the United States, and the “godless communists”. This makes sense because of course, since a society that was communist (or at least purported to be) was secular, and pursued general atheism, committed numerous despicable deeds, all secular societies must be evil. Similarly, since Adolf Hitler had only one testicle (or at least was purported to), all people with only one testicle believe in ethnic cleansing.

It is clear that gay marriage hurts nobody, so why all the fuss? For millennia, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam have each discriminated against the gay population. Why? Their god tells them to. Now while that is FAR from ok in Islamic society, or in Christian states, or even Jewish states, it has NO place in America. America has a “wall of separation” between church and state, not strictly guaranteed by the constitution as commonly thought, but invented by Thomas Jefferson. Religion has been used to justify oppression throughout history. In ancient Rome, Jews and Christians were second-class citizens. The Romans were very accepting of other religions, as long as you accepted theirs. However, the rule against false idols made it impossible for Judaism or Christianity to be practiced, and it went underground for quite some time, before Constantine ruled it the official religion of Rome. Religion has also justified countless atrocities, including the Crusades, and imperialism, based on anti-Hamitic (hatred of Africans) and anti-Semitic (hatred of Jews) beliefs, both biblical in origin. As well, religion justified slavery in America. Now it is oppressing another segment of society, gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transgender, and queers, more commonly known as GLBTQ. Many people even consider those words I previously said as insults, and thus my words would be construed as an insult. However, I see them as badges of the self, and I would be glad to add “straight” to that list, so that it may define that which is more commonly known as humanity. In America there is a divide. The conservatives, who tend to want a ban on gay marriage, or at best, civil unions. The liberal party general aims for civil unions with equal rights. But nobody seems to champion the rights that these people deserve, except a few radical judges who passed legislation briefly for gay marriage certificates, mainly in San Francisco and Massachusetts. These marriages have since been annulled by the government party currently in power.