Would you prefer agnostic?
Agnostics believe that there is ultimately no way to know if there
is a god or a superman creator. That is a pretty sensible thought,
actually, but I am not one of those. I am between an agnostic and
what religious folk call atheist, if you will. I think that
question needn't even be asked unless there is evidence or some
logic that dictates or even implies there is actually a creator.
There may have been a reason in the Middle Ages and before. "What
is that bright light that hides at night? Must be a God". We did
away with all that by scientific inquiry, even before formal
science got started, and by now, the evidence actually points to a
very unintelligent design, if there is even a design to begin with,
to the biological and cosmological evolution.
I can perfectly understand that a religious person could find my
condition of being non religious a pityful one. I don't agree, but
that does not mean I'm right.
Relativism is all the rage it seems, even for people to whom it
shouldn't be. "What is right?", right? Well, not really. There
actually is logical, rational thought, and illogical, irrational
thought. In this issue, there is no gray area. There is no mildly
logical, or mildly rational. In this case, whoever can actually
justifiy their beliefs with hard evidence or logical thought, is
actually, factually right. And if one is right...
So, athiest has that meaning, literally 'without a god'. I am not
offended to be called that way.
I am not offended either, only that I think it is rather
presumptuous to invent a term assuming that everybody believes in
your core beliefs ("there is a god in the first place") and then
part from it. And worst of all, this is a term for people who
actually don't subscribe to that. Imagine if astrologers went on
the large-scale media and stated that everybody who don't belief in
astrology should describe themselves as un-astrologers. How silly
would that be? The same kind of non-offensive, but presumptuous
silly, exactly.