Christopher Hitchens said that his ‘time’ is coming as he made his first public appearance in months at the weekend.

The controversial writer and fervent atheist, who is suffering from esophagus cancer, attended the Atheist Alliance of America conference in Texas where he was presented an…



listeningtovenom-deactivated201 asked:

people are really stupid. i am agnostic, so im following your blog so you can beat some sense into me. see my problem isnt that i believe in a just god, its that i believe in a bitter god, who likes to sit back on his godly couch eating cheetos while he watches us squirm like ants under a magnifying glass on his godly flat screen tv with his godly hookers bringing him beers

I wonder how your god differs from no god at all. Go check out Occam’s Razor for details.

In reason:

woofo asked:


I saw this comic you posted and I'm just a little confused about it because most people I know have always told me that Atheists believe that there most certainly is no god. I don't like to use labels but I decided I must be agnostic. I mainly just do not care if there is a god or not, I believe the gods of most religions are most likely bogus. However, I still see a possibility for some sort of magical ..thing, I find it unlikely, but I don't want to just rule it out by saying I'm Atheist. But after I saw that comic I'm just confused now, because you seem really smart, so do you not at all consider yourself agnostic?
My beliefs on it are mostly that yeah maybe there is some sort of god or some magical thing out there but there is no prove therefore we shouldn't waste time worrying about it and just do stuff we enjoy, but that doesn't mean that I'm just straight out atheist, does it? Ugh, so confusing..

Please check out point 7 in the FAQ section.

In summary, I am an agnostic-atheist. In my opinion one requires the other. In the FAQ I wrote the following as an explanation of the comic you just made reference to.

Basically, agnosticism is not a ‘third rail’ between theism and atheism. Agnosticism refers to knowledge, not belief. A person can’t simply be ‘agnostic’ by definition…you either hold a belief in God or you do not, making you either a theist or an atheist.

Lastly I would equate the likelihood of god(s) existing with fairies, unicorns or leprechauns. I don’t absolutely know if these do or do not exist, just like the existence of god(s). And because of this I don’t believe in any of them either. Their existence is so unlikely that labeling myself an “afairienostic” or “aunicornostic” would be a ridiculous waste of time.

It seems to me that you are just a straight out atheist that is too preoccupied with the possibility that “magic” (or a “magical thing”) might exist. I agree with you conceptually but not in practice. It is clear that the likelihood of “magic” actually existing is so low that no one should waste their time considering it, much less form their world view around it. This logical position does not preclude future belief if evidence (aka knowledge) is found in support of it (or god, or anything else for that matter). That to me is a simple solution to such a preoccupation. The same one everybody takes in regards to possibility of other magical creatures existing as elves, unicorns or fairies. I just don’t see why one should make an exception for the imaginary magical creature that most people call god.

Take care. Thanks for writing.
In reason,

notthehellyourwhales asked:

I call myself an atheist because I certainly don't believe that there is any sentient, supreme being that gives a flying fuck about my fleeting existence and even if there was, it certainly wouldn't care if I believe in it or not. But I can't deny the non-zero chance that there MIGHT be something out there simply because while it can't be proven, it can't be dis-proven either simply because of the lack of evidence.None the less, I can't bring myself to say "There is no god or gods" because there is that non-zero possibility. Does this still make me an atheist, or am I just an agnostic? I certainly hope this makes me an atheist, though, because agnostics always seemed too spiritual for my liking.
Sorry if this seems somewhat silly, but I figured you were probably tired of all the Christians flooding your inbox, and it is a valid question that I've had rolling over in my mind for a little while now and I figured this was as good an opportunity as any.

Do you believe in a god? Any god? If the answer is no then you are an atheist. Check out point #7 in the FAQ.

Thanks for writing.

schubertiade-deactivated2012042 asked:

I just want to add to everything else:

Personally, I know that I refused to call myself an atheist for a while because of the negative connotation it had in my head from growing up in the religious south. I felt dirty almost even thinking about calling myself that. So, for a long time I just referred to myself as a "non-believer". I had to realize that those who would think of me negatively just because I am an atheist weren't people I wanted to concern myself with, anyway. And, obviously, I've gotten over it and now openly identify as "atheist".

Precisely one of my points. Thanks for making it so clear.

allosaurusmeat asked:

On the earlier mention about being agnostic over a a lack of caring about faith, I think it's not necessarily intellectual laziness to not ask whether or not you believe in a god: it's fear. I think you do have a strong point that many agnostics were people who never cared much about the faith they were raised in, only taking it up as they would any other secular tradition taught to them by their parents, and because faith never meant much to them they are content to still not give it much thought.

But on my though: I think there is a fear. I did not call myself an atheist for the first time until early this year after being an agnostic for years, or possibly my whole life. It was in later years that I started asking the big questions about existence and the afterlife. I always believed in science first and foremost and thought that if there was a god he was an architect, not a constantly meddling hand. I went through the agnostic thing, dabbled in Buddhism, earth religions, and kept finding that I was really only interested in the aspects of morality (being kind to one another and the planet, etc) but all the talk of a loving god, spiritual interconnectedness, and the afterlife sounded wonderful but didn't amount to much more than comforting fluff.
It wasn't until I was ready to ask the hard question (when we die, is that it?) that I could let go of the last little shred of faith. Death in itself is scary, and the thought that your loved ones will be waiting for you afterward can be a great comfort, even something to look forward to. Letting go of that means that you have to acknowledge that it's the end of the line for you, and everyone you know who has died is gone.

Thanks for sharing.

I think sometimes the fear you talk about is more about what others will think instead of being about the actual facts of the matter. The majority of people have a misconception that labeling oneself as an atheist must mean that:

1) One knows for sure that a god does not exist,
2) hence believers must be dumb since
3) science is actually the atheist “god”
4) so atheists must have a sense of smug superiority over everyone else who do not think as they.

That is just plain false.

Some, trying to avoid being labeled and treated as such misconstrued atheists, revert to the title of agnostic to be more agreeable to the theistic masses.

Just to be clear, I am not saying all people that call themselves agnostic think this way. I am just saying that I have met quite a few like that. And those people I will openly criticize.

abakkus asked:

As an agnostic, I have to say that I don't think there's anything lazy about saying "I don't know, and I will probably never know." I understand science, but at the same time, I don't think it's completely implausible that there's something out there that we don't comprehend. (Though the sarcastic bastard in me if pretty sure you were making fun of that demotivational, I just figured this was as a good a time as ever to throw in my two cents.)

1) The whole atheism vs agnostic argument is a semantic/definitional one. What I’m just saying is that agnosticism is a distinction that makes no real difference. Either you believe in a god or you don’t. Not knowing if you believe (whatever that means) is still not believing. Is that too hard a concept to grasp?

2) To those that have not read the FAQ, I consider myself an agnostic atheist (since I don’t know, I don’t believe).

3) Like I said before: I never said there is anything wrong with labeling oneself as an agnostic. I’m all for less religion and more uncertainty. That being said, I will openly comment on the agnosticism that tries to place atheism as an equal counterpart to theism or theist fundamentalism. Nothing could be farther from the truth. 

pasdesolee asked:

I find it ironic that you wouldn't believe in a "middle ground". What are we here, evangelists?

Why is it “ironic”?

I make no qualms in accepting that I am an evangelist for reason, science and truth. That is one of the reasons I have this blog. I don’t see anything wrong with that. On the contrary, I wish more non-believers would do the same.

Bottom line: In the same way I clearly speak about the problems with religion I will also speak about the inconsistencies of agnosticism (or any other philosophy no matter where it comes from). Just because agnosticism it is similar to atheism does not mean I will cut it any slack.

If you believe, don’t believe or even say you don’t know if you believe or not; I will still keep asking why. No exceptions.

Thanks for writing. Take care.

Anonymous asked:

Another agnostic coming to defend themselves. I am indifferent to my belief in God, hence why I prefer identifying as agnostic. There's just a certainty of God's lack of existence that both society and mainstream atheism have both projected (and from what I've seen) that I can't really forsee myself identifying as an atheist until I'm well in my adulthood (where I will be more psychologically comfortable with myself and my views, versus now as a nineteen year old.)

I state that I am indifferent strictly because, in my opinion, my belief or disbelief in a god, and his/her/their/its overall (lack of) existence has next to no effect on how I conduct myself. I'm still a hedonistic lesbian who will live my life as fit, regardless if there is a god or not.

When people ask me if I believe in a god, my default response is almost always, 'It's not something I really think about.' And it's true. I don't have time to determine whether or not I believe a god exists. I have a life to live. There's better things to think about.

While I don't believe any of my rabble will change your mind, in my opinion, a belief is a concept. You can be indifferent to a concept or an idea (some people are indifferent to peace and war, some are indifferent to Lady Gaga, some are indifferent to a type of food.) And there's really nothing wrong with that.

I think most agnostics are just atheists in practice that don’t want to be grouped with the likes of Dawkins or Harris (for example) who some (mistakenly I believe) consider to be rude.

How is not taking the time to determine if one believes if a god exists or not (whatever that means) is any different from not believing at all? With all due respect, your concept of agnosticism seems to be grounded more in intellectual laziness than anything else. How come there is not enough time to ponder if one believes in a god but there is enough time to explain, argument and even write in defense of what agnosticism supposedly is? Can you see the disconnect? I think it is pretty clear that belief in gods is an active concept. Ignoring it is the same as denying it.

To finish, I never said there is anything wrong with labeling oneself as an agnostic. I’m all for less religion and more uncertainty. What I’m just saying is that agnosticism is a distinction that makes no real difference. That is all.