Welcome to the non-church of the Antagnostic where we practice the non-faith of Antagnosticism. Tired of the atheists telling you your non-faith somehow enables the silliness of faith? Get antagonistic, go antagnostic! Tired of the churchly telling you your lack of church somehow guarantees various badnesses after you've already suffered the supreme badness of shuffling off this mortal coil? Deliver antagonism, practice antagnosticism! It's up to us to tell the truth and point out clearly whenever someone isn't. Belief and fact are not a spectrum; the former is a psychological phenomenon, the latter simply a description of empirical reality. If you don't make an effort, billions will die horribly and meaninglessly. Well, billions will die any way, but maybe slightly less horribly and meaninglessly, in fact probably much more equitably, if you just make an effort. So let us help you help us let you let us help you! We do, of course, acceptfor which we categorically guarantee not to save your soul. But we do promise to devote more time to this among our dozen projects. You have no real evidence whether god exists. Neither do we. Let's not pretend, shan't we? Simple enough? Unfortunately, no. From human rights disasters including Israel, Saudi Arabia and India to intellectual failures including Descartes, Gould and Harris, this is apparently a nearly intractable problem. All the same, the solution actually is very simple. So simple, it has been arrived at by a simpleton. The only requirement is honesty. We'll explain how and why while offending everyone approximately equally, in reverse order of popularity...
Let's start with the faith that won't admit it is one. Since it's also the least 'popular'. That may have to do with the frequent venom with which it prosthelytizes. Let me reiterate, we do not know. 99.999%!=100%. Atheists are often the best and brightest of us. We'll wager Richard Dawkins is smarter than you. We know he's smarter than us. Then guessing, in descending order of the differences they've made in science and the humanities, Daniel Dennet, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens. Admirable? Somewhat. Open minded? Not so much perhaps, not so much. There are numerous people of faith who argue that they are incapable of ethical behavior without it. Therefore, it is in our best interest to let them keep it. However flawed their ethics may be, it's possible that they could be worse without faith. So we should take a hard look at how and why atheists preach, and cut those who feel they need faith in order to behave a little slack. They generally don't behave worse, on average, than firebrand atheists. Hitch became a major disappointment when he advocated mass-murder. Harris is turning out that way as he cultivates his islamaphobia into yet another excuse for genocide.
Speaking of islamaphobia. And, ironically, anti-semitism. Most Arabs being, obviously, semitic. Certainly more-so than the Ashkenazi who make up the majority of Israelis. Of course, we should not confuse Judaism and Zionism. Don't you either.
Who knew they were more numerous than jews? Other than that we don't know much. Educate ourselves?
Siddhata Gotama said -don't follow me. Chogyam Trungpa said -this isn't a religion. What the hell's wrong with you?
The ridiculousness of hinduism should make clear the ridiculousness of organized religion. Take a good look at Ganesh. If that doesn't happen to be your ridiculous belief, how is your ridiculous belief any more believable?
The rowdy obnoxious teenagers (in centuries) of Abrahamism. The profit, peas be upon ham, was a notably murderous proto-capitalist. While happiness may well be submission to some god or other it is certainly not servility to lies. Be honest about the scriptures, dudes.
What is a Christian? Seems to be a bit of disagreement. One thing is certain, none of the historical Yeshua ha Nostris would recognize 99.9% of the bullshit that calls itself Christian today. Pope's almost OK though. Too bad all the rest of 'em hate Catholics.
Why so kind, why so gentle? Well, some believers actually do nice things 'because' of their beliefs. From social activism to environmental awareness, from the pope to my weird parents, some people use their faith and communities of faith to try to make a positive difference in the world. Still, iff honesty is the best policy, here's a summary. Making decisions based on anything but facts is generally fucked up, will often fuck up a lot of people and will frequently have a lot of other really fucked up consequences. If you're doing it, seriously evaluate whether it's helping you and other living things, and if not, please stop it. Or else fuck off. The world doesn't need you or your fucked up bullshit. The facts are fucked up enough as they are. Can we please concentrate on them? Thereby we might actually make some positive differences. Is it ironic that it makes no difference to us what you believe? Nor does it make any difference if god exists. It's not even an interesting question. Nor relevant to human existence, ethics, cuisine or much else. Sloman delivers some clarity. Now it's up to you to deliver antagnositicism.