Goldwing Tom dot com

I Am Agnostic, Not Atheist

I was told in a friendly discussion once that the main difference between an agnostic and an atheist is the agnostic is afraid to admit he or she is an atheist. I disagreed. I believe that an atheist must have the same degree of blind faith in there being no God as a theist must have in believing God exists. To me, it is an equal but opposite posit. They are binary options with theism being one or on, and atheism being zero or off.

However, I think there are other differences, also, that make me agnostic, but not atheist.

One is a belief in the spirit and the soul. Whether these entities are real or merely philosophical, I believe they exist. I also believe they are not the same things. The spirit is our hearts and lights; the soul is our minds and gravities. My thoughts on the origin of the spirit and the soul will differ from that of the common theist, and my thought that they exist is contrary to the beliefs of a true atheist.

A second difference is a belief that there is a type of judgment that occurs upon death. It is not judgment before God; it is judgment at the intersect zero of the universe. We die when our spirits, the light, leaves our bodies, but the spirit does not die. It passes into a sub-physical realm that must exist, in my opinion, if the universe truly adds up to nothing. In this realm, all physical laws still apply, only they are opposite. Instead of positive and negative attracting, as they do in the physical realm, positive will repel negative and attract positive in the sub-physical realm.

This grouping of positives in the sub-physical realm may be what theists would describe as "Heaven." If it is truly a rebirth into Heaven, then I would caution the theist in their thoughts of Heaven in this way: if the objective while in the physical realm is to defy gravity and rise above our natures, then the objective in the sub-physical realm would be to defy levity to remain as close as possible to the intersect zero of the universe.

This leads me to a third difference between my agnosticism and common atheism. The common atheist believes death is simply "zero life." I believe there is likely a "negative one" that must be real, especially if there is any truth to the big bang theory, which I think best explains the creation of the universe considering that it is constantly expanding.

Whether this negative physical factor explains black holes or dark matter, I do not know. I think it is a possibility, but certainty is such a contrary attribute of "uncommon sense." It does, however, lead me to believe that there is a higher purpose to life. That purpose is to "ride the universal wave" into whatever might exist on the other side of that wave.

To better understand this, we might think about a body of water, a large puddle perhaps. If we were to drop a rock into the center of it, we would create a rippling effect. What we see are rings expanding outward that create a void into which water rushes and overfills, which in turn creates another ring, or ripple, that expands outward. This continues until the forces subside sufficiently that the puddle resumes its original even level. If you really think about it, and look at it as a whole, you are seeing waves in the water on top (which would represent the physical), and also waves in the air created by those ripples in the water (which would represent the sub-physical).

Now add to that puddle a leaf that is bouyant. It is lighter than the water, but heavier than the air. It is not pushed to the edge of the puddle by the initial ripple. It rides the crest into the next ripple, and will continue doing so, ripple after ripple, pretty much until the ripples dissipate into nothing. The purpose of life, to me, is to remain as close to the intersect zero as possible so that our spirits, like the leaf, will ride the ripples rather than to sink because we absorb too much of the physical and are influenced by gravity, or float off because the winds of the subphysical create levity.

This concept is not far-fetched to me. It seems logical to me that the universe would operate on universal laws the same way everything in the universe operates on universal laws. We may even be able to see beyond these ripples in the universe, but, again, I am not certain. Almost all the stars we see on a clear night are within our galaxy, the Milky Way. We have technology, though, to see well beyond our galaxy, one of which is a telescope. Are those other galaxies in a different ripple of the universe? My finite mind, combined with my lack of study on the subject, leaves me without an opinion on that, but, as we know when we better understand infinity, anything is possible.

Two great scientists who gave great thought to the concepts of life and the universe also denied being atheists. Charles Darwin said agnostic was a better term for his belief system than was atheist. Albert Einstein did not claim either atheist or agnostic as his belief system. He claimed belief in "Spinoza's God," which, essentially, is nature. That would make him pantheist, not agnostic or atheist. If my beliefs actually are beyond agnosticism, pantheism would probably best describe my beliefs.

These are my beliefs at the time this is written. I certainly reserve the right to change my opinion and beliefs if I gain some knowledge that would contradict or expand what today I believe. Since it is unlikely there will ever be verifiable proof that God exists or does not exist, it is unlikely that I will ever claim theism or atheism as the description of my beliefs.

I find it contrary to conceptual thought to have blind faith in either of those concepts.


Some other things I've written about: 


Back to Top