Religulous: Atheism v. Agnosticism

I recently saw Religulous and found it quite entertaining. It wasn't brilliant or an all out assault on religion, it was just a funny movie that poked fun at religion. I think my favorite part was when Maher was talking to a Christian who had been a Satanist preacher for twenty years, a pimp, and a drug dealer... clearly someone who makes good choices. We should definately listen to what that guy has to say. But what I really want to talk about is the difference between atheism and agnosticism, because Maher asserts he's not an atheist since he does not believe with 100% certainty that there is no god. As I'm sure you know, this is a commonly held definition of atheism. Unfortunately, it's not true. This is probably a result of the typical religious assault on atheists. They argue that atheism is just as extreme as religion because it asserts a dogmatic belief in the certainty of an unprovable conclusion; that there is no god. The consequence of this argument has been that it has largely determined the definition of atheism, and like most things determined by religion... it makes no sense.

For an in depth analysis of the word "atheism" see wikipedia, the point I want to make is that I don't think people should be afraid to call themselves atheists, and that when people like Bill Maher shy away from calling themselves an atheist, they are letting the very people they are fighting win. To be fair, I don't think Maher ever referred to himself as an agnostic, and at one point I believe referred to himself as "non-religious," which I obviously condone. I want to be very clear that I'm not reprimanding Maher, for one thing he clearly has no qualms about making it perfectly clear that he is anti-religious, but this idea of claiming that you're not really and atheist is an important one. I don't believe there is a god. Am I sure? No. Am I certain of anything? No. How do I know the Earth is round? I haven't been into space. I haven't seen it's roundness for myself, and even if I had, can the eyes be trusted? Bill Maher "doesn't know" but he certainly believes that it is immensely unlikely that there is a god, otherwise wouldn't he be observing some religion, or at least not opposing it so vehemently? As David Hume pointed out, we don't know anything with absolute certainty, when a person says they're agnostic what they're saying is that they believe there is no god to the highest level of certainty they can. The funny thing is I don't really care what one calls themselves, I just think they shouldn't call themselves agnostic. It seems to me a cop out, an attempt at compromise with religious people. "Hey, don't hate me, I'm not an atheist." Really, then what church, synogogue, or mosque do you go to? Do you believe in heaven and hell? No? Then what common ground is there between you and the theist? None. You are a non-theist, you are an atheist. If you don't like that, call yourself non-religious, call yourself anything which denotes that you disagree with religion, but calling yourself agnostic just seems to me a pathetic attempt to remain in the master's good graces.

"Sometimes a person who is really an atheist may describe herself, even passionately, as an agnostic because of unreasonable generalised philosophical scepticism which would preclude us from saying that we know anything whatever, except perhaps the truths of mathematics and formal logic." - J.J.C. Smart