Why I'm not purely an Athiest

Atheism is the opposite extreme to theism as both claim to know something without proof. Although I'm nearly certain a "god" doesn't exist as depicted by most mainstream religions, it is still feasible that a higher entity has the capacity to engineer things beyond our current comprehension. Furthermore, claiming there is/isn't a “god” assumes too much knowledge about what “god” is.

Human perception of the universe is biased and always changing... thus to follow a belief “religiously” is ignorant; conversely, to follow a belief “scientifically” is to be willing to relinquish that belief on a whim should contradictory evidence be discovered.

I mostly follow beliefs "scientifically", but this implies that they're likely to alter/improve in the near future. Maybe my strongest belief is that the scientific process will enlighten and lead us.

Many of the old writings and tales from the bible (and other religious writings) offer advice, but they shouldn't be taken as historical facts without scrutiny. It's fine to base moral beliefs on certain aspects or stories (so long as they don't contradict scientific findings), but that moral belief alone isn't "religious". I'm particularly annoyed by those who pick-and-choose which parts to believe. Most religions do not give this "wiggle room". The scriptures either need to be accepted in their entirety as the infallible word of “god” or rejected under the concept that it was merely invented by archaic men (glorified cavemen) who had vastly limited views of the universe. Calling a book "infallible" is an extraordinary claim to uphold because if even one part is falsifiable, then the whole thing must be rejected. It can no longer be trusted.

Even worse is the hypocrisy shown by certain politicians and corporate owner's in America claiming to be "Christian". Jesus would be considered a liberal socialist (if he even existed at all) that advocated for giving up material belongings, freely helping neighbors or those in need, not seeking power or wealth. Some people are walking examples of an oxymoron. Self-proclaimed "Christians" ignore the basic principles of Jesus' teachings and the ten commandments (thou shalt not kill).

If human perception of the universe is biased, and ever-changing, then what explanation can be given to why we have static morals and beliefs even in the face of change? Evolution has determined that it is desirable to have some ideas/traditions which remain static within a multi-generational time span. Society progresses on a much slower timescale, and society could progress faster if people were more perceptive to change; however, evolving too quickly could also be detrimental. For one, it's not a good idea to rush into new methodologies without proven experience, but we also need to accept change when necessary.

"Nothing is as powerful as an idea whose time has come."

The human lifespan is a significant timescale, and as life expectancy increases, this could have implications, i.e. larger conflicts arising due to the increasing gap between the youth and elderly. Religion offers a mechanism for young people to be indoctrinated into conservative groups, allowing static ideas to be retained through generations. This holds back society with a great force on a much larger scale. If you look back at the dark ages, intellectual stagnation (and even some regression) lasted for centuries, but I'm hopeful for the future of reason and logic.

Here's a little humor to close

Seperation of Church and State

America was built upon the notion of "Separation of Church and State," but what are its real implications, and is it even really possible (to the extent that politicians would not let their religious views affect their judgement)?

When I see articles like this and this, it makes me cringe (VIDEO). It makes me feel like society is being held back while simultaneously heading straight into a brick wall. This man is applying to be the HEAD OF THE ENERGY COMMITTEE, but he doesn't believe global warming is happening because a book written thousands of years ago has no mention of it. And he's not alone...
The problem is that people take Bible stories literally instead of learning and growing from the moral teachings of them. Wouldn't it be ironic if some modernized version of "Noah", (i.e. a minority like the scientific community) warned of a great flood, while the majority turned a blind eye in inconvenienced disbelief? Yeah...

Laziness and Comfort vs. Advancing

This is what I hear when businesses argue that reducing pollution costs too much:

"If we spend money designing cleaner technology, we won't have money to create more jobs."

Designing is jobs! Instead they'd rather reduce regulation, keeping a large force of unskilled workers that won't have to learn new skills/technology or strive for advancement. This is analogous to students in a class whining that an assignment is "too hard" and forcing the instructor to cancel it or reduce the expectations  The students won't excel or learn except that complaining gives them leverage.

People would rather spend their time finding ways to avoid working, than actually doing the work asked of them. I thought capitalism is supposed to solve the "lack of incentives" problem that communism failed at.

Superstition and the belief in science vs. religion

Firstly, let me point out that a "superstition" is simply a belief which has not been backed by the latest scientific findings; so a superstition can become scientific fact later, it's possible. Secondly, the term "atheism" is used loosely and often incorrectly. I prefer the more appropriate term "agnosticism", because whether or not god exists is quite literally the last question that science could ever hope to answer, so any belief (true/false) about that subject is a "superstition" per my definition above.  My point here is that you can still be superstitious about things, just NOT the things which science has clearly proven true/false.  Instead of debating unverifiable claims, it's better to discuss what we do/don't know, and how to proceed from there.

Let me also distinguish that science isn't a belief itself, but a (logical) process of hypothesizing, measuring, observing, verifying, debating and accepting evidence.  An appropriate belief would be that

Using the process of science can give us the answers [to everything].

Which I assume is a belief that all modern agnostics intrinsically hold, whether they're aware of it or not.

Also, by definition, people only hold beliefs which they believe to be true (regardless of whether they are actually true), and seeing two or more conflicting beliefs is very bothersome. It's also difficult to accept that others are "wrong" when you think you know the "true answer."  However, one has to succumb to the idea that all beliefs are inherently wrong/biased.  Scientific findings are based on simplifications/models and underlying assumptions about perceptions (that we may not even be aware of).  Science also rests upon the shoulders of philosophy, which still poses many unanswered questions through interesting thought-experiments.

However, a major difference between religion and the "belief in science" (also known as Scientism) is that scientific "truths" are dynamic, and allowed to be challenged with more rigorous science, whereas many religions are static (unless it's one of those pick-and-choose ordeals, in which case the religion is being diluted/debased and should just be disregarded entirely as a fallible source claiming to be infallible).  By our human nature, changing fundamental beliefs is difficult/painful, which is even more reason that scientists need to be able to readily alter/adapt their beliefs based on latest findings. This is not easy because people need some stability of perception. What if tomorrow we discover negative mass particles that behave oppositely to gravity? Our whole world would be turned upside down (haha, that was a pun).

Nonetheless, I personally choose to believe in something which has an effective basis for acquiring knowledge and subsequently verifying it.  So if agnostics want to unite for some common cause, it should be to point out that the process of science is useful/revealing, teaches us about our origins/universe, can save lives, that it's fun/interesting, that anyone can do it, and that it DOESN'T have all the answers, but this is a sandbox for curiosity and exploration.  People's trust in science will follow from there.

Coping with Climate Change

Have you confronted the consequences of climate change? Have you coped with the idea that your lifestyle may be harming the planet in ways that could have devastating repercussions? Even if you doubt the severity of it, is it worth the risk to test mother nature?

Mitt isn't alone in thinking it's all a big joke, and that's the philosophy of people who choose to avoid confrontation or change.

Who determines what measures of action we need to take, and how much apathy to tolerate? There's a trade-off between how much work we should put into something we aren't even sure is going to happen, but that's just a question of risk analysis:

The answer is probably government, not corporations. Time and time again government has needed to step in to regulate corporations that were harming the balance of ecosystems. Sometimes corporations step up to the task, but it's not always enough.

Germany vs. USA

I have been to Germany many times, spent about 2 years there total. On my recent trip to Germany (and then Denmark) I took note of the major differences in lifestyle and culture. Though some of these things only occur in Germany, many apply to most of Europe as well.

1. Toilets use a press-and-hold water feed, which can be very annoying and may not even save water.
2. In cities, people bicycle everywhere, even while wearing business casual attire.
3. Sales tax is already included in store price tags and restaurant menus.
4. Tips are also included in restaurant prices (though you may still tip additionally).
5. Gas costs about $7.50/gallon.
6. Cars are much smaller, nearly ALL manual transmissions, usually diesel, and speed limits don't exist on many highway stretches.
7. Obtaining a drivers license costs around $1000 and requires training courses/tests. Must be 18+.
8. Solar panels can be seen on houses in almost any direction you look.
9. Most people younger than 60 will speak English (as a 2nd language) pretty well.
10. Movie theaters have restaurants in them, offering a huge selection of food/drinks for the movie. They sometimes also have assigned seating like in an airplane.
11. Almost EVERY plastic/glass bottle has a deposit value on it. This encourages people to return empty bottles and/or rummage through trash to profit from recycling.
12. Usually bottles are purchased in a crate of a dozen, and returned to receive around $3 back. The bottles are then washed and reused (even better than recycling).
13. Garbage is collected only every other week, and the typical home only gets about a cubic foot of volume for trash (There are separate containers for compost and paper/plastic which are about 3 times in volume each.)
14. Their elected chancellor is female.
15. The average birth rate is 1.38 children per mother, one of the lowest in the world. They have huge incentives such as mandatory maternity leave for both parents.
16. No one drinks tap water, they drink bottled water instead (sometimes bubbled), and ordering tap water at a restaurant usually costs a small fee.
17. Smoking cigarettes is very common still.
18. Healthcare is centralized and regulated by the government, making prices very affordable and covering everyone.
19. High quality beer is almost always cheaper than soda/water.
20. The drinking age is 14 for beer/wine (with adult supervision), 16 without adult supervision, and 18 for hard liquor.
21. Prostitution is legal and regulated.
22. Free speech is not the same, i.e. holocaust denial is illegal.

Technology

I thought this was a joke when I first saw it, but nope. It's real. Religion is still managing to infiltrate new technology mediums. And here I was hoping it'd fade away in the near future along with many of its outdated methodologies.

That electronic tablet device represents everything that religion is not. Do you know how many centuries of scientific and engineering struggle it took to create this masterpiece? Testing and questioning our understanding of the laws of physics and chemistry to progress us out of the dark ages of religious stagnation? This is a slap in the face to some of the greatest minds who came before us, such as Galileo, who sacrificed and suffered from religious persecution just to point out some observable scientific truths.