It is wrong to be Atheist, it is better to be Agnostic.

Against a religious opponent an Atheist and an Agnostic will be friends of one mind. When alone, they’ll be bitter antagonists, one accusing the other of a closed mind and the second the other of a mind too broad to be of any use. Obviously, the latter charge is against the Agnostic. But it is my sense that the Agnostic is the one that will answer all the questions. The Agnostic is armed to the teeth, for to him all is about knowledge and knowing, and nothing about believing. It has been the claim of a popular Atheist commentator that Agnosticism is “the pussy version of Atheism.” Well, it may certainly be viewed in that sense by those who do not understand the mind of the Agnostic, an ever rotating machinery grinding at questions, unsatisfied with both extreme positions of the Theist and the Atheist. The Agnostic in that sense is the true philosopher, the true thinker, and in short, the real scientist.

According to the same commentator mentioned above—name not worth mentioning—Agnostics stand in error. To him it is all about a question in your heart: “do you believe or don’t you believe?” Well, unfortunately, that is not what launched the Shuttle Discovery into orbit. Just believing does not answer the question of mechanics or questions of the universe. As much as Atheists would like and seek to separate themselves from what is worldly to what is religious mystery, they can’t logically do it, since we are dealing with Substance and Absolutes. Theirs is not a mind unequal to one that believes one opinion is as good as the other. “I believe this is how it is and therefore it is” does not answer the mysterious question of the dead cat in the box. To say one doesn’t believe a dead cat is in the box doesn’t make the cat disappear from it or make it nonexistent; one word is not enough to make the space flat or curved; it is like saying that the tree did not fall in the forest because we couldn’t hear it. To not believe in God does not make God disappear.

The question of a probable existence of a “mover” or any entity whatsoever, whether it had any hand in any visible creation or not, or has or has no influence therein, should be a matter of thought and study, not speculation. In this sense, the Atheist is like the Existentialist, without a reason to live but going to school, because somehow or other there’s a reason to live. This and other trends of the Atheist promulgate a speculative mind, set in a conviction like that of any religious pastor that stamps his foot on the floorboard of his stage to tell his audience that God is like those planks of wood, real and with motion, and that just like the planks of wood sustain him so will God sustain the believer. The mind that questions and studies all is a learner of mysteries. In this light the Agnostic is an active mind, closer to the Atheist in the refutal to the god of the Bible, but without disparaging the probability of the unknown. There is an existing Absolute to the Agnostic—the existence of the “it is” or “it isn’t.” To the Agnostic the middle ground is the Absolute, regardless of opinions. Opinions to the Agnostic are just that, opinions—some smarter than others, perhaps closer to the truth, but still only opinions. Whether an opinion approaches the truth is not the field of the Agnostic—the Agnostic wants to touch, and he or she will spend endless nights and days questioning the universe, the unknown, and God.