Why I am not an atheist

Curiosity, goddamn it, made me ask an atheist friend what does he say during orgasm. After giving me a  "would you like to find out by yourself?" wicked smile, he eventually confessed he used to say "Zeus, damn it, Zeus". But now, he just mumbles "Oh my Flying Spaghetti Monster!" and although it takes a bit longer to say, it also stretches his orgasms out longer. That is something psychologists should consider in their studies. Some fellow atheists, however, go to extremes and prefer to take their anti-religious view in bed by screaming “Oh, my science, oh, my science!”, which obviously is a major turn off. Or maybe not?

Let alone that I consider pretty rude not to be told anything when I sneeze (god bless), I realized once more why I can’t join the atheist club. Not necessarily because I need to thank anyone during orgasm. Most of the times, we hardly articulate anything coherently although "spank me!" sounds pretty articulate to me.

Sorry if I tricked you into reading this by starting out with what it seems to be a sex chat, but I will be honest with you. It is agnosticism that I want to “preach”, not a sexual lexicon.

Dawkinites reproached to religious people that they brain wash their children by serving them a limited and naive theory about creationism. That it is not fair for children to be labeled conservatory, liberal, monetary expert, Christian or Muslim. That children should not inherit their parents’ political and religious views.

With all due respect to Monsieur Dawkins, culturally, it makes no sense. Religious parents will raise religious children, and atheist parents will raise atheist children. Otherwise, we will have double standards. It is only agnostic parents that give their children a chance to discover the world for themselves and make a fully informed choice when they grow up.

Now, let alone the aborigines on some remote island that have no idea about god, Christ, Flying Spaghetti Monster or Tea Pot, who have an innate atheism, the latter is culturally learned analogous religion. Similarly, religion or its lack off is passed onto our children as a rite of passage. Like Christians, atheists are not born. They are made. When we give up our mental capacity to reflect on our own thoughts, and origins, about cosmos, creation and evolution, we will disappear as species.

Well, here is why I am not an atheist, as:
If religion is not innate and is culturally determined, isn't atheism culturally determined as well?
If it comes down to faith, then atheism became a faith of not believing in god. And I want to be faith free.
If atheism is confronting and challenging to all religions, then I am for it.
If atheism converts into a partisan militant doctrine out to hunt down Christians exclusively, then I am against it.
If we should call ourselves skeptics, then we should be true to ourselves and be skeptics all the way and doubt not only religion, but science as well.

Sheltering doubts is what keeps us sane and not exchanging one religion (Christianity) with another (scientific atheism).

True, the evolution theory is a bit depressing, as it rips of the fake consolation, the delusion and the hope that religion feeds. This could be the reason that many people, some of them highly intelligent, find it hard to renounce it and refuse to embrace what it seems to be a breakthrough in mankind’s progress and process of understanding our origins. It is only human to want to be gently lied to sometimes.

Although rationally tormenting and tiring, I believe that agnosticism as a neutral, middle path is the passageway to enlightenment.
I believe that an agnostic manages to keep his moral integrity by not choosing sides.
I believe an agnostic is not necessarily a spiritual coward or an uneducated atheist, but rather a referee.
I believe that if science is (or should be) neutral, so should be people.
I believe that agnosticism is a sign of a healthy mind and atheism or religious fundamentalism is not.
I believe that an agnostic can live his life more freely, with respect for others views, preferring a stance of science and pure reason to mysticism, pseudo science, superstitions and spirituality.

If god is a "principle" of stability while everything is prone to transformation, I could believe in that god.
If god is our better selves, I could believe in that god.
If god is science, I could believe in that god.
If god is proof beyond reasonable doubt, I believe in that god.
I don't believe in a supreme BEING. But I do believe that human beings are sometimes supreme.

Do I believe in intelligent design? No.
Do I believe there is a god that created me from dust, or Adam's rib? No.
Do I believe in Thor or Zeus or Allah? No.
Do I believe that Jesus was the son of god? No.
Do I believe that a virgin woman was impregnated by a super natural power? No.

Scientists proposed the Big Bang theory, when the universe was so hot that it was filled with this proton-neutron-electron “soup”. Ironically enough, it was a Roman Catholic priest who came with the Big bang theory in 1931. His name was Georges Lemaitre.

Religious creationists claim that "it cannot be just nothing", that it must have been a creator.

Are you ready to dismiss the "nothingness/vacuum" theory? That something must have existed before it? That the world cannot just come out of "nothing"? Well, here are a few examples of scientific uses of "nothingness/vacuum": incandescent light bulb; electron beam welding, cold welding, vacuum packing, vacuum frying; fabrication of semiconductors and optical coatings, thermal insulation of thermos bottles; freeze drying, adhesive preparation, distillation, metallurgy, and process purging; electron microscopes and vacuum tubes including cathode ray tubes; flywheel energy storage and ultracentrifuges; vacuum servo, used to provide power assistance for the brakes. There, after all nothingness can produce something.

Some say when it comes down to faith, the answer can only be "I do", or "I don't". Yet, there are times when the perfect answer is "I don't know." And now, it is one of those times.

And this is why I am an agnostic.

The hypocrisy gene

What is the difference between a religious bigot’s intolerance and an atheist bigot’s intolerance?

A proverb says that if you are not outraged, you are not paying attention. Well, we paid attention and the more we did, the less outraged we should have become. Otherwise, we would steer straight to involution. If polishing on our human features fails, than we didn’t jump more than an evolutionary step, and we still scratch our asses and smell our fingers. I actually know people that still do that. They are called men.

No matter how much you keep on telling to yourself that human race might be not hardwired for belief but it is hardwired for goodness, at the end of the day some of your fellow primates are just assholes. I wish it would be a scientific and academic term to better define this profile, but there isn’t.

The imaginative Urban Dictionary gives me “Adolf” as a synonym but I think I would rather go Tourette and personal on the definition and stick to: asshole or SOB for people who are irritating, ridiculous, narrow-minded, intolerant and hypocrite.

Little do we know about the goodness of people. It seems we know more about the wasted space of the universe than human race. As every trend, this karma theme haunted me for a short while and I tried my stupid best to help various people that seemed troubled or in need. I even set up a group named “Guerrilla Kindness” trying to persuade others to pay goodness forward, explaining that my lack of religion doesn’t prevent me from doing good. As we are good doers by nature, although we are not religious by nature. That always made sense to me and resonated with my personality. As an agnostic I can pursue a moral and fulfilled moral and valuable life, and I don’t need some inexplicable higher and abstract power to grant and vouch for my moral qualities. I just choose to live my life fully informed as an intellectual and rational human being.
Agnosticism is a sign of a healthy mind. You know what is said “when you talk to God, is called prayer; if God talks back to you, is called schizophrenia”. It is the mind over matter and an agnostic is not necessarily someone who should be looked down upon, as being unable to perceive or transcend some deity concept, but someone who makes appeal to reason and intellect in order to understand the surrounding world.

It is said that an agnostic cannot hold moral standards and are usually more inclined to have wider or more libertine views on abortion, monogamy, euthanasia, drug usage or family values. This assessment is totally wrong because it starts from the erroneous premises that religion is the only one that leads toward a moral behavior. Morals usually define the goodness or badness of human action and character and are an intrinsic side of the human construction. People have or don’t have morals independently of their religious inclination. An atheist can be a fulfilled moral person the same way a religious person can have no morals whatsoever.

A Good Samaritan is urged to perform acts of random kindness because it is said it does good for the health (helper’s high, diminishes stress, the benefits return, happy thoughts, affiliative connection). Is this why we ultimately become good doers, because it reduces stress? Where is the selfless act in it?

Wise men say karma is how people treat you and how you react is yours. Blow that. We ultimately do good because we are selfish, hoping either for an immediate payback, as in helper’s high, or in some sort of pay it forward it comes back to you, or some ultimate destination like heaven.

The selfish gene is the gene that makes us wake up in the morning, thinking of ourselves first, feeding, clothing, catering and nurturing ourselves first, craving for social recognition for ourselves, loving others because we like how they love and see us back, and ultimately helping others because are helping ourselves. All we want is to live happily ever after and reincarnate as humans and not as cats. Needless to say that cats experience excruciating pain when they copulate. We set our minds on something, and our entire being works on fulfilling that ideal. We are the masters of adaptation even if this implies character inconsistency and emotional instability. We are shameless chameleons but we call it “adaptability”. It does sound better, let’s face it, but it is hypocrisy, pure and simple. The hypocrisy gene.

We reject religion because we like to think reason backed by science is the ultimate detainer of the truth.
We reject religion because we think it is a trader and a merchant of hope, delusion and hypocrisy.

We reject religion because we reject god.

And we reject god because we love freedom and truth.

And because affiliation and social acceptance increase our chances to reproduce we look for fellow “rejecters”, hoping we’ll find in them similar traits. Much to your surprise you reach to the conclusion that some are as vehement and as narrow-minded in their “agnosticism” as your religious counterparts. Once more you are asked to take sides, as being on the middle lane is not really a viable option. You are lied off with the question “do you believe or not?” as you seem like a lower ripped fruit for both believers and atheists.

Can you be a libertarian fighting for freedom but be bothered and comment about other people smoking? Does the other’s rights end where your nose begins?
Can you claim you want your rights to be respected and have a scientific education in school without respect for the OTHER views, claiming there are no other views?

What is the difference between a religious bigot’s intolerance and an atheist bigot’s intolerance?
I thought being an atheist was living your life freely, with respect for others views, preferring a stance of science and pure reason to mysticism, pseudo science, superstitions and spirituality.
I thought that being an atheist was about being reasonable.
I thought that being an atheist was not about bashing the “other side”. The purpose of this pseudo war is not to make the other bastard die for his side, but for you to die for yours.
I thought that being an atheist was about living as a human with all the moral values, goodness, tolerance, open-mindedness, curiosity about the surrounding world.
I thought that being an atheist was about reaching out to other people without imposing your opinions on them.

Otherwise, except for the lack of god, there will be no difference between a rabid televangelist that exorcises demons live on TV in the name of an unaware and puzzled Baby Jesus, and an atheist who vehemently argues that the possibility for a teenager to choose his own path of either creationism or evolutionism is utterly wrong, as there is no alternative explanation, “it is just religion”. Well, and evolution is just a science.

Atheists like this do more damage to the “cause” of science, than a cohort of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Passionate agnosticism is one thing, militant atheism is another. Unfortunately, Atheism became more like a dogma, a religion within itself and atheists, just narrow-minded Christians with no god.

Atheists should not impose their lack of belief. They should have opinions, theories, teach, educate, explain and make people realize that if there is indeed free-will, there you are, you have it, make you own choice and live with it. Just let the other live too. As we are all looking for the truth, it is just that some will take longer to get there. Since it is not the answer that is wrong, it is the question.

Natural born atheists

Until recently, I thought it was my father who brought me presents on Freeze Day. I was devastated to find out that it was actually someone called Santa and that Freeze Day was, in fact, called Christmas, a day when a vague concept impregnated a virgin woman, who gave birth to a son who died and resurrected three days later.

As I grew up, I realized that all roads lead to some sort of knowledge but the shortest and most correct one goes through Science City.

Religion versus science became in time a Christians versus Atheists debate. Let alone the simple facts that religion comprises a set of dogmas which include the three Abrahamic monotheistic ones, plus tens of other sects, it is obvious that Christianity alone is not the Axis of all Evils. Is it dogmatic? Evidently. Is that bad? Of course. Is deluding people? Yes. Is religion itself entirely bad? No. In fact, numerous studies show that religious groups tend to be more cohesive and co-operant than secular groups.

Joseph Bulbulia and Andrew Mahoney, of Wellington University in New Zealand, came up with the Hand Grenade Experiment which concluded, unfortunately for us, the secular people, that Christianity can trigger altruistic sacrifice, for whatever reason, for fellow Christians. While the secular did not. Yes, religion does seem to be a powerful tool for generating group cohesion.

Similarly, Ali Ahmed at Växjö University in Sweden studied if religious students were more co-operative than the secular students. Religion can, it seems, change behavior, into more positive traits.

During the dark days of history, Christianity had the most shameful periods which culminated with witch hunt, Crusades, and climaxed with the atrocious Inquisition. Two thumbs up to the institution of church which knew how to adapt to modern times and lowered its vehement tone to fit. Vatican’s green light for the most recent Harry Potter film is such an example of Church’s current laissez faire et laissez passer attitude.

The Islam however, although it started as a derivative from the Buddhist and Christian dogmas, it chose to give a more political modern hue to its approach and added a belligerent aspect, as a response to the current political issues. Tit for tat in the name of an unaware god and decided by humans, became their motto.

Will atheism cure religious terrorism? Is there even a religious terrorism? Some claim that religion although not responsible for all these troubles it however severely exacerbated them. Nonetheless, secular societies that promoted the rule of Man as the ultimate god, the Übermensch, were equally as bad and socially unhealthy as the religious ones. Communism and fascism are just secular societies that did not work out.

Some say we are hardwired for belief, while others sustain it is definitely not a part of our nature as we are born atheists, since we have no idea of god at birth, “being therefore unacquainted with theism”. We are naturally born atheists. Later on, as we evolve as human beings and are exposed to these concepts, we stimulate our capacity to grasp these issues which we weren’t even aware of.

An atheist can also be someone who wasn’t exposed to any deity concept and not necessarily someone who rejects it. Is god an innate concept? Or are we born tabula rasa?

Some say religion is needed as it provides inspiration but especially consolation. Indeed, asking some unfortunate Yemeni shepherd, a downtrodden Afghan woman or an orphan in South America, who lives in a shanty town, eating from a garbage bin, to reject a savior deity thus ripping off their last shred of hope that ultimately might keep them alive, and start believing in science, it is both inhumane and irrational.

Is atheism just a fancy trend that only the First World and high class and posh intellectuals should and can embrace? Is religion versus science a genuine and fruitful debate? Can atheism actually become a universal (lack of) religion?

In its incipient phases, mankind needed religion to explain the unknown, therefore as a substitute for what science was to offer later. Afterward, humans needed it as a psychological leverage as it offered comfort, hope and consolation. Later on, it added a moral component of good doing, altruism and a hue of humility to the human race. However, recent discoveries showed that good doing is an innate concept and we can be moral and fulfilled human beings without believing in any particular god.

Did we need religion to know how small and insignificant we are in the great scheme of things? Is there even a great scheme of things?