Atheists Demystified (to a slight extent)

One of the most common topics these days in forums all over the net is atheism: its rise and the 'threat' it poses to the world. And very often I find these forum threads populated with comments and ideas that are hopelessly misinformed. Tired by all that useless chatter out there I decided to post my own little piece of 'useless chatter' out here away from the clashing voices of the debating multitude to help demystify the often misunderstood Atheist and also to caution those overly zealous Atheists who are about as dangerous as any fanatical religious extremist. Of course many other people have probably written more about this topic and in a much better fashion that I, but still I can't resist adding my own two bits, perhaps just for the sake of convincing myself that I too have contributed to this vast muddle of a discussion.

The first thing most people must get clear in their heads is that atheism is NOT a religion in fact, the word atheism is very misleading in this respect as it gives the impression of being a strict order, very much like a religious one, which it is not, therefore I'll try not to use that term too much. The general belief among theists who haven't had much exposure to the atheistic world is that atheists have a fixed doctrine and that they are but members of a different religion of sorts, an anti-religion religion if you will. One would think that this oxymoronic sentence itself would give them pause and make them rethink, yet for some reason it doesn't. But anyway, what I want to stress out here is that atheists DO NOT share some common doctrine which has to be obeyed to the letter, we just have certain beliefs that we've come to accept after rationally analysing all the evidence available to us and arriving at our own independent conclusions.

Of course, the facts being what they are, the beliefs of most atheists will be strikingly similar, but yet again, that does not mean that there is a common doctrine, just that they've seen what is to be seen and since the world is the same to everyone (as in the general world) the conclusions will also be more or less similar. But they'll have their differences too. Some will believe in the Multiverse theory, some won't, some will believe in the Super String Theory, some won't. But then again these beliefs are not fixed, if one theory is proven somehow the others will be discarded as we decide our beliefs rationally. We believe that nothing can travel faster than light, but if we do find a particular situation under which this is possible, we'll revise our beliefs and this is one major difference between religious beliefs and the scientific beliefs promoted by atheists.

Religious beliefs are based on blind faith. There is never an attempt at proving or verifying anything pertaining to them as one cannot question these faiths for doing such will be blasphemy or hurtful to religious sentiments which can be perilous to the well being of the curious soul, while in science beliefs are constantly questioned and the only thing being hurt is the ego of some scientist which doesn't make for much of a threat in comparison.

However I digress. The gist of what I wanted to say is that an atheist is, more often than not, open to new ideas and change. He thinks things through and the true atheist never shirks at the thought of changing his beliefs if new evidence demands it.

In fact, if a rational atheist or agnostic is shown irrefutable proof of God's existence he/she will convert immediately, as opposed to those people who are strictly opposed to any such beliefs to such an extent that it has become one of the most unchangeable tenets of their lives. The latter will resist all change and theirs is not the rational atheism that I follow, but the irrational fanatic one which is no better than the exteremist form of religion that many people preach.

Another point I'd like to clear up is the belief that Atheism has been the cause for some of the greatest tragedies like World War II and also the discrimination against religious people in North Korea. For the World War II point all I'd like to say is: READ UP ON THE FACTS!

The second World War was not fought for the idea that there is no god, it was fought because of hurt German sentiments after severe and unnecessary humiliation by the smug Allied Forces in World War I , it was fought because of an irrational hatred of Jews in the mind of one charismatic, fanatical man, it was fought because of a belief in the race superiority of the 'Aryan' race and to establish a superior world power.

As for the discrimination in North Korea. Read up on The Communist Manifesto by Marx and Engel, read up some good scholar's work on the topic, try and understand the gist of what communism is all about and then you'll realise that the reason for persecution of religious people in North Korea is not because the state is atheist. No, its because the communist belief is that all men are equal and that spreads divisiveness and inequality and hence must be curbed and as communists are bound to be rather stern with these issues as compared to us non-communist people, the punishment for being religious in a communist nation can often be very painful, even terminally so. In short the state of North Korea is atheistic because it is communist, i.e. it doesn't ban religions and get equality for all as a by product instead it believes in equality (of a hypocritical kind perhaps, but equality all the same) and hence bans religions, thus making its atheism a by product.

Also before bandying about the atheism promotes violence line I'd appreciate it if the person promoting that belief looks back on to his/her own religion's past and even at the present state.

So basically the average atheist you see is not a bogeyman to be feared, he's just another human being who simply doesn't share your beliefs.

Of course, there are some who take their atheism to a new level and become the very sort of people from the non-believing crowd that I detest in the group of believers: extremists.These people believe that all religions are outdated and should be done away with and that this must be enforced by some means (preferably martial force as per some complete imbeciles) that brooks no argument and ensures complete eradication of religion. They want complete eradication of religion by force which in my eyes makes them no better than those who kill, torture and maim others in the name of religion, both encourage/practice terrorism and the world is better off without either.

I too believe that religions are stifling and create unnecessary divides, at least in their current interpretations. I believe that we should stop placing a child under the tag of 'x' religion just because the parents belong to the same, I believe that the child should be raised free from all pressure to study all the data available on religions, on science and as per his/her own conclusions decide whether he/she believes in a god or not. But these changes will come gradually they cannot be enforced by forceful means doing so will not only be fascist in the extreme and harmful to our freedoms in general but will also make these religions rallying points for people opposed against fascism and will make them the beacons of hope that stood out against the 'fascist atheists' thus leading to a more powerful resurgence of these religions, an end that these extremists surely don't want.

A very good example given by Richard Dawkins (to the best of my knowledge) is that of the Greek Mythos and of Norse Mythology. The Greek Mythos was so powerful and influential that even the Romans adopted this Mythos and it remained a powerful and influential force for a very long duration of time (whether more than or less than Christianity, I do not know) but now no one worships even a single deity from the pantheon of Greek/Roman Gods. As for the Norse mythology, their mighty Thor is not a deity worshiped anymore, he's more of a comic superhero these days. These myths as we call them now were religions in their own right, but they died off slowly and so too will our current batch of religions if given time (and not strengthened by foolish acts of extremism on a non-believers part) and we'll soon enter a future where there is no more blood letting and violence due to different opinions about a creator or interpretations of what the said creator did or demanded of our species, a future where there is no 'hurt religious sentiment' to stall progress and scientific development... minus a violent transition.

P.S. Of course, I know that my dream of a peaceful future is probably too idealistic of me, but at least I can hope for a future where friends and acquaintances don't end up as enemies just because one group believes in Text A while other in Text B.

They can have more logical reasons for fighting like... who's footing the bill :P

EDIT (1/03/15): However, a recently read blogpost (I read it on the phone and so the link will have to be added later) shows that even in 'atheism' these days there is a almost religious vein of thinking. The post was titled 'How Dawkins got pwned' or somthing along those lines and raised certain interesting points about one of the most outspoken (Christian?) atheists in the world. That apart seeing how entrenched the idea of religion is in our society I doubt we shall ever be rid of it. It may change and morphose into new forms. The gods of the current major religions may merge into one confusingly jumbled entity or may vanish altogether to be replaced by the religion of technology with people religiously following, working towards, and utilising the latest technology upgrades. For all you know, we may end up with a techno(-theo-)cratic society; somewhat like that of the planet Ix from the Dune universe; wherein science and technology are the sole (twinned?) deities whom we seek to appease. We may end up transitioning from the current set of abstract, metaphysical religions to a religion of science envisioned (?) in Asimov's Foundation saga, as well as other works by authors such as Neal Asher.

After all, we humans have had a love for the mystical and many a teams long for a hierarchy wherein we 'know our place'. A 'religious' structure would offer both. That being said, I'd prefer a pure technocratic society compared to one with theocratic influences, but I'll probably be long dead before we as a species reach that stage (assuming we don't kill ourselves off or make our planet unfit for ourselves to live on before that) so I guess to me it doesn't matter, except as an intellectual problem.