Why I'm not an Atheist
Preamble: If you are insulted by being called an idiot, and you call yourself an atheist, please don’t read further.
Apology: To Bertrand Russell and the Bertrand Russell estate as I do not mean to mock his work Why I’m not a Christian, since I haven’t read that book even though I’ve owned it for over 20 years.
Thesis: If you don’t subscribe to a certain mode of thought, why would you classify yourself by using terminology from that mode of thought?
Materials needed: A little knowledge of Monism, Dualism, Pluralism and circular logic. Or just being Gnostically Psychotic will do.
As a point of reference, I would like to state that I am not religious, mystical, or in any way superstitious, except in matters of Simian Logic. I don’t mind being insulted to my face, behind my back or in written form. Because of this penchant for insults, I’m going to be very insulting to a specific group of people: Those who label themselves atheists; I would like to go after those who label themselves agnostics also, but by the nature of this argument, it wouldn’t make sense.
Religion was a big part of my life while I was growing up, and any theory or school of thought (religious, philosophical, or otherwise) would scare the Hell out of me. But as a senior in High School, 11th grade to be precise, I encountered Existentialism. This made me re-evaluate my outlook on life. Being young and prone to leaps of faith, I decided that I would embrace this Existentialism and become an “atheist”, not realizing that not all Existentialists were atheists.
In my first year of college I took Religion 100 (yes, it was really called that) and in this class I was exposed to different religions, some that I had known and others that seemed alien to me. At the same time I took Philosophy 101 with a Professor who was a self-proclaimed Existentialist and introduced me to something called Phenomenology. I believed at this time that I was on the right track to flick off the shackles of Religion and become a “free thinker”, an “atheist”.
But I matured. Slowly it dawned on me that a “free thinker” and an “atheist” were contradictions by strict definition of both ideas. Logically, a free thinker is someone whose thought is free from convention, the status quo and does not accept the concept of a “norm”. An atheist, by semantic definition, is someone who opposes the idea that there is a divinity, and rejects all things metaphysical. Yes, this is a gross exaggeration and misrepresentation of these ideas, but I’m writing this so you’ll just have to bear with me.
It follows, based on my great logical deductive mode of thought, that a free thinker would be at odds with an atheist. I will explain in a progressive manner so you can follow my thinking and arrive at the same conclusion as I do, because you’ll have no choice.
I. Monism and why this can’t exactly work anywhere within our existence
Monism is the idea that there is just “one”, and the “other” is just the absence of this “one”. Plato is one of the most popular Monists to have ever lived, and the most despicable philosopher I have ever read. To elucidate the previous point, Plato was a fascist.
In his Republic, he describes this cave… I know, you’ve heard it before. I’ll skip to how I perceive this series of nonsense about our world being a Monad. Platonic philosophy asserts that there is just one essence, of which everything else is a copy of this essence. This one essence is the true object of reality, of which you are unaware of unless you are Plato, which means that you’d be a fascist, but we experience existence through mere copies of this one object of reality. Therefore, we are like dumb animals living in a cave thinking that shadows being thrown against the cave wall is reality. How obnoxious is that?
Early Christianity, via the insane St. Augustine, embraced this Monadic mode of thought, believing that Evil is merely the absence of Good. Therefore, to force someone to accept God, who is good, will make this person not Evil. The development of Monadic Christianity is not within the scope of this argument, because, frankly, I don’t know enough of it. All I know is that I had to read St. Augustine’s The Confessions twice and that once was more than enough.
This presupposes that if one is Evil, one is empty because one lacks any substance to define oneself since only the Good exists. To be Good, then, is to be full (of crap).
Atheism is partially monistic, and partially idiotic, and mostly just stupid. One assertion of atheism is that there is no God (or divinity, or deity, or any type of supernatural being), which assertion tends to monistic thought. All atheists ever do is to say that there is no God, without proof, without thought, or in any sensible way that would make someone intelligent think. How is this different than a religious person asserting that there is a God (or divinity, or deity, or any type of supernatural being), without proof, without thought, or in any sensible way that would make someone intelligent think. From this perspective, they are only the opposite sides of a single coin. Yes, yes, I know about theology and books on atheism that prove their point. But God is a concept that cannot be proven to exist or not exist, therefore, no matter how many words are wasted on this concept, there will be no tangible evidence to prove it either way. So, go to Hell.
As a labeled atheist, then, one is just standing on the other side of the monistic line, or monadic wall if you prefer, from the religious.
II. Dualism and why this limits your choice to only two things
Christian Theologians became smarter as time wore on, and they realized that if the Monad prevailed, there would be no enemies to fight, since Evil is only the absence of good, they’d only be fighting empty people, or things. So, they invented dualism, revamped the Hebraic Shaitan into Satan, and created an Evil enemy to fight. Now, there was something solid, objective, real that was Evil that was no longer just the absence of Good. It was real, and it was scary.
As a side note, I’d like to state that Satanists are fucking idiots. Satan was a Christian invention, is on the losing side, and in the end only takes those that can’t make it to Heaven. Dumbasses. And it’s not real!!!
Atheists, in a similar vein as Satanists, are dumbasses, because they are rejecting something that they don’t believe in. Atheists are a bit smarter than Satanists, though, because they reject Satan also and are not that stupid to choose the losing side in a flagrant, fantasy made up by uptight Theologians.
Atheists, though, by the very nature of their thinking, are not dualists because they can’t conceive of more than just one thing. To them there is nothing but the non-existence of God (or divinity, or deity, or any type of supernatural being). I hope the previous sentence makes sense because I’m having problems trying to decipher my own logic.
By accepting the term “atheist”, though, the atheists in a dualistic Christian world are putting themselves in the category of the “other”, which now exists thanks to smart Theologians. So, if they do not accept God, then they must be Evil, since in Dualism the two things exist independent of each other. Therefore, they have now made enemies of people who believe in things that they don’t think exists. I would call this stupid, or, to be more precise, idiotic.
Why even bother with things that you don’t believe are real or don’t exist? Why is this such a passion that you need to use their terminology to define yourself? The following section will make my final point (Thank God you say).
III. Pluralism and why Spock is wrong about the many being more important than the one, or the few
It is very hard for me to reject Spock’s proposition at the end of The Wrath of Khan because I believe in the Socialist Political process of thought. But I must because I believe it to be a militaristic, corporate, share holder propaganda. They, the greedy ones, use this to lure young men (and now women) to go fight wars just so the greedy ones can profit and make lots of money, and keep everyone in dire poverty.
But, this also has some bearing on why atheists are idiots.
The idea of pluralism is that there isn’t just the one, or the two, but there is the many. If there are the many, then there must be more things than just Good and Evil, more than God and Devil, more than Human and Divine. There is a multi-colored kaleidoscope shifting and casting various colorful images upon our retinas. This is, in a basic and completely un-professional, a description of pluralism.
The Religious mind can’t accept this because there must be just Good and Evil, that Good and Evil are not mere arbitrary ideas used to manipulate the masses. Good and Evil cannot be relativistic and ambiguous terms to be used to further one’s belief. But they are.
Atheists have fallen into this trap by accepting the religious term use by the Religious in order to further their belief systems. In this sense, atheists are aiding the very thing they reject. Atheists are giving the Religious fuel for their armaments, their lust for power, and their lust for God.
Theos is the Greek word for God, divinity, or whatever powers that they believed controlled our lives. Atheos means no God. This is going back to monistic thought. So, why would one use a term from a camp of thought that they reject? You can argue that they are doing so to own that word. But we know how that turns out, you become the basis of ridicule from people like me.
Since it is a given, at least for me, that monistic and dualistic thoughts do not work in contemporary society, then it is only logical that pluralism is the next logical choice. Atheists and the Religious seem to be stuck in the monistic or dualistic mode. If there is more than one, then there is more than just one Religion, or one Atheist. Or, more than just two Religions and two Atheists, which is why I believe that atheists are idiots.
In the pluralistic mode, a religion is just one method of looking at life, and each individual religion is a specific form of this method of looking at life. Some religions do not believe in a God (or divinity, or deity, or any type of supernatural being). That said, the atheists main qualm is against religion. If that is true, then they can’t argue against those religions that do not have a deity. Most pantheistic religions fall into this category. Also, atheists were born from a struggle between Christianity and its non believing constituents, which puts atheists in the same tradition as Christianity. Well, most of them anyway.
Yes, this doesn’t make sense but I’m also very tired of defending myself against atheists and the religious. Religion to me is just a concept, like mermaids, dragons, pegasi, a functional Windows Operating System. Therefore, any terminology, lexicon, dixi, whatever that comes from that mode of thought is of no concern to me. Categorizing myself by using a term that stands in opposition to something that I don’t believe is true, is just inane. I respect people for their beliefs, but I don’t respect people who label themselves as atheists because that term is religious in nature used by the very people who reject religion and God.
That makes absolutely no sense to me. I wouldn’t go around calling myself an “aexistentialist” just because I no longer subscribe to Existentialism. I don’t call myself an aMicrosoftian just because I don’t believe Microsoft will ever release an Operating System that will be secure, functionally not idiotic, and which will actually work like they promised. The point is why fuel a conflict against something you don’t believe in. Using the term atheist does just that. And it’s just a ridiculous label. Either religion matters in your life and you describe yourself by its terminology, or it doesn’t and you just go along merrily on your own road. It’s simple, but it seems for some people they just can’t avoid a fight.
In this era of the many, it is sane to label yourself according to the terminology, vocabulary, or lexicon that exists within your own belief system. If the term “theos” does not apply, why label yourself that way. If God is no different than Pandora, or Puck to you, then “theos” shouldn’t apply to you.
Therefore, I’m not an atheist and I never will be. But, you can all go to Hell.
