The Danger of Atheism

Fanaticism is not unique to religions. It finds itself in any dogma, in any in-tribe loyalty, in any idea that excludes others. Fanatics can be found in every group even those as seemingly benign as sports teams. In Europe, but it is true all over the world, fans of rival sports teams will brawl with one another and will generally hate passionately anyone who happens to root for the opposing team.

Whenever humans align themselves with an idea, and they hold that idea as a sacred truth, that is, a truth which requires no evidence and that frightens the holder of the idea to even consider, fanaticism rears its ugly head. Of course, this makes religions ample breeding grounds for fanaticism as well as many other species of evil.

Understood simply, when an idea becomes popular to a group of individuals, it means that the idea, whatever its original form had been, must now assume a simpler form in order to inspire and excite the otherwise bored and uninterested masses. Once the masses of individuals come together under the idea that they scarcely understand, they will feel enormous comfort, as they will now feel part of an exclusive and superior group to the rest of outside world. Community has always been the way humans escape the natural feeling of loneliness, which is the true state of man. Phrases like: "I do not wish to die alone." reveals the existential discomfort we all feel when we reflect on the lonely reality of life, and even more so, of death. Community has always been the antidote for such suffering; and communities generally form around an idea. It stands to reason then, that people who attempt to challenge the idea of the community will be met with scorn, dislike, and at times, violence. They may murder countless people in order to protect the idea that binds them, that inspires them, that lets them forget their horrible loneliness. 

This is the paradox of philosophers who wish to inspire. On the one hand what they wish to present is of a complex nature and has taken them long hours of contemplation to formulate. On the other, the masses are generally disinterested in difficult intellectual pursuits, and want their wisdom made chewy and easy to swallow. This is why we have not seen many philosopher kings, and why the most successful rousers of the otherwise drowsy public have been simple yet devilishly clever. Simple, for their thoughts are dull and ill-thought out; clever for they pander to the crowds giving them the bite-size inspiration that they so crave. The American Televangelists are a prime example of such rabble-rousers. They possess the unique ability to appear profound, while making sure not to say anything that will confuse the group they wish to inspire. In other words, they have leadership qualities.

Here lies the danger of the growing atheistic movement. Atheism has never caught hold of people as it has today. Atheism has moved quietly, stealthily through the ages. Religion has always been easy for the masses to gather around. Though many of its concepts are truly of complex nature, the clergymen have simplified for either their own benefit - that of power - or because they themselves did not understand the nature of the texts they were preaching. While the church was inspiring the masses to kill men accused of being apostates and burn women accused of witchcraft, the atheists have been quiet*. They have been philosophers, scientists, writers, poets. They have not ruled, they have not united. They drifted through the world, isolated wanderers, living almost entirely within their own minds. Whatever has slipped out from their writings and entered into the public sphere has generally been quotes pulled from much larger essays, and almost by necessity have been wildly misconstrued.

[*It is important to note here, that when I say that atheism has been a quiet idea, I am referring to the idea that we cannot know that God exists and therefore live as if he does not. I have not forgotten nor overlooked the cruelties and atrocities committed by regimes led by men who were atheists. Stalin, Mao, and Lenin, among others, though certainly atheists, did not do what they did because of atheism, they simply replaced the dogma of religion with there own self-serving dogma. This is also why they hated religion and wanted it expunged; for it is far easier to give a dogma to an otherwise dogma-less person, but it is a near impossibility to convince a person who already subscribes a dogma, to give it up for another one. As proven, tragically, by the many religious people who died as martyrs at the hands of these very regimes.]

Today however, the atheist community (as they are now called) is growing. The numbers of young adults casting aside their faith and grasping onto atheism is unprecedented. Discussions and debates are erupting all over the globe. Atheism has become a movement that wishes to see religion abolished or at the very least, tamed. Presumably, the Muslim extremists who are threatening to destroy the human race or submit them to Shariah law have caused the almost sudden surge of people wishing to do away with faith. Either that, or the bigoted Christians in America fighting with a violent rage to forbid the marriage of consenting adults of the same gender. Or perhaps, it is the rising death toll in the Middle East over Israel between the Jewish and Palestinian peoples. With members of both sides calling it a "holy land given to them by God," people have begun to scorn the idea that seems to be playing so large role in the endless conflict. It may be a combination of all three, perhaps it is something I have not here mentioned; either way, atheism as a movement is on the rise.

The danger of this is clear. As I wrote above, the masses generally do not get inspired by full ideas. Ideas, profound ideas, are multifaceted and require careful analysis if they are to be understood correctly. Atheism, as an idea, is complex, as is religion. Whether we wish to admit it or not, religion has within its tainted chambers many deeply philosophical and frankly, wonderful ideas. Many of those ideas are misunderstood by their practitioners but theologians have been pointing them out for ages. My own childhood faith, Judaism, is a magnificent social system, much of which could serve to benefit mankind, and much of which has! Christianity and Islam, though I am ignorant of much within their texts, have certainly caused a great many people to become refined and sensitive to the needs of others and the world at large. Allegory though it may be, it may still hold deep truths that could help us in the quest toward happiness.

Atheism, in its complexity, is not simply a system of ridicule against religion. It is a vision of mankind, free from dogma, coming together as fellow discoverers of a mysterious and awe-invoking universe. It seeks to perfect the highly evolved intellects of the human race with the goal of creating a better world not just for humans but for all the Earth's inhabitants.

Atheism and religion as ideas, though antipodal, are branches of the same tree: the curiosity to see what is behind the curtain. They are different conclusions to the same mystery. They are not partners, but they are certainly not enemies! Life is an unsolved mystery, and may remain so forever. It stands then that deciding how we should live should be the primary concern of conscious beings.

Atheism as a movement however, runs the very real risk that from within the intellectual garden will grow the wild weeds of fanaticism. Could we not imagine an atheist regime rising and banning religion out of fury of what dogmatic religion has done to the world, or out of fear of what it might do?

It is true that atheism can boast a purity of action in the blood-stained pages of history. Whereas religion must bow its head in shame and talk about moderation or reformation within its texts and practices, atheism can claim, rightfully so, the morally superior past. Denis Diderot rightly said: "The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has killed a great many philosophers." This has been the case in the past centuries, but what of the near future?

One who reads present day atheists speaking of religion will find their words are generally filled with disdain, mockery, or dripping with hatred of religion. The young adults, as is always the case, are filled with even more passionate hatred. The hatred, they always claim, is not against religious people, but religious ideas. That may be, but how long before the line is blurred or all but disappears? "Where they have burned books," the German journalist Heinrich Heine wrote, "they will end in burning human beings." The hatred for an idea does not take long before those who possess the idea are hated.

I must admit, that what I write so far as I know, has never been fulfilled. I have yet to hear of a case against religious people fueled by atheistic passion. What I write then is a warning to those who wish to see a world free of religion, who view that as the only true method to achieve global peace. For when one believes that to be the case, it is not long before he feels obligated to help it along. If discussions and debates do not do the trick perhaps violence would? To rationalize a minimal amount of violence to establish world peace would be a incredibly easy thing to do. Unless we calm the the stirring ocean of anti-religious hatred brewing in the hearts of many young adults, a war waged between the godly and godless seems like a horrible, yet plausible outcome.

This is not to say that we should not criticize ideas that religion promulgates. It does not mean that we should not debate, discuss and critique religion, or any other idea for that matter. Rather we should do so with humility that certainty cannot be met on these topics and that both sides have a voice that should be heard and considered. To claim that any idea is nonsense without first investigating it with an openmind, is arrogant and foolish. Such an attitude will not lead us in the direction of cohesive coexistence. A direction every human should be striving for.

The need then is to return to the journey. Return to doubt about our convictions. Realize the complexity of both religion and atheism as ideas, study them, contemplate them, and finally, and most importantly, realize that no one knows the truth, and we are but fellow travelers down the long and foggy road of existence.

Faith: Certainty in Uncertainty?

The evidence for and against religion is, for the time being, inconclusive. Religion, because of the way it is structured is unfalsifiable, so that no matter what arguments one brings against it, or scientific discoveries one uncovers that contradict it, religion will remain impervious, beyond the reaches of empirical proof or disproof. Of course, this says nothing of religion's validity, quite the contrary; in my opinion it weakens the argument, or rather makes it a mute point. It must be placed among the many unanswerable questions, put on the shelf, and taken down and dusted only when reality becomes a bore, and one wishes to stimulate the mind with unanswerable questions.

As an unfalsifiable, unprovable concept, religion becomes nothing more than a philosophical conundrum, tantamount to the question of individual existence, zombie brains, and the subjectivity of color. The God debate vanishes and the philosophical discussions begin: "Does God exist? Well, we can't know, but it would be good if he did. Or if they did. Or perhaps it wouldn't be good..." Any sort of concrete knowledge of the subject simply disappears into guesses, theories, and personal opinion. It certainly would not be a convincing reason to give up your life or, for that matter, take the life of someone else.

Though it is oft said, and not hard to imagine, that religion offers comfort to a great many people, if one is committed to living truthfully, a healthy skepticism seems to be the only reasonable route to take when a question is unknowable. If I cannot prove god, nor disprove him, how can anyone reasonably make a decision? Is it not the greatest hubris, and indeed, stupidity, to presume that your religion is right without sufficient evidence to prove it? Is it morally acceptable to teach children, indeed indoctrinate them, with fables of miracles and divine intervention, based on claims that were simply told to you as a child with equal conviction? 

It doesn't matter whether one is comforted by religion, repelled by it, or simply indifferent to it, the only rational approach to unknowable questions, is that of doubt. Regarding anything else in the world, would anyone ever be tempted to pose an argument to this point?

Indeed, it is quite perplexing that religious faith has survived as long as it has. Well, only perplexing until the secret of religion's success is revealed: "And these matters that I command you today shall be upon your heart. You shall teach them thoroughly to your children..." (Deuteronomy 6:6-7) Religion has always targeted the vulnerable minds of children. In this way it fills the young child's head before the child knows to doubt, to administer reason, even in the face of the authority of his parents or teachers. The child, believing without question, follows the path chosen for him by his parents and teaches the subsequent generation, and thus, religion survives. 

The only honest response to the question of God, is that of doubt and honest skepticism. To respond any different is to be dishonest; the reason for the belief, be that what it may. What could our world be like if only people were more in doubt about their religious convictions? How much could society have progressed if only people could admit to themselves that their faith in God is nothing more than a personal feeling, a whim, planted in youth, or received through contemplation, but a personal feeling, no more. As Bertrand Russel aptly wrote: "The whole problem with the world is that the fools and fanatics are so certain of themselves, and wise men so full of doubt." 

People who base their certainty of God's existence on personal experience or intuition have simply shut off their minds in favor of the comfort religion offers them. They consider the warm feeling in their heart as sufficient evidence for their faith. Yet, most of these people simply discount the thousands of people in other religions claiming their own experiences and intuitions. Such hypocrisy is tragically commonplace. 

I have heard religious people who find that leaving religion to accept atheism, is to them, just replacing one dogma for another. To them, though there is no sufficient evidence for God, he also can't be disproved, so why not continue to practice religion since no one knows the truth anyway. This is a great fallacy. Atheism is not a dogma. There are no principles one must accept on faith. Atheism is the removal of religion, returning your mind to a neutral state. It is ridding it of the dogmas placed upon it, to view the world with child-like innocence again. The sinister people who convinced the overwhelming masses that atheism is a religion did a great evil to truth. Atheism, is precisely the opposite of faith, as Bill Maher wittingly said: "Atheism is a religion, like abstinence is a sex position."

Atheism is looking at the world with eyes of wonder and applying your mind to understanding the majesty of the universe. It is having the courage to live in doubt about the questions that have no answers. It is being skeptical about fantastical claims, while remaining open to have your common sense proven utterly wrong (as science continues to do to us). It is not, when defined properly, a religion in any sense of the word.

One can, if one wishes, ponder on whether all of mankind is hooked up to the matrix, prisoners of a computer simulation. This is an unknowable point, that the majority of humankind simply does not think about. We do not spend our days obsessed with trying to break free of the computer program. Rather, we live as if it does not exist (and it probably doesn't). The same needs to be our reaction to God and any other claim that lies beyond the scope of reason. We can ponder it all we like, we can formulate fascinating theories about gods, aliens and robots, but to act on those theories is nothing short of lunacy. 

Faith traps your mind. It shackles your ability to critically think about anything that contradicts your faith. And for what; to retain certainty about that which has no evidence?! Could there be anything more backward! Should not every person who wishes to be intellectually honest simply say "I don't know" about that which is unknowable?!

It seems clear that the most honest, indeed noble, course for humankind to take is that of healthy skepticism towards religion and any other supernatural claims. Perhaps, if we do, we will yet see the end of the ideas which originate from the infancy of our species. 

Belief is not a Virtue

It is a common misconception among religious people, and because of its constant utterance even some secular people have subscribed to it, that belief in God is a virtue. Absolute faith is praised as a noble virtue, as something positive to be sought after.

The reason for this misconception is based on a misunderstanding of the nature of belief. The truth is: belief is not a choice. Belief is a direct reflection of something we hold true. You cannot believe something while simultaneously thinking it to be untrue. To put it in our terms, one cannot believe in God without also thinking that he actually exists. Therefore, what you think to be true you will believe in, and vice versa. This point is obvious, yet overlooked. If one doubts the truth of this notion, one should attempt not believing something he knows to be true, or believing something he knows is not. 

The first time I was informed that belief is not choice I was still a believer in God and almost immediately rejected the idea. It was only after stammering out a pathetic response to this claim, that I began to comprehend its validity. As a believer it was very humbling to suddenly realize that what I had once held as a virtue of mine was merely a reaction to an idea I had already accepted. 

People generally wish to be considered virtuous to themselves and more so to their friends. It is for this reason that we are so easily convinced that belief in God is a virtue. Belief in God for believers is not a difficult thing to retain. A believer can then be virtuous by the mere act of being himself! Even in the face of the worst suffering, so long as the believer still thinks that the notion of God is true, the most he will feel is anger or hatred toward God. Though the believer may overcome his anger and confuse this with choosing belief over disbelief -- and thereby feel virtuous -- he has done nothing more than fall back in love with an idea he never doubted.

I suspect that the origin of this misconception, promulgated by almost every religion, is far more sinister than simply wishing to be virtuous. When someone thinks that he chooses to believe in God, he then thinks of himself as better than he who doubts God. For as he chooses, so does the skeptic. The believer will then at best, pity the non-believer as we see in the more benign christian sects, and at worst, hate the nonbeliever, as we see in the fundamentalist Islamic regimes of today. Religion therefore sets itself apart from the secular as they who choose to believe in God against those who choose to disbelieve in him. 

Once we can admit that belief in God is nothing more than a reflection of what we consider a fact about reality, we can understand the great fallacy in blaming someone for doubting God, or praising one who doesn't. Of course, since our beliefs represent what we consider to be an actual state of reality, it behooves us then to have some evidence for this claim. Is this not the rule regarding everything else? This is why all religious people whom I have met have called on some personal experience, or reasonable argument, or piece of evidence that resonated with them as the reason they believe. I suspect it would be very hard to find a true believer in any religion who does so without some reason or another, at least not admittedly so.

When the reason for belief is challenged in the mind of the believer -- when he actually doubts the principles of his faith -- he will be compelled to find an answer of sorts to quiet his doubts. If he cannot find one, he may begin to doubt other points of his faith, and may eventually leave his faith entirely. What brilliance of certain religions then, to make belief a virtue and doubt a sin! 

The "virtue" religion is actually referring to is that of allowing oneself to be credulous to the supernatural, obedient to the religious authority, and to not question the "truths" it espouses. They seek not to excite your investigative mind, but rather to inspire your feeble heart. Why else would religion praise blind faith over honest skepticism, if not to keep the wolves far away from the sheep? 

Doubt too is not a choice. One can only choose to question the assumptions he has been taught. One can look for truth at the risk of his convictions. One can choose to be unafraid of what one might find... does this not seem virtuous? 

It is the skeptic who stands in opposition to religious dogmas, or societal convictions. He casts aside any unproven claims about reality and ventures forth to see them for himself. He does not wish to be told that faith requires him to not know, for to him that sounds suspicious and rather stupid. He does not need some clergymen to lead him shackled and comfortable; he is brave enough to face reality on his own... as a free man. 

Doubt has another feature that sets it as more positive than belief. It was best said by the English actor Sir Peter Ustinov: "Beliefs are what divide people. Doubt unites them." Doubt is the function of being unsure about a given proposition and therefore not willing to die or kill for it. How quickly peace among men could flourish, if we could only admit our own ignorance.  

It is humility (an actual virtue) to know the limits of man's knowledge. It is noble to admit those points of which he is ignorant, and it is brave to face this mysterious world as a man of doubt. It would seem then, that the path to doubt is the virtuous one, a path found only through honest questions, and an open mind. 

Are Science and Religion Partners?

Pope Francis has recently announced that he believes in the Big Bang theory and has reaffirmed that religion is compatible with science. He is not the first religious person to make such claims. Maimonides claimed that science has precedence to religion in matters regarding the laws of nature. Rabbi Abraham Kook, the chief of rabbi of Palestine in 1921, said regarding scientific discovery that: "In general this is an important principle in the conflict of ideas, that when an idea comes to negate some teaching in the Torah, we must not, to begin with, reject it, but build the edifice of the Torah above it, and thereby we ascend higher, and through this ascent, the ideas are clarified." Rabbi Jonathon Sacks, the former chief rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth, wrote a comprehensive book entitled: "The Great Partnership: Science, religion, and the search for meaning."

It would seem that religion, and Judaism in particular, has come to terms with the validity of scientific discoveries, and have found ways that these new discoveries serve to enhance their belief in God. How many less people would have been tortured and killed had the Catholic Church respected what science had to say in the centuries passed?

When I was believer I manged to accept that science simply showed us how God created the world. As a child I had studied under rabbis who taught that the dinosaur fossils were sent by God to test the faithful and confuse the heretics. The one time I remember learning about evolution in my elementary school was when one rabbi exclaimed: "If evolution is true, why are there still monkeys?!" The students laughed at the silly scientists, and the class continued. However, these cases are extreme and are fundamentalist views according to many leading rabbis, as shown above. In my later adolescent years I modified my religious belief to include respect of science.

Religion use to be afraid of science, but religious faith has adapted and evolved to be impenetrable by reason or evidence to the contrary. Every new discovery no matter how contradictory to the Bible will be accepted as God's tool. They have learned to embrace science as a branch of theology. Religious leaders no longer need to be worried about scientific discoveries since their faith and the faith of their people do not rest within this world. Their God is beyond this physical existence, therefore though he cannot be proved, he cannot be disproved. Why then should religion be wary of discoveries that can only affect this physical existence?

It would seem that religion is compatible with science; but is science compatible with religion? I do not think it to be. Science is based on the principles of testable theories, observable experiments, and, perhaps most in contrast to religion, that no "truth" is sacred and cannot be later proven wrong. There is no dogma in science. No principles one must accept without evidence. Scientists are always aware that at any moment some piece of newly discovered evidence can change the way we view the universe entirely; and they seek it! It was the scientific mind that first challenged the notion that the world was flat, or that the biblical creation narrative was accurate. Where would we be without the scientists? Indeed, we would be right where are superstitious, ignorant, ancestors were, would we not?

This idea of questioning assumptions, challenging common sense, and commitment to evidence, has propelled us from shepherds to astronauts, from creatures within the universe to its observers! It is this passion to know the universe, the humility to accept our ignorance, and our defiance of dogma, that permitted us to see beyond the stars, and below the deep dark oceans.

Religion cannot be compatible with science so long as it makes claims about the way the world is. Though the clergymen who have stopped condemning science have certainly helped it move along undisturbed, religion and science are still antipodal ways of discovering the universe. I am certainly pleased that religion has begun to accept science, for as I said, scientists will no longer be hunted down and silenced the way they once were, but there is still a gap the size of God that creates the dissonance between science and religion. Science may be a great partner for religious moderates, but religion is certainly no partner of science.

There's No Place Like Heaven

Growing up I was certain there was another life awaiting me, upon crossing the threshold of death. I knew there was an afterlife, a heaven, a paradise, just beyond the reaches of this world. Whereas other religious people whom have confessed to me they have many doubts regarding the fundamentals of their faith, I believed absolutely in God, the Bible as his word, and the tradition of Judaism as the living truth. Though in Judaism heaven is not as predominate as in some other religions, it is understood that after we die, we are brought before God for judgment and, provided we repented before our last breath, we would be spared from the darkness of hell, and brought forth into heaven.

There is a certain comfort which is unparalleled in the secular world, of knowing that one is going to outlive his own death. What came after this brief and tragic life was promised to be glorious beyond earthly comprehension. I so believed in the eternal afterlife that as a child I would spend many a night laying awake in bed terrified by the concept of eternity. Eventually I would become so frightened that I would wake my mother with tears in my eyes, asking her to explain eternity. She would comfort me by stating that God is smarter than we, and therefore we need not worry about how he will make heaven enjoyable for us. 

This deep seated belief stayed with me for 23 years. I loved life, but was unafraid of death, for I knew without a shadow of doubt that beyond this earthly existence, this tragic play of suffering and joy, of tears of laughter, of chaos and order, lies a place of only goodness, whatever that meant. (I can retrospectively see the paradox in a paradise, for wouldn't "good" lose all its meaning without a measure of "bad"?) When I rejected my childhood faith, when I committed myself to rationalism, I was faced with a fear many people seldom think about. 

I was suddenly gripped with the fear of death. I was finally able to stare into the abyss that awaits us all. After our "moment in the sun" we are gone, never to live again. Whereas most people I presume, have either ridden themselves of this irrational fear, or they have suppressed it and are only struck by its harsh blow when they too, focus on the brevity of life, I was faced with it for the first time.  

For me, it became an obsessive thought. At any moment I could stop breathing and I would vanish from existence. And with my death, everything I was planning, my dreams, my hopes, my goals, would vanish as well. How pitiful when one lets his fear of death envelope his life. 

I am still trying to conquer this fear of death, for I have never had to do it before. It has made me less courageous, less able to risk my life, and uneasy with concept of sacrificing my life, even for the greater good. I used to know that if the moment arose, I would be the first to give my life for another, now, I am now hoping I am never confronted with such a challenge. 

Of course, the fear of death is completely irrational.  That is to say, there is nothing to fear. Once you no longer exist, you will not feel anything, your consciousness will be as dead as you are. You will quite simply, not exist. I once heard it said: "There is no reason to fear death. When you are here, death is not, and when death is here, you are not." A rational platform, indeed. 

The fear of death mustn't be confused, however, with the will to live. These two, though similar in subject, are very different in content. The will to live is a healthy disposition, based on enjoying your life, the people around you, the work you are involved in, etc.  The fear of death is the terror of no longer existing. It is the solipsism that believes the world just could not go on without you. It is the arrogance that your life is too important to simply vanish. The will to live, mentioned above, should also not be confused with self-preservation. Self preservation is a natural impulse, an almost inescapable instinct, not a will. 

This fear of death, that I have recently begun feeling, has made me even more suspicious of religion. Is it not just too convenient that just as every human feels the fear of his own death, every religion has ways to circumvent it? The pieces seem to fit too well, do they not? This is not the only existential fear that religion vanquishes, but it is perhaps the most comforting. Heaven has also been a great motivator for righteousness, for it is the righteous, religion teaches, who receive a share of paradise. The danger for the rest of humanity depends on how "righteousness" is defined by the myriad of religions and their myriad of gods. 

So, I will continue to suppress this fear of death by combating it with its inherent irrationality. Where I once would proudly die for my beliefs, I will take the, perhaps, more timid approach stated by Bertrand Russell: "I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong." Lastly, I will grasp every moment of life, every precious instant with a vigor and excitement, for any one of them could be my last. 

And in the times where the fear has all stricken my heart, I will remember the great words sung in Monty Python's "Always Look at the Bright Side of Life": 

For life is quite absurd

And death's the final word

You must always face the curtain

with a bow

Forget about your sin - give the

audience a grin

Enjoy it - it's your last chance

anyhow. 

So always look on the bright side

of death...

Life's a piece of sh*t, when you look at it

Life's a laugh and death's a joke, it's true

You'll see its all a show, keep 'em laughin' as you go

Just remember that the last laugh is on you

And...

Always look on the bright side

of life...

The greatest weapon against fear is comedy, is it not?

Why I No Longer Want to Be an Atheist

When I left my religion a little less than a year ago, I quickly gravitated towards atheism. Not passively, because I no longer had belief in God, but actively so. It would seem that after I removed myself from the community of believers, I sought a new community, a community of atheists.

Interestingly, I have met only a few people who will call themselves atheists. Even my most secular friends shy away from the word. Stranger still, my friends who will admit that they don't believe in God, will call themselves non-believers or unbelievers, that is, if they don't avoid any such labels entirely. Thus my community was formed online. Through various social networking sites I was able to attach in some way or another to a a cultural array of thousands of men and women who do identify as atheists. This was comforting for a time, a sort of roadside inn on my ever-bending path.

However comforting having a cause to fight for or having a community may have been, I could not avoid two facts: 1) The word atheist carries with it a negative implication, and 2) It is not how I wish to identify in the long run. It is not, so to speak, "the sword I wish to die on."  I began to critically examine the word "atheist" both it's literal understanding, as well as it's colloquial undertone.

The term "atheist" according to the Oxford Dictionary means: "A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods."

However, many people wrongfully define it as: "The belief that there is no God."

Though I am quite certain there are people who believe there is no god, this, in my experience, has not been the true definition of an atheist, nor is it any less illogical than the theist. The religious, ironically, are very quick to point out such hypocrisy. "We are not all that different, you and I," the theist will say to the atheist, "for as I believe there is a God, you believe there is none!" Indeed, he would be right in the case of an atheist who believes there is no God. Disproving that anything exists is an impossibility, as was pointed out, in a mocking sense, by Russel's teapot.

The majority of atheists with whom I have come in contact have identified with the actual definition, that of  disbelief or lacking belief in God or gods. An a-theist is simply someone who does not subscribe to any theology. The same is true with words like: apolitical, amoral, and achromatic, the prefix "a" simply means "without." In it's simplest sense "atheist" is a harmless word that describes nothing more then that the individual labeled as such does not have a belief in God. In this literal definition many secular people can be rightly placed. Yet there is resistance, why?

A word's definition has never been set in stone. It flows with the culture, it evolves and morphs with society. This etymological evolution must be respected for words have always been a means to communicating with other people sharing our era, or eras to be, nothing more.

Therefore, it is not the literal definition that will shine a light onto a word's true meaning, but it's implication when used in contemporary dialogue.

In our 21st century society this term seems to come with a sort of negative stench. Moreover, it is received as an attack against theology, against religion, against God himself. Thus, atheism has become synonymous with anti-theist. Though many atheists are troubled by this, is it not at least somewhat the case? When one calls themselves an atheist, identifies as an atheist, is one not standing in direct opposition to religion? This is not necessarily a bad thing, it may at times even be a great thing; however, we should be aware of what we are doing when we use the term. We are making a statement. A statement of rejection, of disagreement with religion, and generally people feel antagonized by those who disagree with them. One cannot help but feel threatened when someone is standing in opposition against what they love, what they hold dear, what they don't want challenged.

Today, calling yourself an atheist sets you apart from the religious, opposite them. This, I will repeat, is not to mean that I condemn in any way its usage, but that one who claims to use it just to define his state of credulity toward religion, is as silly as someone calling himself gay in the 21st century, referring to his happiness.

There are those atheists who are on a mission to correct the definition. They hope to appeal to the masses and change the connotation of "atheist." I salute their valiance. However, I do not know if such a thing is possible. People do not enjoy changing their opinions nor the words they use to express those opinions. Perhaps in this age of tolerance we will yet see this word made into a positive label. Though I suspect, if that day comes, there will be no more use for it anymore.

So, after almost a year of non-belief in God, am I an atheist? Literally speaking, yes, but what of the "definition" as it is perceived today? I suppose that would depend. I think it best to use it as one would a weapon. I will examine the situation, evaluate the effect the word will have on the person listening, and acknowledging it's mighty power, choose to use it, or not. It is not who I am, I am not wholly an opposition to religion. I am a rationalist. What is rational I embrace, what is an insult to reason, I dispose of. I have no enemies. I walk a path beaten with steps of many travelers, both religious and secular, who have come before me. We are all on the same journey, the relentless pursuit of truth, above all else.

Western Implosion and Middle Eastern Explosion

The Earth, it seems, is imploding in the West and exploding in the East. While ISIS gains power and rages through the Middle East, we in the West have become fearful for our very lives. Indeed, if ISIS or one of the other terrorist organizations fueled by Muslim fundamentalism gets hold of a nuclear weapon, one cannot help but wonder whether that would spell the end of existence on this planet. It would seem that as science comes ever-nearer to fully understanding the earth's beginning, religious fundamentalists are hellbent on it's end. However, is that all we have to fear?

As our worried eyes turn inward, toward our western democracies, are we to worry less? Perhaps, we mustn't worry for our bodies, for the law certainly protects us, but what of our souls? I use this word for lack of a better one. I not referring to the concept of "soul" in any immortal sense I assure you, I am merely referring to the part of humans that seeks to transcend itself. The portion of our consciousness that motivates us to build rather than destroy, to plant rather than uproot, and to "become all I can be" instead of become what they want me to be. 

As we look upon our free societies we can see a sort of moral decay. People seek money, fame and decadence, abandoning wisdom, truth, and goodness. The religious speak of their high moral standards, yet many of their so-called high standards have nothing to do with human happiness on this world whatsoever. The atheists speak of their morals as well, but how many can be said to study them, master them? Ethics may be the most important area of study today, and it is absent from most of our children's curriculum. Money has become as powerful as a god. Money represents survival, more money, more survival, and thus, more power. People are killing, stealing, and as selfish as ever. The world pursues temporary fleeting pleasures and not lasting friendships, strong ethical characters, and the thirst for knowledge. People seem not to notice the other, that is, whenever we are not actively hostile toward them. Which evil is worse, indifference or cruelty?

What is the source of our society's moral decline? I would like to posit that it is consumerism. The constant "need" for the next best thing. The misery of the present and the lust for the future. The great enemy of happiness. Consumerism is the confusion of "want" and "need." It is apparent to me, that this deadly confusion, this mixing of terms, has caused modern man to feel his very survival in jeopardy. When we are told that we do not have, and that we need more, how are we to focus on our moral fortitude? How am I to care for the less privileged when it is I who am lacking? When my lust is not satiated, why worry about them, the disgusting other. In fact, is it they who prevent my happiness, and more importantly, my very survival. 

This moral implosion, this ethical decline, will spell a cruel end to our civilization. We mustn't be confused, there is a real threat of death that hails from the fundamentalists of the Middle East, but we are no utopia either. We are strangling ourselves with self-imposed misery. Our society of individual rights and equal opportunity, is the platform necessary for a strong and happy civilization, but alas, without individual morality, without studied and taught ethics we are nothing more than a jungle of beasts disguised as civilized creatures.

One may read into this that I am calling for a socialist movement; that my enemies are the big corporations. This analysis would be dead wrong. I have not the interest in this essay to explore the positive and negative aspects of the many varying social orders, I am merely calling for something much more simple, yet sublime. A return to values. We need to study ethics, teach ethics, live ethics.  Scholars of history today know more than they ever have.We have seen many systems that have tried and failed. We have watched many revolutions against tyranny only gain power and become tyrannies themselves. Who better than we to create a lasting ethical code? One that seeks the best for the individual, whilst not forgetting the whole. One that embodies the morality inherit within each of us. One that is led by rational discourse.

The first step, I believe, is to live by the maxim: "Who is happy? He who is happy with his lot." Once we reestablish the distinction between "want" and "need," once we realize that our survival is not in jeopardy we can climb Maslow's pyramid and begin to focus on actualization, both of the self and society. Once accomplished, I believe humanity without much help, will begin to peek out from their material caves and seek to build a civilization based on values, based on respect and acceptance of the Other, based on ethical imperatives.

This analysis may, of course, be wrong. Consumerism may be not a cause but a symptom of the moral decline. One way or another, these are the discussions we should be having, we need to be having, or nuclear annihilation is not the only thing we should fear.