The Zen of Atheism

I observe so many people mentally beating themselves up over a variety of things. Part of it is uncertainty over what they've been told is right and wrong. Part of it is conflict between their inner desires and social pressures. All of this observation lead me to acknowledge my own lack of belief in a higher power as one reason for my relatively peaceful mind. Of course, I am not perfect; I have my own torment imposed on me by my ambitious personality, but I acknowledge it as personally inflicted conflict. On the other had, we don't have to look very hard at the world around us to see how religion unsettles the lives of those who follow it. It kills people. It sexually abuses them. It creates a struggle. It is a perfection that nobody can obtain and it tears people apart.

This is my counter-argument to the "enlightenment" that religion purports.

On accepting reality:

Why do bad things happen to good people? To anyone inclined to believe in a loving god, answering this question would require a feat of mental contortion. The friction of a harsh reality heaving against a palatable fantasy causes a taut, uncomfortable uncertainty. This results in a brief tearing of one's perceived reality, which is quickly patched by a fantastic back-stitch of fancied justification. To a non-believer, however, the answer is simple: there is no inherent reason for things to happen; the intrinsic chaos of the universe deals fortune and misfortune without bias. In other words, there is no need to dwell or plead. Knowing this makes it easy to move on from tragedy, to accept conclusions, to be at peace.

On morals:

Because atheists do not follow a central code of ethics, individuals end up creating their own views on the treatment of others. This usually turns out to be the ultimate incarnation of the golden rule. Without an authoritative voice justifying the mistreatment of a particular person or minority for arbitrary reasons, individuals are more likely to simply treat others with the same kindness that they hope for in return. The motivations for this behavior hardly deserve the label of "morals," because, as mentioned, they are not conforming to a central standard. Looking in the other direction, a believer's execution of moral standards under the threat of damnation amounts to being good under coercion. If one is only good because they face penalties for not being so, then that is hardly moral.

On guilt:

It is not outlandish to acknowledge that guilt within a conscience creates turmoil that is likely to result in actual unethical behavior. Surveys reveal that applied guilt surrounding the viewing of pornography or sexual conduct results more often in sexual abuse or dysfunction. Furthermore, guilt over pleasure of any kind is likely to inspire one to bar others from that pleasure. It is only in a mind filled with masochistic hate for its own natural impulses that a positive thing can be seen in a negative light. In the realm of non-belief, the lack of guilt-inducing constraints allows individuals to develop healthy attitudes about sexuality and other behavior.

On humility:

It is one thing to grovel before a supreme being, which is in itself humble. The problem with this picture is that it only shows one relationship along the Great Chain of Being that many religions observe. That is, while humans are inferior to god, they are thought to be superior to animals and plants. Then, within the human category, men are superior to women and both of them are superior to non-believers or minorities. Further, many believers are arrogant enough to think that a supreme being is watching over them, as if they are worthy if its attention. There goes the humility, right out the door. Without all of this hokey spirituality to affect the perception of our place in life, we are once again left to understand the world from our individual perspective. A clear understanding of the world leads one to realize that there is no intrinsic chain of being, and that we are all equal in our origins and contributions to the universe.

On pragmatism:

The idea that I should "sell" atheism through my debating style has never held much importance to me. I've never seen atheism as a lifestyle choice; it is simply the conclusion I've reached after factoring all of the knowledge I have together. When someone claims that I do my argument no favor by putting it harshly, it smacks of a closed mind to logic. No amount of niceties or moodiness surrounding my conclusion could ever sway it because it is not a value-based decision. Whether I state, "Here's my logic," or, "Here's my logic, motherfucker," makes no difference in the point I am making. Within the logical mind, the essence of an argument is separated from any emotional inflections or imperfections in its delivery. A believer's faith is based off of an emotional desire to be acknowledged by a supreme being or other subconscious motivation, which explains the vast inconsistencies in available theist ideologies. Atheists make the same, simple argument: there probably is no god.

Disclaimer: I understand that not all atheists are as at peace as this article may claim them to be. This is simply my way of stating how the lack of belief has the potential to relieve a lot of tension within the mind that religion contributes. Your mileage may vary.