A Study of the Threes Phenomena
Viewers as of May 1st, 2025
If your definition of "Atheism" is the disbelief in the existence of one or more gods, and your definition of a "god" rests solely on some interpretation reflecting an ancient concept, then I will agree that you disbelieve in narrow interpretations of past ideas. Yet, I would like to submit that a large number of people have confused the word Atheism with the concept of a singular entity labeled god as described by some religion.
Before calling oneself an Atheist and then following this view up with an assertion which, when read about— gives the impression you have created your own type of religion, it is necessary for the ideas of religion and god to be differentiated.
Religion is a humanistic philosophy which incorporates views from different subjects such as for example:
- Sociology (i.e. role classifications in family, the workplace, the community, the church, the congregation, etc...)
- Anthropology (e.g. Cultural issues such as involving music, crime, sexual conduct, apparel, customs, traditions...)
- Politics (i.e. Leadership hierarchy, instigations/interventions in regional/national/inter-national conflicts...)
- Morality (e.g. good and bad/ right and wrong {conduct}...)
- Psychology (i.e. Faithful/Disbelievers, issues described as "mental/emotional"...)
- Economics (e.g. tithing, benefactory distributions...)
- Education (i.e. various indoctrination techniques are employed)
- Science (e.g. pseudo- Astronomy, Physics, Biology, Medicine... )
- Mathematics (i.e. Numerological concerns)
And even though a given religion/church may advise its members to defer to the "Laws of the Land", Leaders may themselves justify a circumvention of such laws by some rationale, such as not having to pay taxes so the money can be used to further the ambitions of church leaders. Claims that a church spends a great proportion on assisting the needy inside and/or outside the congregation and thus would be tax exempted anyway, is the logic of a single-minded perspective. If we were to allow all businesses to engage in the same rationale (though many work place cultures and work place philosophies are run much like a type of pseudo-religion); the overall society might not be improved, because the same level of unaccounted greed would be more easily seen.
If the public could see a full disclosure of account ledgers for all religions and all businesses, it might well be astonished to pay witness to the amount and types of corruption taking place... starting with the government in its handling of public monies used frequently as a bribe to have greater access to some resource another country has, or defines a need based on some traditionalized supposition... which can become a manufactured reality if there is public outcry about frivolous spending or cover-up egregious acts of immorality. Clearly many a law has been created with the deliberate attempt of instilling the existence of one or more loop holes which can be exploited by those who are instructed in the presence of such. It is a given for the public to think that Trillions have been lost due to corrupt and corruptible grants, contracts, and subsidies. No less, the presence of a double and triple-standard justice system can only lead to the continuing disintegration of a society whose consciousness addresses issues of large environmental concerns and not subtle ones which act as persistent drops of water against a rock... leaving an indelible impression that is taken for granted and largely overlooked or dismissed by one or another rationale expressed by some influencer.
On the other hand, the concept of one or more gods in a given religious doctrine is an attempt by religions to associate themselves with a presumed unbeatable entity, like a weakling on a playground making friends with a big and strong and/or smart and/or rich kid... who may also be portrayed as a bully... though actual fisticuffs need not take place as a potential threat. Indeed, religion frequently uses the word god as being associated with an entity that is used as a means of intimidation and subtle threat like some hired gunman with the ability to maim, inflict long lasting pain, and even death. Yet, if a given public says they no longer believe in a god or gods being hawked by a given religion, religious leaderships may join with others in different public institutions to create an environment to persecute non-believers in an attempt to at the very least, keep them silent.
Because it is similarly advantageous for a government and many aligned businesses to have a public naively believe in a god or gods as they are defined by a given religion, the government may affect policies which create conditions for which the public is lead by the nose back to the same watering hole of spirituality, or some other flavor... so long as one brand remains dominant in the eyes of a given leadership. Neither religions, governments or businesses want an even playing field against the public. Each of them wants a means to subvert legal standards which the public needs to comply with because without such an indentured servitude, religion, business and government fall apart. Hence, there is no Atheism. There can't be. It cannot be allowed because business, government and religion depend on the majority of the public to believe in both a god and religion/cult-like ideology, even if it uses some substitution that a person labels as a non-belief and labeled Atheism or Agnostic... if not paganism, witchcraft, Druidism, Wicca, etc...
Yet, if control of the public can not be assured by a public believing in an institutionalized god and/or religion observed by business, government and religion, then another duality may well come into play by asserting some measure of proposed evil... even if some evil has to be man-made, home-grown, (as well as publicly funded) and put into a manufactured item that the public buys into as a must-believe-in reality. Hence, there is no Atheism. You cannot be an Atheist or Agnostic unless such views are made into a substitute god and religion which maintains the status quo of public compliance to institutions which like being held unaccountable for acts which favor the perpetuation of a given institution and its leadership that typically have higher incomes, better health insurance, affordable housing, and brighter future prospects than most people... many millions of which are in poverty.
Atheism and Atheists do not and cannot exist. How dare such people claim there is not god either in a supposed heaven or some man-made institution. Surely gods live among the people. Surely the kings and Queens and religious leaders of old were gods or at least held the righteous position of being an emissary, a go-between that the public must kow-tow to. Surely this is the case for religious leaders, business leaders, and government leaders today. Surely the gods live in universities, corporate offices, sports stadiums, and Military institutions. Heaven forbid anyone calling themselves an Atheist would even consider that all religious, business and government leaders should be the last to receive a living wage, affordable housing and health care.. and that because of their self-esteemed greatness would not eat or drink until everyone else were supplied first. Surely instead of U.S. Congressional members voting themselves in a higher wage they would vote in the need for every citizen to have... and not merely supposed access to basic needs including an income typically administered by way of a labyrinthine short-sighted eligibility structure used to curtail spending so that monies could be allocated elsewhere at a bureaucrat's selfish discretion; which portrays the old social idea of those who are deserving of public assistance... as dictated by the egotism of self-indulgent leaderships in business, government and religion.
Hence, don't you dare call yourself an Atheist seeking social reform. Leaderships don't want to actually reform it's three major institutions whose structures took a long time to learn how to navigate their respective systems so that a niche could be carved out by "diligently putting in one's time" or place into a position they are not necessarily qualified for but are good at role-playing and reflecting the standard-quo ideology. Hence, there is no Atheists nor Atheism. Since most likely such persons are using the title and the ideology as a substitute religion and god. But this is a good thing. Because the standard practice of promoting some social reform is to believe in a god and religion. By having such, you are clearly normal and easy to understand. Otherwise, you would be an Alien or someone advancing to a new stage in human Evolution... neither of which are acceptable badges to be worn in an effort to instill the public with a higher knowledge. Hence, you need to re-think your position in thinking about disbelieving in the views of a believer that "trusts in god"... which is a made-up notion about a made-up entity that you believe doesn't exist. There are much larger and more formidable considerations not being taken into account. In very many instances, a person calling themselves an Atheist or Agnostic is much the same type of basic psychic pattern being played out by someone calling themselves a Muslim, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, etc... Just different labels for a similar mindset of delusion, illusion, and socially integrated confabulation.
When the public is not so easily swayed by the ancient idea of a person becoming a god, the transference of making an institution into a god-like figure by way of laws or price-gouging... and price-gouging is not adequately addressed by a government wanting to get an increased share by gouging the public with higher taxes and religions gouging its congregations by way of tithing and free labor or free proselytizing... as well as businesses gouging the public with ever-increasing costs... methods of more harsher control will necessarily affected to effect a greater compliance.
Let us note that Religion can be divided into the duality of Practical or Applicable religion and Metaphysical or Speculative religion. A third type of religion is that through the perspective of a given individual, with or without an association with others. In other words, both practical and metaphysical religion become altered by the personal views of participants.
Typically, those labeling themselves an Atheist are actively predacious in their views and those labeling themselves agnostic are pacifists. And a third as yet unnamed reference is for those who might prefer to be neither of these two... Yes, Atheists can be pacifists, but generally I have encountered those who are quite insistent and assertive... even boasting about it, much in the same manner as many who practice some religious belief. Yet, it seems rather silly (and one cannot help but laugh) that someone wants to assert a belief about not believing in an entity claimed to be non-existent. However, what they are actually describing is their mangled logic of disbelief in another's mangled system of belief because they realize it is rather stupid to talk about not believing in their presumed right to not believe in that which doesn't exist. And those who would argue against this are those who like to engage in frivolous banter.
Simply put, the use of the word "god" is a mechanism of control employed by many a parent or other person in a leadership role. If one doesn't use some concept or label of God, then they may resort to using laws or rules or fines or imprisonment or some other threat... since the "rule of law" has been set up by those not believing in an "all mighty god" and hence, are themselves Atheists, even though they may describe themselves as being religious and denote the phrase "In God We Trust" on their currency. It is a grand hypocrisy to claim oneself to believe in a god and then not trust in this supposed god to deal with anything and everything.
Indeed, claiming a god has directed the course of human affairs to be directed by one or more humans used as a go-between is merely an assertion that one does not actually believe in an All seeing, All knowing, All powerful god. They are merely making excuses and engaging in rationalization when laws and rules and directions are asserted by individuals and institutions that all are engaged in various types of Atheistic orientation and practices.
When the concept of one or more gods is used as a tool for crowd control; it is easily understood that different kinds of crowds and their respective behavior require such a tool to be fashioned according to the dictates of those who assume some leadership role. Yet, none of them may assert themselves to be an atheist, and might well argue they are doing a god's bidding... at least in accord with the accepted model of logic of a given era. If a government, business or religious institution claims itself to trust in a god and yet engages in doing whatever they want by way of a practiced system of rationalization; are they not in a disbelief in a god... whether or not a meeting is begun with a prayer? By claiming to believe in a god and then engaging in practices which are appreciably self-serving, then they are describing in the belief of a god who is likewise self-serving... no matter who gets hurt, maimed, killed or what destruction takes place. This is why "acts of god" seem hypocritical to believers who come to experience death, damage, and destruction. Someone needs to tell them they are following the presumed dictates of a very selfish, self-aggrandizing, self-serving god... all justified by calling it a religion.
It is no wonder someone wants to call themselves a disbeliever. They disbelieve in an hypocrisy practiced by a person or group that is plainly naive, stupid or retarded... or if they are aware of the hypocrisy and continue to indulge in it, they are the more malicious and malignant of the believers who have fashioned the tool of their respective religious belief into that which best serves the dictates of their manipulative consciousness. And very many of these disbelievers (by dogmatically calling themselves an Atheist) want to use the same level of assertion they believe themselves to have been subjected to by such hypocritical believers. The word "Atheism" like the word "god" can be used as a shield, weapon and personalized sanctuary of a presumed greater truth. Yet, calling oneself an Atheist described as someone who doesn't believe in a god or gods which don't exist, is just another model of hypocrisy being used by every single religion and Eastern philosophy... and whose practitioners are appreciably oblivious to... with those in government, business and other secular institutions just different flavours and strategies of hypocrisy... frequently based on some practiced and alternatively named duality.
Hence, my encounters with those calling themselves an Atheist is their means of rejecting one or more religions... and not the idea of someone or something or some process having created reality. In their mind they have somehow linked the idea of reality's formation and future with an antiquated notion still being used by most dominant religions, because they have not developed nor found anyone who is speaking about the need to differentiate the concept of a God or Gods from religion and broaden the antiquated definition of a god(s) as used by religion, which is in dire need of being updated to present day realities.
However, one must be wary of the "Atheist" model of creed which denounces traditional ideas of a god or gods and creates alternative models such as praying to Jesus' mother Mary, or adoption of a Nationalistic fervor where the "state" or given leader is over-valued, or some sports figure/sports team or other entertainment becomes all absorbing to be described as a fanaticism as we see in multiple types of over-indulgence.
While the old statement that "God Is Dead" has a different meaning for different people this does not mean they have not created some alternative perspective to take the place of a socially created "god/gods space" in the human psyche for which a given person's experiences fills in according to the dictates of their respective social experiences. This hole in the head created by the drip, drip, drip of some environmentally present religious ideology is a cavity that some will emotionally rush to fill in with that which is most abundantly plentiful As purportedly described by Friedrich Nietzshe, the three word (God Is Dead) phrase did not refer to a god (deity), but to the decline of traditional religious beliefs and their role in a modern day setting where there is a need for a broadened realization of survival needs which ancient communities had no knowledge or need of... but many followers of ancient religious ideas want to believe are needed and some would go out of their way to make sure such views are worthy, even if all of society must be forced back into the social and environmental conditions which plagued ancient civilizations before advances in medicine, education, crop growing, animal husbandry, etc... Indeed, such persons want the antiquated notions of an Apocalypse to be real, and would like to be instrumental in bringing about the reality of such, regardless of what they must do. Religion knows evil because it has practiced many forms of it.
If there is no god as described by Atheists, then god can not die. Yet, we do not look at expressions so literally, because too many people live in a world view reality of using dichotomies and never once think in terms of trichotomization. Yet, even if one says God is non-existent, they have created a type of existence for such a non-existing entity. Atheists are typically Dichotomists and not Trichotomists. Claiming oneself to be an Atheist permits them to pronounce they have attained a level of personalized enlightenment... but they remain in the same intellectualized arena without a thought for moving beyond this state/stage of realization.
Religious leadership today act as if they still think that most of the population is made up of naive (stupid, ignorant) people who need a simplistic definition of reality which they can control because religious leaderships are somehow naturally endowed with a greater ability to understand some entity they label a god or gods. It's no wonder people want to call themselves an atheist. However, they are rejecting the concept of reality's creation as defined by religion and not the concept of reality's presence and its influence on their own personal reality. Hence, the term "Atheism" is just as narrow as the term "god" and most definitions of "religion" as well.
While some religious leaders are smart enough to teach a more enlightened realization of reality, they prefer to teach that which the majority of a given congregation routinely expresses a preference for believing in ideas which have created a life-defining comfort zone for. Yet, there is a growing minority whose consciousness has evolved to the point they need a greater interpretation of reality which neither conventional religious doctrine nor any Eastern philosophy can provide. There is a crisis in religion for many people because current ideas based on antiquated ideas is not providing support for helping them to better understand an enlarged reality of experiences that religious leaderships in the past (and many in the present day) have not nor will ever have in terms of an expansion of consciousness which has multiple dead end rivulets to be found (for example) in acts of criminality, gambling, sexuality, drug experimentation, self-mutilation (tattooing, flagellation, piercing...), etc...
An expanding consciousness is sometimes associated with ritualistic practices of misguided extremism perpetrated by another's control by way of manipulation and thus, such persons impulsively think and react to a momentary personalized sense of excitement as if it were a bona fide expression of acquired enlightenment by participating with an indulgence in one or multiple acts of unconventionalism which they get entrapped to.
For the avowed Atheist (with a broadened definition of reality), all religions and Eastern philosophies are different systems of regulated control which present them with a Master/Slave duality. Present day Atheists do not want to be confined to the very narrow-minded perceptions of reality based on antiquated doctrines perpetrated and perpetuated by those whose experiences of knowledge create little more than different models of straight-jacketing. However, those calling themselves Atheists in order to reject a given view point so they can indulge in some alternative-to-conventional-activity, are little more than acting out their own straight-jacketing model of a duality they want others to participate in and thus given themselves the impression this defines some irrevocable truth.
They have not moved on from the conventional mindset of participating in one or more claustrophobic-creating dualities, they have merely created a substitution which allows them to participate in an activity which they have been persuaded to indulge in and become a part of much like people of old being allowed to become part of a community by adopting the beliefs and mannerisms of a given crowd. Typically, before becoming a member, they are spotted as someone who is in a vulnerable mental/emotional state to be taken advantage of and are then corralled in social circumstances which isolate them from external influences though they may be given the impression they are free to choose... so long as they choose to indulge as they are being directed to.
It is much like saying something is free... at a cost, and thus the presence of an hypocrisy is not seen for what it is (though one may shake their head at such a formula of Capitalism); it is seen as a socially accepted reality of being between a rock an a hard place, depending on one's state of desperation or self-directed "must have/must do"... unless one chooses to go elsewhere and not be fooled. The image to the right describes the situation quite well concerning getting rid of waste.
If we look at the idea of Atheism from the perspective which may alternatively be described as a Rule, Logic, Law or Philosophy of refutation, we find ourselves embroiled in a rather circuitous routinization of thinking. For example, if we say we do not believe in a god or gods, it is not our god or gods which we are refuting, because we don't have any as a confessed Atheist. We might otherwise claim them to be non-existent. However, in recognizing their non-existence, we have prioritized their existence as being non-existent, or we wouldn't be able to not recognize them. By calling oneself an Atheist is, in a manner of speaking, giving a type of existence to that which doesn't exist... much like viewing someone walking on a desert in the summertime and misinterpreting the mirage as a reality of a person's ability to walk on water (yep, this is a reference to that supposed person called Jesus whose is claimed by some to not have existed, but exists due to a type of "fake news" technique used in the past). Because that which doesn't exist can not be thought of, and therefore an actual Atheist can't exist since that which they refute doesn't exist. It is an intellectualized type of shadow boxing or baptizing in a dry lake.
It is rather silly to be concerned about that which doesn't exist except in the minds of those who most likely believe in a perception they mis-describe as a god, and which a self-named Atheist does not provide an adequate explanation for the presumed existence of that which does not exist except in the minds of those whose consciousness harbors a mental acuity similar to that which prevailed in the distant past and is being perpetuated and perpetrated by a global-wide institutionalization of rationalized ideas called religion; of such an idea (concerning the presumption of a god or gods or other significant figure such as the Buddha) as a method by which it can continue in the social niche which its forbearers created as a survival mechanism they had/have persuaded, manipulated, and conned millions of people to accept as a valid reality within the contours of a given social reality.
If you claim Atheism exists by someone holding the belief in the non-existence of a god or gods, then what you are actually describing is social banter similar to siblings or neighbors arguing over non-sensical items and issues. You can not believe in the non-existence of nothingness if it doesn't exist and is therefore unable to be thought of in any way, shape, or form in the first place. By claiming something doesn't exist and then providing one's own or another's definition of this labeled non-existing entity, one has brought it into relative existence. This is Elementary (Grade and Jr. High) school playground interactions brought poignantly to the adult stage as dress rehearsals of an antiquated model of thinking which... those caught up in such scenes... do not intellectually move on towards a better intellectual production which is more fruitful.
It is hypocritical to say that something doesn't exist when, by the very nature of being able to label it, you have made it into something. How can one not believe in something that doesn't exist yet is claimed to be describable by labeling it as existing in a form that is not how others describe it? This is what some may formally refer to as a Tautology or semantical concentricity (which reminds me of the child's coiled spring toy called a slinky) without letting you also know it is but another form of duality... with the participants retaining a playground mentality, even though different classroom information is practiced as a trichotomization that even the teachers and school administrators are oblivious to.
To label something as being non-existent is to measure it by evaluation. If you can measure nothingness, then it exists, no matter how infinitesimal your intellectual calculus renders it. Else wise, how can you measure/evaluate that which does not exist? In other words, you are arguing about someone else's measurement and overlook your participating engagement in just another dichotomy like so many people of antiquity were immersed in without making any real intellectual gains at all, except by way of an over-zealous imagination embroidered with the type of egotism specific to a give era.
Origination: Wednesday, April 30th, 2025... 3:03 AM
Initial Posting: Thursday, May 1st, 2025... 4:33 AM
Updated Posting: Saturday, May 3rd, 2025... 4:51 AM