Bite me

There are many fundamental questions that constantly perplex us self proclaimed intelligent humans. Most of them have to do with chicken – why did the chicken cross the road? What came first, the chicken or the egg? When is it safe to start eating Chicken in the bird-flu aftermath? Some of them, however, have nothing to do with chicken. If we are so intelligent, why do fundamental questions perplex us? Where do Sidhuisms come from? What is life? Do extraterrestrials fool around with humans? What exactly messed up Freud? Then again, probably most fundamental and perplexing is – Does God exist?




There are many perfectly levelheaded arguments to prove that beyond any doubt, God exists. There is the ultimate origin proof where you irritatingly trace back effects through various causes till you come to God. Like “Where did you come from?” “My parents” “Where did your parents come from?” “Their parents” “Where did their parents come from?”




… a few billion generations later




“Self replicating cells possessing DNA”




At this point of time, the Theist, finding an outlet comes up with the life-couldn’t-have started-without-God argument, and either the atheist manages to successfully argue about amino acids and organic soups, or loses (The existence of God is proved here itself), else, the Theist looks on with inestimable smugness and continues asking questions like “Where did the amino acids come from?”




… a few billion perfectly natural random geological phenomena later




“The big bang.” The Theist, goes “Ah-Ha!” again, and asks “Where did the big bang come from?” Instead of explaining theoretical self-propagating universes, the atheist gives up at this point of time, walks of in his own inestimable smugness that the Theist is a dumb idiot, too stupid to understand anything.




The inestimable smugness on both camps is more of the problem, made fun of by agnostics, (pussy little fence sitters without the guts to take a stance). All Theists appear extremely dumb to the Atheists (who might have taken their stance for fear of appearing stupid) and the Atheists appear spiritually impaired to the Theists, (who would have taken their stance for not appearing spiritually impaired, or, more likely, for the fear of rotting in hell for an eternity). Either way, each camp is convinced that the other is as mistaken about their beliefs as the engineers of White Star Line. The absolute, irrefutable proof either way is a difference of a simple “not”, “Fuck You! God exists” xor “Fuck You! God does not exist”.




There are other proofs of course, 97% of the world’s population cannot be wrong, and 3% cannot be right (tell that to the flat-earth believing world), and amazingly enough the same argument is used to refute the proof of the Atheist’s camp – scientists have always been wrong and have been replacing one hare-brained theory with another, they could be wrong about evolution too, and therefore, beyond all doubt, God exists.




Some enlightened Theists are pretty clever… they believe in a different kind of omnipotence and omnipresence… the God is the Truth and Light is his Shadow… or the Lord is Love, or even sometimes, God is but your conscience, it is the atheism of the Atheists. Such a worshipworthless God is, as both You and I know, is of no use whatsoever.




The most pathetic line of argument is that of evolution against creationism. This rose is too beautiful to exist with the help of evolution alone. Hell, I believe it is even more beautiful if the rose did indeed come out of evolution, and therefore lies another argument, what if God designed evolution. Or even better, the argument based on the extreme benevolence of God. Pamela Anderson (read Silicon) exists, therefore, God exists. Sometimes it goes beyond – God does NOT exist… atleast not any more, Kurt Cobain is dead. The same argument, coming from the atheists goes something like God Wouldn’t have subjected us to internet-inspired Sidhuisms if he existed, therefore he does not. Both Theists and Atheists appear stupid in arguments like these – it is almost like they owe this to each other.




Some claim that you cannot prove anything exists – even you, let alone God. Amazingly enough, there are some things that you can prove exists, which absolutely don’t and are mere abstract thoughts that are just human attributes – like the equation one plus one equals two. That exists for sure, although it absolutely does not. Weird eh? Mebbe God’s like that. Similarly, there is this line of argument that we perceive only what our senses tell us, there is no way in hell we can prove without doubt that we aren’t plugged into a matrix like system. Hell, I think this is pretty damn possible, but the question that really matters is if god exists within the system, messing interacting with our minds?




That amounts to a simple question… does God exist in our universe?




There are irrefutable proofs either way for their beliefs, so it becomes really a matter of how much a belief either way pays off. Being a pussy little fence sitter, an agnostic who looks down upon both Theists and Atheists in his own brand of inestimable smugness who replies with the standard “I donno, I haven’t heard of irrefutable proofs either way.” First off, ask the agnostic to search the web, and he will not be faced with any lack of irrefutable proofs. Both theists and atheists look down upon agnostics, and their beliefs can be safely regarded as irrelevant – they are just ensuring that they will not appear stupid or burn in hell.




The arguments on both sides are pretty much the two sides of the same coin. An interesting line of thought is to contemplate the existence of God to be of such a nature, but there is a certain lack of intellectual capacity to tackle this properly. When it comes to this matter, there is a famous agnostic argument – “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”. It is safe to assume that God will not manifest himself in front of us and help us win the lottery ticket, Pamela Anderson, or marks. It is however (for the burning in hell reason) NOT safe to assume that God does not exist. The belief is therefore, what really matters, atleast what belief pays off more. The Atheist is faced with a lack of purpose, a lack of belief in destiny, like things will work out for the better. There isn’t much to hope for, nothing to base the hope on, there is no trust in the future. No faith in a power regulating the working of the cosmos. To put things in perspective, atleast the Theist believes, for at least a few glorious days that he will win the lottery. Since 97% of the world believes in a God, it is more likely that the one guy who DOES win the lottery is a theist (a damned good reason for the Atheist to convert) and that one believer will remain one forever, in spite of subsequent lottery losses. The Atheist, to be fair, does not face religion induced neurosis or being asked to blow up/demolish/burn down stuff. The Theist on the other hand, has nothing concrete to base his belief, faith and hope on, but an abstract concept serves the purpose anyway. Like both theists and atheists have numbers. As long as religion does not mess up with the individuals and turn them into fanatics, irrespective of existence, a belief certainly has clearly better pay offs. It is not a waste of the Theists time to believe in God whether or not he exists, but the Atheist has a lot to lose in the eventuality of being misguided, and almost as much even if he is right.




I am a believer. Simple reason, Theists have less to lose if they are wrong than Atheists.