Sunday, February 10, 2013

Misguided Misinterpretations..

Few years ago, I read "Thus Spake Zarathustra" for two reasons - 1) I had no other book 2) There was no electricity in the house that whole day. In the midst of reading Nietzsche's version about the nihilistic overman and the poetic text, I realized I was hooked, which lead me to read another of his works called 'Gay Science'. Most ignoramuses and homophobic retards equate the book to having to do with homosexuality which is the pinnacle of being bullshitty about things we don't know. In the book 'Gay Science', Friedrich Nietzsche doesn't delve on the spirit of the man or his encumbrance to achieve with the human spirit, but talks more about the poetic (in)justice man and the evolution per se has had to go through, thanks to the dogmas of religion. "God is dead", Nietzsche says in a different context than it has been interpreted to be said by most modern day atheists and thinkers.

The underlying philosophy of Nietzsche's works are too complex for a simpleton like me to understand. However, my post isn't about Nietzsche nor his works. It is about this so called cool-tag that every moron attributes himself with - that of being a devout atheist (ah yes, the irony!). I remember being in conversation with an 'ex-friend' of mine who was arguing with me about Black Sabbath and Megadeth - their satanic influence among their faithful. In the midst of the Ozzy Osbourne /Dave Mustaine fixation that she couldn't get over with I asked her if she was a believer and  she told me that she wasn't. I asked her why. She began juxtaposing her interest in angry metal and faith, stating her version in the beginning with a lot of delightful insight, but when I started to raise my innocent, childlike doubts, her atheist ideologies started fumbling, just like her words. All she managed to say at the end of the argument was that she had gained nothing from believing and that was the sole reason, she chose not to believe. Well, fair enough.

I had the privilege, the honor, I must say of being an ardent fan of Christopher Hitchens ever since I read about his resentment towards the Western journalist brethren during the ill-famed "Rushdie Affair". That lead me to finding one of his books called "God is not great"- how religion poisons mankind. 'God is not great' is a very important book as it deals with the subject of antitheism. Hitchens admitted to being an antitheist from the time he became aware of his sensibilities. It is a delightful book as it deals with the problems involved with the dogmas of religion and it does more than just mere god-bashing. There is a lot of difference between an antitheist and an atheist, please note here. A lot more than you think.

One book often leads to another, and I ended up coming across 'The God Delusion', written by a Brit called (Christopher Hitchens was on intimate terms with him) Richard Dawkins, yes, THE Richard Dawkins. The first few pages of the book are pretty tastefully written as Dawkins deals with Einsteinian understanding of the Universe and refurbished with quotes by Carl Sagan about the baloney called religion. However, as the book progress, Dawkins at times, over-indulges. He goes from merely being critical about religion to near blasphemy. Just like a question someone put up on the knowledge-sharing website called Quora, one is left wondering "Why do atheists talk so much about a God they don't believe in?" Dawkins, a gene biology doctorate defends his arguments with the Darwinian model of evolution and how a man - his nature being good or bad is determined by the 'Selfish Gene' (which again is the subject for another book) and has nothing to do with belief or faith (complete with comparisons of Adolf Hitler's conflicting religious inclinations. Dawkins maintains that based on "Mein Kampf", Hitler is a devout Catholic). Dawkins is the perfect prototype for a lawyer as he presents his version of the story not with counterarguments, but with counterfacts. He overrides the teachings stated by believers and ends up gleefully overlooking many aspects of religion and its core concepts - i.e., he only chooses to focus on the negatives persistent in religion(s). Dawkins calls Agnostics the lowest form of life. Even in his example stating the seven different types of believers, he conveniently ignores the en masse belief of people outside the Christian world (in his defense, he does state in the very beginning that the religion-bashing is based only on the teachings of The Old Testament). He brings up the topic of how children are misguided and are gullible in the darker aspect of religion (the Church's infamous sexual abuse) and away from the brighter areas of science and as to why people become what they become. In the last few lines of the book, Dawkins admits that he is partial in his  knowledge and that he is "thrilled to be alive at time when humanity is pushing against the limits of understanding". Overall, a spectacular book, I must say.

However, nowadays, with the near free availability of atheist literature, most of these debaters begin with the Dawkins' arguments of God being non-existent. In the process, they try to shovel their superiority complex and end up totally ridiculing believers, as if all the important cogs of the world-wheel are run by atheists alone. These people are the ones who you'd come across in your extended family circle, offering you free advice, immaterial of whether the other person cares about their opinions or not. Please note that I am neither supporting theism nor bashing atheism, my problem is bigger than that. My problem isn't either with pure-bred atheists or their counterparts, its with these angry-metal music listening douchebags who don't have the slightest of the clue as to what anything in the world is and just go yapping on happy in their half-knowledge! I have never seen anybody talk more about the non-existence of something as much as these pseudo atheists do. Its like a NASA scientist on LSD speak about the outer Universe even though he doesn't know about its existence. That sadly, my friend, is the problem. Dawkins can speak, Hitchens can opine, but not you, asshole! 

Ignorance. Unless, you have read all the scriptures and you have pretty decent idea about how stuff works, I think there should be a law banning stupid people from opening their mouths and voicing their opinions. What these knowledgeably oblivious fucktards basically do is, they bully people. They bully people into believing their version of the story, what I ask is, if that is the case, what is the difference between these trolls and the very concept of "religious propagation" which the Atheism looks to detest. Ignorance is the most dangerous type of malignancy that is metastasizing and cancerously eating away all the knowledge we have gained thus far. Ayn Rand was an atheist, that makes it a strong enough cause for me to be one, if I have to say. Even the existential angst of Jean Paul Sarte or Arthur Schopenhauer can be understood by their will not to submit to a higher power and as Dawkins states in his book, had Shakespeare been of lesser will and submitted to the Church and did as he was ordered to, the world would have failed to have the privilege of classics such Othello, Macbeth and Hamlet.

Again, I tell you, my problem is not with atheism nor believers or any kind of morons, my problem is with the half-knowledge fools who can't differentiate between what is right and wrong. This is again like the very problem with communism or for that matter, any 'ism' where there is an involvement of knowledge transfer. The imparting of teachings is mostly like the game of Chinese whispers, where the message from the sender to the end receiver is mis-communicated, due to all the intermediary filters causing unnecessary white noise, distorting the data. Coming back to the example of Communism, which again has been disoriented from its original intent as postulated (the word is used deliberately) by Karl Marx in the 'Communist Manifesto', several other derivatives of the parent Marxism have wrecked havoc and are responsible now majorly for a huge part of extremism. Misguided misinterpretations. That's all that there is, right now. The same is the case when people ask me to defend Rand's philosophy, which in word looks similar to the concept of capitalism, but in spirit is a diagonally opposite ideology altogether. The problem with the world right now is, people who are really blessed with knowledge and higher intelligence are choosing to keep their opinions shut, whilst those with no brains are choosing to voice theirs. 

As an aspiring writer, I can't choose between sides of the coin. To quote my own self, I neither support nor protest a cause, I simply state it. I hope the world gets rid of its ignorance soon and interprets things in a more sensible, compassionate way. This will ensure the world will become a better place to live. 

No comments:

Post a Comment