Atheism is a religion for miserable fools

The most common problem atheists have is in their confusing God with "religion". God is not religion, and religion is not God. In fact, atheists are some of the most fanatically religious people on the planet. Their religion is one of the most rigid and exclusionary of all religions, as they regularly demonize, shun, and disparage all others who do not abide by the tenents of their belief systems and practices.

Religion is not simply a set of beliefs in a supernatural power, but is a rigid code of ethics and philosophy, based upon a specific system of belief, practices, or values even resembling, or suggestive of such a system of belief. Atheists often complain about others "pushing" their religious beliefs upon them, yet are some of the pushiest people on the planet when it comes to their own belief system, which they often promote quite religiously.

Here's a little food for thought . . .

What is time? What is its nature? When did time begin? What happened before that?

How big is outer space? Where does it end? When you get to the end of outer space, what's on the other side?

If you atheists are not wise enough to answer these questions fully and accurately, then you are certainly not wise enough to positively and unequivocally make the great and final pronouncement upon the eternal question of whether God does, or does not, in fact, exist.

Here's an interesting video on the subject:

Modern Science Finds God (A Video Presentation) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2fswCPeu_Q

Also:

I'm now suspicious as to whether what I've described really is "agnosticism," because I've already admitted that avoiding faith in all aspects of life is self-imposed brain fuckery. We will always have to resort back to our faith in certain "basic facts," in order to get through the day. In the scope of religion/atheism, I believe "unwillingness to accept either as absolute fact" may be a correct description, but when applied to other aspects of life, agnosticism quickly becomes problematic. I guess what I'm advocating is that "you may use faith to make decisions that you believe in, but you must be willing to concede to the faith of others [possibly, in consideration that they will do the same to you]." This may be an alternative, more humanly-attainable/realistic standard for "agnosticism."

I also forgot to mention the supposed benefits of agnosticism. When people decide to be either religious, or atheistic, this often results in them being completely shut-out from the teachings of the other side.

Pick-and-choose passages from the bible, or any other religious work, and you may actually find some good advice. But if you were religious, you would be bound to a deity, and also might struggle with certain "moral" restrictions, like decrees against homosexuality.

If you are atheistic, you are unlikely to ever touch a bible and thus won't be able to reap any of the benefits that religion might offer. Or, an atheist could extract some value from religious philosophy (detached, of course, from his belief in God), but he would still be an ignorant fool when he sits in a corner laughing at religious folk, because his belief in the "religion of science" is just as faith-based as his Christian "underlings."

But if you're agnostic, then you can get the best of both worlds, and avoid being ignorant or [too] hypocritical.