Agnostic as a Group Member; A-theist as a believer; A Surprising God as a funny equation
Belonging to a group and believing in a security mechanism to guarantee the future (as much as possible) are two fundamental survival mechanisms for human species. The two phenomenon are interrelated, and create some behavioral tendency in humans to believe in a particular metaphysical thing and being a member of a group related to this belief (Probably being a group member according to the need of a person is a prior behavior in this pattern not being a believer). Thus, people may have stronger social relations and catch more stable mental status so to speak.
Being a member of a group is really vital to humans. Studies show that people have many health problems, mental disorders even suicidal tendencies. However, belief is a dangerous platform to manage your social status, but it is very present and powerful in the social environment, and it harshly lumps people together as groups. So if it is not possible to escape being a member of a believer group (implicitly or explicitly), which group would be better to be in?
People are radicals. Without contemplations, long internal conversations, and having refined knowledge, they defend their beliefs/ideas, as they are in a battle. However, lack of flexibility in the ideas and thereby in the executive functions can be very much problematic against the life issues. Although the certain social values are very important providing predictable behavioral norms, they should be not be so rigid. Because the life issues, the parameters of the life isses always change. So the values should be opened to be changed based on the alteration in the life and the knowledge that we have.
Being in a group both means to share the ideas and hanging out with people. At that point, agnosticism seems more moderate as a believer group to be inside of it. They are either more sceptic about the values, and less rigid against the different ideas. They are more plain to share the philosophical thoughts which makes the life easier with them. As a result, I choose to be in the society of agnostics.
Nevertheless, as an internal operation, questioning the challenges of the life and finding abstract, mathematical, futuristic solutions are the important feature for our species. As a variation of this skill, creating gods (or strict values) is a way that many people appeal to. However, the life is harder and crueler than we can have inaccurate methodology or childish dreams about it. At that point, maybe agnosticism cannot help us, while it gives an open door for the existence of God. Because if the god would exist, the pain, challenges in this world (which covers the 90 percent of the life) would have to be questioned too much, and it would be very conflicted situation for our minds.
In contrast to this, a-theism rejects the idea of theism (or polytheism) and leads our minds into a more blank page to start from the beginning as being alone. It suggest that we can build and regulate our own values without an upper instruction, and make a peace with our desperate life issues (at least in the level of thoughts). Of course it is slightly tough to accept the idea of disappearance. But as a believer it is also highly hard not to be sure, when you find yourself in a period of questioning. If we really believe in that there is after life and we get together again, why are we that sad? Eventually, it would create some conflict and at some point disappointments. As a result, as a way of belief it seems pretty plausible to be an a-theist to cope with the life issues, have better strategies in them and get more stable minds.
Overall, agnosticism and a-theism gives a pretty comfortable philosophical paradigms to go with. But if we get back to be a suspicious on the issues that we cannot experience. Such as, is there a after life, what is dying, can some upper power have an effect on our lives to lead the life incidents? For this question, we may have a scenario like this: In the background of all the happenings, indeed there is a god. He is a very joker. He waits for the moment to explain his joke, maybe to apologize or redeem himself. In this scenario, the equation seems pretty okay. The god exist, and the bad things will end eventually, will be tied to a joke, and we will all have fun. And it also does not require to believe in the god, or consider the issues from the god, because they are already part of a joke and he is a soft joker, lovely upperer.
As it is seen here, the ideas about the questioning the backstage of the life (if there is one) can be managed with these perspectives, and we can have values more realistic, but futuristic, also plausible especially for the societal line, then we can go beyond for the better but not the rather.
