God of the Aquarium!

cosmos-a-space-time-odysseyI just finished watching an episode of Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey for the nth time. It is a warm evening with no beer. I resisted buying one for reasons unknown to me. I went out and had an Egg Burji from the street food vendor, bought a coke bottle and curd and returned to my room. It has now become a routine for me to stand on the terrace in the evening with a soft drink while staring at the stars and pondering existence. Today’s blog post is an idea that I had conceived a while ago. Many people believe that I am in some type of mission to disprove God’s existence. That is far from the truth. My mission through my blog posts is to elucidate my point of view. Atheists are sadly some of the most misunderstood and mistrusted people on planet earth and if I could make a small but significant contribution in clarifying our position, I would consider that a success.

The scale of our universe is enormous. This is a phrase repeated time and again in various TV shows such as Cosmos, The Universe, Through the Wormhole and the like. But how many of us truly stop for a second and let that idea sink in? Most of us simply watch the awe inspiring visuals of these programmes and forget it. We are Homo sapiens ; the thinking beings. Whether you like it or not, faith is not an excuse to stop thinking. It took just 4 centuries for us to move from the Dark Ages to achieving monumental feats like landing a man on the Moon. All thanks to the precision, tenacity and dedication of several visionaries. Brave men and women who were never afraid to question authority and challenge dogma and forge new ideas in the cauldrons of their minds about our understanding of the universe. They were the pioneers; the giants on whose shoulders we stand today.

Antibiotics - Printed Diagnosis with Blurred Text. On Background of Medicaments Composition - Red Pills, Injections and Syringe.

My question is, why then are there a vast majority of people in the world who comfortably embrace the benefits of modern science and yet want to hold onto medieval/pre-medieval superstitions and bronze age myths? If it wasn’t for the scientific method, we wouldn’t have things like antibiotics and organ transplant that is saving millions of lives every year. Often times I encounter people who ask me the question, “Has science been able to create artificial life?” or make statements like, “Science cannot explain everything“. Somehow according to them what science hasn’t yet achieved gives them room for God. The task I give to such people is to study the history of science and technology and see what they can infer from it. It’s not surprising that no one has taken up that task. If they did take up the task, they will find that throughout the history of science there have been people who made questions and statements like the one I just mentioned. And every time they have been proven wrong.

Once upon a time nobody believed that the sound barrier could be broken. I invite them to have a look at the supersonic jets and rockets of today. Heavier than air flying machine was thought to be impossible. Communication without wires was thought to be impossible. Splitting of atom was thought to be impossible. In fact in 1894 the famous physicist Albert Michelson said, “The more important fundamental laws and facts of physical science have all been discovered, and these are now so firmly established that the possibility of their ever being supplanted in consequence of new discoveries is exceedingly remote.” Perhaps he meant well when he said this. However when we fast forward 3 years in 1897 the electron was discovered by Sir J. J Thompson thereby opening up a whole new world within our world. This is what happens every time in science. People point out at something that hasn’t been achieved by science as proof of science’s inability to do so. And time and again they are proven wrong.

Science requires a certain perspective to understand. Without such a perspective, it is nothing more than a boring set of laws and equations that are meant only for the nerds. Two years ago I had written a post called The Purpose of Life. It was about a question that was posed to me by a colleague of mine. Unlike the “triggers” of the infamous social justice warriors, this trigger was a good one. It prompted me to write a blog post. I will come to the main premise of today’s post which is the God of the Aquarium. It is actually a thought experiment devised by me a few years ago. If anyone is ready to take up the task, they are welcome to think about the following:

amaterske_akvariumImagine you wanted an aquarium in your living room. You can either build one or buy an already built one from a vendor. Let’s assume that you decided to build one. You bought the glass, the cement, sand, pebbles, aquatic plants and most importantly the fancy fishes. In addition, you need a setup for the lighting and filters for the water. By investing several hours or even days you finally build your aquarium with the sand, pebbles and aquatic plants at the bottom and all your beautiful fishes moving around in the water above. A good lighting and filtering system would make it a sight worth seeing and a crown jewel adorning your living room. All that is very nice but I have a simple question for you – “Have you ever thought about the little bacteria, viruses.algae, fungi and other microbial organisms living on the little specks of sand at the bottom of your aquarium?” They are also part of your aquarium and contribute to the biochemical activities of it. They are instrumental in many ways in maintaining the ecological balance of the system. And yet you are not feeding it like you would feed the fishes. You are not even bothered they exist. What difference would it make to you whether the bacteria on a little speck of sand lives or dies?

Now hold these thoughts for a moment. In the second paragraph I said that the scale of the universe is enormous. The observable universe is almost 93 billion light years in diameter (yes, it is a billion with a b!). That is just the observable part. The light from beyond that cosmic horizon hasn’t reached us yet and therefore we do not know what lies beyond. And even in the observable part of the universe there is so much yet to be discovered. In this humongous universe of ours, where is planet Earth? We live in a planet that revolves around an average star that resides in just one of the spiral arms of our galaxy, which is one of the galaxies in a Local Group of about 54 galaxies including our Milky Way and Andromeda. And our Local Group is part of something called the Virgo Supercluster which contains over 100 such galaxy groups. The Virgo Supercluster is part of an even bigger supercluster called the Laniakea which consists of three other superclusters namely Hydra-Centaurus, Pavo-Indus and the Southern Supercluster. It has an estimated 100,000 galaxies in it. Scientists have calculated that there are roughly 10 million superclusters in the observable universe. These 10 million superclusters give a mesh-like appearance to our universe at very large scales.

exoplanet20151006-16The first exoplanet orbiting a main sequence star was discovered in 1995. It was named 51 Pegasi b. It is a hot Jupiter which takes about 4.2 earth days to orbit its parent star. Since then planetary scientists have discovered thousands of them. As of September 2016, there have been 3,518 confirmed discoveries in 2,635 planetary systems and 595 multiple planetary systems. That’s a huge number of planets within 21 years. It is safe to assume now that most stars do have planets orbiting them thereby making planets outnumber the stars. This means that there must be billions of planets out there in the observable universe. The recent discovery of Proxima Centauri b added another planet in the list of potentially habitable planets which you can see here. There is every likelihood that there are billions of intelligent civilizations in the universe. And our earth is just one speck of sand in the vast cosmic ocean.

Now think about your aquarium. Just as you don’t care much about the bacteria living on a speck of sand at the bottom of your aquarium, do you really think that a God or Supreme Being or Intelligent Designer who created a universe the scale of which blows our imagination would have any special preference to a particular species of creatures on planet earth? Why would he/she/it have kind of “soft corner” for our species at all? We are just living in a planet that is totally insignificant in the grand scheme of things. Is there any logical reason God could care about us more than any other intelligent alien civilization which is most likely out there? So what conclusion can you draw from this thought experiment?

Think about it!

Image Courtesy:

Cosmos A Spacetime Odyssey – https://fanart.tv/fanart/tv/260586/tvposter/cosmos-a-space-time-odyssey-531e9d1f246dd.jpg
Antibiotics – http://www.iran-daily.com/content/imgcache/file/147167/0/image_650_365.jpg
Aquarium – https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a8/Amaterske_akvarium.jpg
51 Pegasi b – http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/images/exoplanet/20151006/exoplanet20151006-16.jpg

The Dubai Reasoning!

It is surprising how misunderstood atheists are. Most people really do not know why atheists become atheists. There are popular misconceptions such as atheists do not believe in God because they think that something that cannot be seen cannot be believed. Another misconception is that atheists are messengers of evil or the devil. Yet another misconception is that atheists believe in evolution which states humans came from monkeys. All of these arguments against atheism are ignorant and straw-man to say the least.

Mohanlal in Kilichundan Mampazham

Mohanlal in Kilichundan Mampazham

There is a popular Malayalam film named Kilichundan Mampazham. In that Mohanlal talks about belief. He says that just because one has not seen Dubai, doesn’t mean Dubai doesn’t exist. So far two close friends of mine have used the same logic to me while talking about atheism. They say that if I haven’t seen God, it doesn’t mean God doesn’t exist. Well, first of all I must tell everyone that it is not because we can’t see God that we don’t believe in God’s existence. This argument stems from the lack of understanding of what evidence means. People are yet not clear with the concepts of direct and indirect evidence.

I have not seen my brain yet. In fact most humans have not seen their own brain. However, we know that it exists. We are aware of its existence from various indirect evidences that we can verify. For instance, we can perform an EEG or a PET scan and verify that we have a brain. Other indirect evidences would be the cognitive processes that goes on inside our head all the time. We think therefore, we do have a brain. We really don’t need to cut open the head to verify its existence but if we do, we can be sure that will see our brain. When a crime happens, the detective doesn’t see the crime directly in most cases. He collects evidences such as fingerprints, footprints, blood samples, video and audio recordings, letters and emails, chat scripts, witness testimonies and many other things before drawing his conclusions as to who might be the culprit.

Similarly, we know that Dubai exists from a variety of indirect evidences such as personal descriptions of people who visited that place, photographs and documentaries and news related to that place among others. All these convince us that Dubai exists even though we haven’t visited it. Hence the argument that atheists reject God because they haven’t seen God is meaningless. It is not just the direct evidence that we verify but also indirect evidence. There hasn’t been any testable way to prove that God exists both directly or indirectly. Which is one of the main reasons why we don’t believe in a God.

Carl Sagan

Carl Sagan

Carl Sagan once said, “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence“. However, we must use that statement carefully in any context. Or rather, we shouldn’t misuse that statement. When I speak about aliens, some people ask me how am I so sure about their existence. Of course I am not fully sure about their existence. However, the indirect evidence is so overwhelming. At the time I am writing this, scientists have discovered over 700 planets and over two dozen of them are in the habitable zone around their parent stars, which means they can harbor life as we know it.

Now, life as we know it alludes to the carbon based life form. Carbon as you might have studied in high school, has a property called catenation. It can form long chains of molecules that form “backbone” for other molecules and atoms to attach. Our DNA is one such molecule which can self replicate and therefore form the base for life to evolve. DNA may not be the base for life in other planets but still it is highly likely that it will be a carbon based self replicating molecule. When scientists search for life in other planets, they look for signatures of life such as oxygen-carbon dioxide cycle, presence of organic molecules, presence of moisture in the atmosphere etc. And intelligent or industrialized life form would have further signatures such industrial waste gases, radiation, presence of radio waves artificial light sources etc. These are prominent indirect evidences that scientists are looking for all the time in the planets that are being discovered.

exoplanet artists impression

Exoplanet (Artist’s Impression)

We haven’t found direct evidence for aliens because we have barely started looking. It’s been just over 110 years since we invented radio. Which means, the farthest those early signals have gone is 110 light years. Our galaxy is over 100,000 light years across and have an estimated 400 billion stars. And there are roughly a hundred billion such galaxies in the observable universe (give or take a few billion). In the last 20 years since the first discovery of an exoplanet, we have found over 700 confirmed planets. Hence, the discovery rate is quite high and in the coming years, the number of planets we find will be truly mind blowing. Thus, the day is not far before we find the first clues for a life form that is truly alien. And when that happens, our civilization will be changed forever.

Coming back to the main topic of discussion, evidence can be direct or indirect. In science, a theory can be verified through experiment, through observation or through mathematics. In addition, there is a rigorous process of peer-review. It is only when such a verification occurs that a theory gets accepted in the scientific community. Scientific community is hence very rigid because there is no room for error there. Therefore, any Tom, Dick and Harry cannot come up with a theory and say, “Hey, this is my new theory, accept it.”

God, is a concept invented at a time when there wasn’t an understanding about what was going on in the world. To be more specific, the God in our culture(s) is basically the “God of the gaps”. People tried to plug in the various holes in their knowledge about the world using God(s). Religion was a political and cultural construct invented in order to keep people in control by exploiting this ignorance. However, today we know so much about the world around us that we can start pulling out the plugs from many such holes and put our scientific understanding in place. For example, we didn’t know how things fall in the past, but we do today. So, we pulled out the corresponding plug and put theory of gravity in. We didn’t know why there was a retrograde motion for Mars and other planets, but we do today. So, we pulled out the plug and put Heliocentric theory in. We didn’t know why diseases occur, but we do today. So, we pulled out the plug and put germ theory in. So as and when we learn a new thing about this world, one God disappears or as astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson put it, “God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that’s getting smaller and smaller and smaller as time goes on.

This was a simple article about the atheistic viewpoint. If this doesn’t provoke thought in a religious person and helps him understand why atheist reject God, then I am not sure what will. Any questions on the content of this post is welcome. Thanks for your time.

The Einstein Argument!

There are people who believe in God because their parents or community does so. There are some who follow the “because there is something, someone must have created it” logic. Yet some others believe because they are not sure but do not want to take “risk“. However, recently I heard an interesting preposition. It basically preys on my keen interests in astronomy and astrophysics and states that as I learn more about the universe, some day I would realize that there is a God and leave my atheistic point of view.

The source of this partially ignorant preposition is even more interesting. It uses Albert Einstein as a yardstick to measure the highest level of intellectual achievement and then uses that as an argument against atheism saying, “Even Albert Einstein believed in God. And you are talking about atheism.” The words “even” and “you” are the problem sin this sentence, which you will understand as you read on. The preposition also takes its position from a very popular urban legend where Einstein as a student seemingly “proved” God to his atheist professor.

There is no doubt that Einstein is one of the greatest scientists of all times. However, using him as a yardstick of intellectual achievement in my opinion grossly demeans other great scientists who lived during his time, before him and after him. The fact is Einstein actually never believed in a God. Of course he was not an atheist. He preferred to be an agnostic, which is good as a scientist since agnosticism is in many ways like atheism except for the part where it accepts the lack of surety as to whether a supernatural creator created this universe and then interferes with the events happening in it.

Hence, touting up his name  in order to sell one’s religious point of view doesn’t make sense. There are other issues in using Einstein’s name in this case of a supreme God who has influence over how events unfold in the fabric of reality. First of all when we talk about an intelligent creator being, it is a scientific hypothesis. We are talking about an intelligent being that has the capability of various feats. Then the question that would naturally follow would be “Where did this being come from?

Secondly, Einstein had big problems with quantum mechanics. The world as we know can be divided according to two models. The one for which Einstein is famous for which is general relativity and the other is quantum mechanics. Now, in order to describe reality completely, we need both the theories.

General relativity goes about explaining the universe at a macroscopic scale. It is very beautiful and elegant and describes a predictable universe. It appears that Einstein’s obsession with predictability of the universe is one of the reasons why he is an agnostic. Unfortunately, at the most fundamental levels, the universe is totally unpredictable. The works of Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, Max Born, Wolfgang Pauli and a whole bunch of other scientists during Einstein’s time and afterwards conclusively prove that the quantum mechanical nature of our universe at the fundamental level is unpredictable.

It is obvious that Einstein had a problem with it because he wanted his predictable view of the universe to work at all levels, which it didn’t. If quantum mechanics was just a theory that couldn’t be verified experimentally, then he would have easily brushed it aside and moved on. But that was not the case. Experiments after experiments kept proving the quantum mechanical nature of reality at the fundamental level. This is where Einstein had a problem and he went on making the famous statement, “God doesn’t play dice with the world.”

To his death, Einstein didn’t accept quantum mechanics even though he knew that it was a true way of understanding nature at the microscopic scale. In fact, towards his later years, he became a recluse and refused to read the papers of new scientists who were making excellent progress in the field. It is said that he wasn’t even aware that two new forces viz. the strong force and the weak force were discovered. He spent his remaining few years of life working on one particular problem, which is combining electromagnetism and gravity, which were the only two forces known to him.

So, as a scientist, his achievements in relativistic mechanics, gravity, photoelectric effect etc. are excellent. However, he had this exceptionally biased point of view towards quantum mechanics, which was the other half of reality. It is funny to know that it was his own earlier works in physics that lead to the creation of quantum mechanics. That probably might have disturbed him further.

To summarize, touting up Einstein’s name in religious arguments is futile because of two reasons. First, he never believed in a God and was an agnostic. Second, he was biased enough to discard one half of reality that describes the universe in order to favor the other half. Further, he was never the only intellectual of his time or anytime for that matter. Thomas Edison, Paul Dirac, James Chadwick, Paul Ehrenfest, Sigmund Freud, Niels Bohr, Pierre Curie, George Gamow, Julian Huxley, Frank Whittle, Alan Turing, William Shockley, J. Robert Oppenheimer, Erwin Schrodinger etc. are some of the scientists and inventors during Einstein’s time who were confirmed atheists. Other famous historic and contemporary atheist scientists and inventors include Jim Al-Khalili, Svante Arrhenius, Subrahmanyan Chandrashekhar, Francis Crick, Richard Dawkins, Sandra Faber, Richard Feynman, Alan Guth, Wilhelm Ostwald, Edmund Halley, Stephen Hawking, Peter Higgs, Lawrence Krauss, Joseph Louis Lagrange, Alfred Kinsey, Pierre-Simon Laplace, Alfred Nobel, Sir Roger Penrose, Carl Sagan, Leonard Susskind, Steven Weinberg, Richard Stallman etc.

We can’t in anyway say that Einstein was somehow more intelligent than them or his contributions are greater than all these people or that his religious point of view is somehow better than them. Einstein himself is known for his seemingly ambiguous statements about God and religion. Hence, to conclude, it is a futile attempt to use Einstein’s religious point of view as an argument against atheism.

Tasting God – A New Perspective!

Kung Fu!

Yesterday I visited my Kung Fu instructor who also works as a massage therapist. I wanted to buy some sandalwood oil for my hair from the shop adjoining his clinic. After his clients left, we sat down to talk. He asked me whether I still practiced Reiki. I said no and told him that I left my faith and became an atheist. He was surprised because he was deeply religious but also curious to know why I changed.

The Watchmaker Analogy

I started by refuting the Watchmaker Analogy. I told him in simple words that if complexity requires a designer, then that designer should be more complex than the object he designed thereby invoking the question of who designed the designer. He kind of agreed to it and asked me whether I believed that there is an edge to this universe. I told him that there are scientists who believe that there is and there are others who believe that there isn’t.

Young Charles Darwin

He wanted to pay his telephone bills so we walked to the payment center nearby. On our way I spoke about the various theories of life’s origin and how it evolved. He didn’t have any problem with evolution because he knows that there is ample evidence in support of it. I noticed that he believes in a God who initiated the big bang and intervenes in between to make necessary changes.

When we returned to the clinic, he brought up the subject of edge of the universe and asked me how I can say that there is no God(who happens to exist beyond space and time) when science hasn’t been able to find whether there is an edge to this universe or not. I told that if God existed, then he should in someway manifest himself in a measurable form. He countered by saying that we shouldn’t measure God by intellect.

An Orange

He then quoted an incident that occurred in a district which is about 300 km from our district. There was an atheist convention going on and the speaker challenged the audience to give a proof that there is a God. A person who was passing by heard this and he came upon the stage to take up the challenge. He had some oranges in his bag. He peeled an orange and ate it and asked the speaker whether it tasted sweet or sour. The speaker said, “How can I say whether it tasted sweet or sour? You are the one who tasted it“. The orange guy said, “This applies to God as well. You can’t tell whether the orange I tasted is sweet or sour unless you have tasted it as well. Similarly unless you taste God, you will never know him.” And he left the convention.

My instructor then continued with an experience from his own life in which he prayed hard to save his sister while she had some complications during her pregnancy. And he told that some priest who did not know his family was able to see through his inner eye that his sister needed help.

An example of the Scientific Method

Being a skeptic, it was hard for me to accept that a priest asked him to pray and that everything worked out well because of that. I was tempted to say that things would have gotten better anyway but I didn’t want to hurt his feelings so I held back. I proceeded in a different angle. I told him about the scientific method. I told him that unless a hypothesis put forward by a scientist is proven experimentally, it is just a hypothesis and no one would accept it as fact. When people predicted that atoms existed, there was no way to find out until Einstein came up with his results on Brownian motion. Similarly, the other predictions that have been confirmed.

String Theory – A possible unified theory of physics

I then told him that saying that a God created this universe is a scientific hypothesis and that if someone makes this hypothesis, then it has to be experimentally verified. He told that God is a being that cannot be measured by intelligence. But if he is indeed a “being” who “exists”, then his existence should be experimentally verifiable and until then it is just an untested hypothesis. I then went on and on with quark theory and string theory and all other theories and how some of these theories have been tested as true while others have not been verified and hence are just theories.

He finally said “Alright, let’s stop this discussion because it is an eternal debate.” I too agreed to him.

Did God create man or man create God?


Image of Man creates God
Man creates God

Thought provoking though it is, the answer is simple. Man created God! It is irrational to let our lives be governed by faith that is based on something other than evidence. It may be true that we do good because we have faith that is based on something other than evidence but it is still irrational to do so. It is such a shame that despite the plethora of evidence at our disposal, people attribute their existence to supernatural. Childhood indoctrination has engraved this thought in our minds and it is hard to get away from the clutches of religious faith.

Image of Athiest viewpoint

Athiest viewpoint

In my early life, I looked upon God for everything. It was not until my teens that I had the courage to question religion. It took probably an equal amount of time further into the future until I proclaimed myself as a proud atheist. What is there to be so proud about being an atheist? It is a feeling of intellectual fulfillment. We look at life as it is and realize that we have just one. This is a precious life and we should not waste it. Further we realize that we do not transcend into another form after we die.

Image of Atomic Theory

Atomic Theory

Sages like Paramahansa Yogananda speaks about an invisible world. Something that we can’t see or perceive with our senses. I think he speaks about the atomic world. We don’t see them and yet we know atoms exist. The ancient sages used to preach that the soul is indestructible. Atomic theory clearly explains why soul is indestructible. It is because the atoms that make up my body formed before my body was formed. It will be replenished throughout my life due to biological processes. And those atoms will stay the same after I die. Atom is indeed the soul!

Image of Dawn of Civilization

The Dawn of Civilization

At the dawn of civilization, humans who lacked the scientific knowledge of today looked upon natural phenomenon and interpreted them as manifestations of divine intervention. Not only the creation of the universe, but also God was supposed to interfere with every other aspect of our lives. Rather we were taught to believe so. How much evidence in this modern world do we have about miracles? I do not know but I am sure that the number of miracles in the entire world would statistically add to nothing because the number of people indulging in desperate prayer will be thousands or even millions of times larger.

Image of Philanthropy

Philanthropy

True enlightenment is the situation when we understand and perceive the world as it is. No light is going to come and hit our head bestowing us with universal wisdom because there is no such thing. Any claim of lights hitting the head can be easily disposed because the there is a whole range of illusions that the human mind is so capable of producing. As mentioned before, this is a precious life, this is a beautiful life, this is a wonderful life. The love that we feel towards others should come from within. It should be derived from a modern sense of compassion that is empirical rather than from any religious indoctrination. We have to realize that our existence depends on the presence of other people in this world and that should be our philanthropic source!

The Free Thinker!

I believe this is the right day to talk about atheism. Long time ago, when I was in my 11th grade, one of my teachers was teaching computer science. She was more eager to teach other stuff like “ignorance of law is an offense” rather than computers. One day she asked “How many of you believe that there is a force that governs everything?”. To this almost all members of the class rose their hands except three guys. I was one of them. She immediately asked “Why you three don’t believe?”. We started talking reason. We told her that there is no proof of an almighty and she was not ready to accept and was rather upset by it.

I was thinking why. My friends came up to me and asked “What man? Why don’t you have faith in God?”. My question to them was “Is it mandatory to have faith in God?”. I was so obsessed with reasoning that I stayed very close to my atheist friends.

Years passed and one day I thought “What if the theists are true?”. To test this, I spent many years studying a lot of stuff which I have mentioned in my previous blog “The wishful thinker”(http://www.thinkatheist.com/profiles/blogs/the-wishful-thinker). It was some sort of soul searching. What was the result? It reinforced my atheistic beliefs. I have always questioned the following:

1. God,
2. Devil
3. Religion
4. Life after death
5. Holistic healing
6. Dream control
7. Superstitions
………

And after my so called “soul searching” I still question these things.

My dear friends, free thought is great. It lets me look at life without rebuke. It lets me think perfectly because there is no self other than my biological self. There is no sense other than my 5 senses. There is no thought projection and ESP. What remains is the absolute biological brain intelligence which is great stuff if used properly.

I believe free thought has to be cultivated at a very young age. Children should be free to think and act without the barrier of religion in between their thoughts and their purpose. There are many people who hold on to scriptures and holding it up as cause bound truth. It is really that necessary?

We have evolved as the most advanced creatures on the planet. Does that mean that our species was created from no where and put on earth? Certainly not. Why should someone create a universe and earth and put living things in it and say that humans should govern all the other creatures? Is it some sort of time pass of God to sit and create and destroy stuff for no apparent reason?

Promotion of reason and free thought lacks rigor today because most atheists never come out in public. This mentality has to change. Since modern society is ready to accept any form of religion and many other concepts, I personally feel that atheists should start declaring within the public. It is very easy. All it takes is courage. We should let our friends know that we are atheists. At least some of our friends who are already atheists will open up and we can make them open up among their friends easily. When this happens, people will start thinking as to why many of us are atheists. Soon this wave will go viral and many people will leave their religions.

As I said, it requires courage. Because many religious fanatics are out there who threaten to cut our throats if we propagate atheism. But if we succeed in making at least one person leave his/her religion, it will be a great achievement for science and reasoning.

Such a revolution is necessary in this age where we see a lot of atrocities in the name of religion. There has to be more science being studied in the world than it is today. There has to be better understanding and fulfilment of life.