I Don't Care About God's Nonexistence

Some of the most fundamental truths of ourselves, our universe, and the ways we interact with it are irreversibly solipsized beyond credibility. This validity is lost because, as any sane individual would avow, absolutism of the ego is the driving maxim of the victim of perception-related fallacy. And yet, the desire to be the sole purveyor of reality is evolutionarily inherent, since we are ultimately driven to survival, not truth. This characterizes the problem of atheism and its nucleic intellectual inconsistency.

The modern atheist often highlights the evils of establishment religion -- its abuses, its overreaches, its tendencies to autocracy. But this modern atheist is unable to sufficiently answer the question that undergirds the quintessential theological rebuttal: according to what? What is evil if there is no arbiter to determine it? If religion is evil according to the Christian ethical perspective, then that ethical perspective is self-defeating. If it is self-defeating, then ethics and its arbiters don't exist at all, so how could anything be categorized as evil? If evil is defined as that which violates some "evolutionary ethic," then the Darwinian basis of religion that exists (if God does not) is denied. What could be more evolutionarily ethical -- more survival-affirming, I suppose -- than substantiating the tribalism of discipleship and the desperation inherent in the invention of the afterlife? If it is the case that ethics cannot originate from these things, where does the belief in evil come from, then? This is where the self is forced to actualize as the arbiter in order to fulfill the necessity of the origin of truth. Radical autonomy, in this way, is atheism.

The atheist determines truth and falsehood, which is consistent with the baffling adherence to the belief in aesthetics, meaning, creativity, and ethics. The atheist, for whatever reason, refuses to admit to the absence of beauty, joy, and purpose in this massive, ever-revolving cosmic swirl of dust, gas, and particles in a strange, pseudo-Epicurean, often Dionysian, desire to "enjoy pleasure while we can" -- which only certifies the Christian, and thus meaning, in its ostensible satanism anyway. But why can't we explore the breadth of an atheistic or nihilistic worldview? If the universal materialist most accurately perceives our reality, then what is so wrong with shedding this allegiance to meaning? It is almost as though meaning, or even an unfounded belief in it, is critical to the human will to survive. If this is the case, is the atheist fundamentally unconcerned with truth, particularly the truth of materialism, and more interested in survival? If so, then the atheistic perspective isn't an epistemology, it is the ultimate evolutionistic expression -- the uninhibited devotion to survival.

I am personally more interested in the fullest extent of the truth and, potentially, the unhindered exploration of nihilism. Beyond the ethicist is the survivalist. Beyond the survivalist is the nihilist. Why is there no self-actualizer who wills to venture beyond the survivalist? Why is there no moral agent within this potential realm of morallessness who wills absolute commitment to radical meaninglessness? If nothing actually matters, which is entirely materialistically justifiable, then why continue in the abhorrent sway between the fabricated binary of good and evil? The survivalist does well to transcend this. But why can't he further the truth-quest, and cease to enjoy anything? Why find beauty, and why cherish it? Why value anything? Why submit to the whims and wills of the nervous system, the mind, or the natural forces that compose the urges for survivability and viability? Why feign belief in things? It is so mindbending to find the survivalist struggling to transcend the evolutionary human plight since he's already proven himself capable of transcending the ethical human plight. Why is it so impossible to enter nonplight? If there is no purpose in vying for meaning, why do so many find it unthinkable to cease vying? Why vie? It's entirely unjustifiable.

If one values goodness, then he assumes the role of the ethicist. If he values self-preservation, then the survivalist. But if he values truth, as the uppermost form of perception, then he is the nihilist. And isn't truth this uppermost form axiomatically?

If God exists, however, he restores the primordial form of the ethicist because truth would be synonymous with Him and therefore transcendent. Truth would not lie in its totality in the materialistic perspective, whose fulfillment is the heat death of the universe, but in realms that supersede death and, as such, offer salvation from this one. If God does not exist, then neither does there exist anything superseding, and so the nihilist finds complete justification. In this nihilistic perspective, which is only true if it is preceded by the reality that God doesn't exist, there is absolute devotion to uncaring, which would be consistent with reality -- absolute zero, the great equilibrium.

So if God does not exist, I simply don't care. But if He does, then I do. This is the essence of intellectual consistency.