Table Of ContentThe Atheist to Pagan Pipeline
Joel F. Carberry
2022
Atheism, n. disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. Or at least, that’s
what atheism is supposed to be. It is, however, rare to find an atheist who actually fits that
description. Paganism, n. a polytheistic belief system often focused on worshiping nature. As
absurd as it might sound, the atheist is perhaps more prone to pagan beliefs than anyone else on
the planet.
How could this be the case, that an unbeliever can so easily transition into a pagan
zealot? This occurs because the atheist movement, first and foremost, is a collection of
anti-Christian reactionaries. Their issue is not with the concept of God so much as it is with the
mainstream Western belief of Christianity. A true atheist is someone who does not believe in
God, but atheistic unbelief routinely proves to be particular rather than universal. This is
evidenced by the atheist’s war with Western religion, a war which frequently and conveniently
avoids criticizing Judaism, Buddhism, and pagan religions.
These other religions often escape the unbeliever’s wrath, his contempt. Christian beliefs,
however, receive a unique hatred from so-called “atheistic” groups. This hatred is unreasonable.
If someone purports to not believe in God, then how could they hate him? Can a thing of
nonexistence be hated? For people who don’t believe in God, they sure talk about him a lot, but
they make sure to specify that their spite is directed towards the Christian God.
In addition to its anti-Christian reactionary nature, one might remark that atheism
requires just as much faith as it does to believe in a religion. Faith, n . belief in something which
cannot be known. To say, “I’m not sure if there is a God one way or the other,” is to be agnostic.
In their hubris, however, atheists cannot content themselves with such a position. No, that’s not
anti-Christ enough. Instead, they must actively believe the unfalsifiable truth to be false, the
Christian God to not exist. It is not a mistake or an oversight that atheists choose their brand of
skepticism over the impartial stance of agnosticism. It’s intentional. An atheist chooses disbelief
over neutrality, but this is a hypocritical philosophy:
1. An unfalsifiable truth cannot be tested and thus cannot be disproven.
2. The concept of God is an unfalsifiable truth.
3. Atheism disbelieves God.
Conclusion: Unbelief in an unfalsifiable truth is a matter of subjective belief, of faith, as the
unfalsifiable truth in question cannot be known to be false. Therefore, to claim with certainty that
there is no God requires just as much faith as it takes to believe in one.
Some might counter by saying that the concept of God being an unfalsifiable truth is
irrelevant because there are an infinite number of unfalsifiable truths that could be considered.
For example, if someone claims to have an invisible unicorn that cannot be detected by any
means, that could also be considered unfalsifiable. There is, however, a critical difference
between God and ethereal unicorns:
1. God can be argued for deductively.
2. A deductive argument can be used as justification for a belief.
Conclusion: God is justifiable.
Unlike some unfalsifiable truths, God is justifiable. But this common argument of
metaphysical unicorns is misplaced anyway. Do atheists often spend their free time doubting the
existence of unicorns? Probably not. Why not? This is because there is no serious argument for
the existence of unicorns, whereas there is a serious argument for God.
The above-stated issues with atheism’s unbelief system are not all. Additionally, atheism
offers no collective. Atheistic groups are rife with in-fighting because they have no established
doctrine. Collective unbelief is not synonymous with collective belief. Atheistic nonbelief is their
only guaranteed commutuality because they have no rule book, no code. Thus, the atheist finds
himself on his own, with nothing held sacred besides his unbelief. This is not a satisfactory or
sustainable system.
In the end, atheism is a transitory ideology. Anti-Christian reactionaries brand themselves
as atheists, but, once Christianity is disbelieved, their atheism loses its meaning. How can you
fight a war without an enemy? Once the atheist has bashed Christianity until he can bash it no
more, his unbelief in God has no further use. Although, it was not an unbelief in the concept of
God in the first place; It was an unbelief in Christianity. As previously noted, atheism is a
hypocritical philosophy because it disbelieves an unfalsifiable truth which is justifiable. In
addition to the aforementioned aspects of atheism, the unbelief system offers no answers, no
meaning. Atheism is a system of disbelief, a system that cannot offer any knowledge because its
only purpose is the disbelief of the knowledge of God. For these reasons, the atheist must turn
elsewhere when his ideology has run its course, when unbelief becomes inadequate.
But where can he turn now? He cannot turn to Christianity, because that would invalidate
the war he had been fighting. For that matter, he cannot turn to any Abrahamic religions. Indian
religions often prove too spiritual for the former atheist. Eventually, their minds settle in the
simple compromise of nature. Suddenly, the atheist is an atheist no longer. He falls first into
nature’s welcoming embrace. After rejecting God, nature appears to be the only divinity.
Soon, however, he finds that nature itself offers no answers or collective, either. Nature is
full of unexplainable phenomena, of design too intelligent to have been dictated by a dice roll.
This vexes the unbeliever. It couldn’t have been down to chance. No, someone must have made it
this way, but that cannot be the case because then the atheist would have to admit he was wrong,
that there is a supreme being.
But what if there was no supreme being? What if, instead, there was a collection of
powerful entities who were not wholly supreme? Then, no admission of fault would be required,
and the answers of nature’s design would be revealed. The perfect compromise.
The water must be governed by the god of the river, of course! And the lightning in the
sky? Also the handiwork of a god, surely! Bit by bit, rationalization by rationalization, the atheist
begins to acknowledge the gods of nature where nature itself yields no explanation.
Finally, there is the promise of a collective in pagan religions. No longer must the atheist
live without a rule book, without a congregation, without the secrets of the universe! Now, he
can turn to Odin, or to Zeus, or to Jupiter, or to whoever he has to in order to finally fit in with a
group.
The transition is complete. The anti-Christian revolutionary becomes the idolater. He has
found his group, found the answers which atheism could never offer. The question is, did he find
the right ones?
THE END
