It might be clearly ludicrous to ask a question like: what is better to be – believer, agnostic or atheist. It certainly is not the matter of being better or worse, convenient or inconvenient, acceptable or unacceptable . . . It is just the matter of feeling comfortable with any of these convictions.
I need to make it clear that it is not me who has invented this question. I have heard it being asked around, and the believers are the ones who get overly excited with a streak of fury, obstinately insisting that one has to necessarily believe in god. If the conversation is stricken up on the subject and gets heated by any chance, the agnostics would demurely suggest that they have a problem with believing because they do not know if there is god or not. Having heard the suggestion — as weird as it might sound for believers — they start with a slight shrug of shoulders and then use all their theological knowledge and enthusiasm to convert the poor deluded agnostic. The agnostics would patiently listen and end up with their own shrug of their dubious shoulders. The case is slightly more complicated with atheists. They are just as unwavering in proving the nonexistence of god as the believers, only in the reversed way. An atheist can kill for dissuading the public from believing in supernatural powers. As a classic example of their right judgment, they would always throw in the story of a bad guy who believes in god but cannot help being bad, and a nonbeliever who is good but cannot help his denial of god. Especially entertaining could be conversation between a believer and an atheist — definitely funnier than a dialogue between a believer and an agnostic — because they expressly and passionately differ in their ideological platforms. Why do we always try to impose our stand on somebody else? Is this our best way to acquire a spot under the sun? Why can’t we leave alone each other to our own devices letting people believe in whatever they want to believe in, or doubt something, or not believe at all in anything. We have such a big mouth when it comes to freedom of speech and faith! We are writing books, making speeches and producing the movies on the subject. Freedom is to let a believer believe, let an agnostic doubt and let an atheist think that god does not exist. What’s wrong about all this? The worst part of the whole deal is that usually the holders of these three various stands doubt the decency and integrity of one other, which might even be a considerable predicament for love to occur and develop between them. Sense of freedom is nestled somewhere inside our personality. If you want to be free in your thoughts and doings, let others be the same way. The Golden Rule might be the most optimal peace of teaching in matters like this. Frankly, Georgia might qualify as one of the most densely populated areas in the world for a believer-agnostic-atheist contradictory interaction, but a maximalist attitude is not really a win-win position, is it? I need my right to believe, to doubt or not to believe at all. Let me have it! Let me enjoy whatever conviction I have! And leave me alone! Please!