Recently I heard this pseudo-psychological discussion about believes. It brought me to thinking about this topic.

According to definition “to believe” means: “to have confidence in the truth, the existence or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so”.

People believe in many things, theories and ideas, but the fact that – by definition – it does not require any proof, makes it easier to assume one is right. The real problem begins when people, who believe in something, force others to share their believe. We see it often in regards to religion. In this sense it is not only in between religion, when one person pushes the other to believe that his religion is “better”, “stronger”, “older” or “about true and only God”, but also between believers and unbelievers.

As much as we are used to hearing it and – kind of – disregard the discussions about superiority of certain religion over the rest of the believe systems, more often we hear now that atheists are not acceptable. That one must believe in something. Isn’t that interesting?

As much as it is hard to argue with this concept, we can look at it from a different angle. Atheists do not believe in God as a form or an idea, they do not accept God’s superiority over humans or other known to us forms of life. But they do believe in life itself, in human beings and our ability to create and pro-create, our power of the mind and that a man is the architect of his own fate. If this case –atheists are believers! They believe that they do not believe and by doing that they become believers of unbelieving!

Quite a different situation we can observe with agnostics who neither believe nor not believe. In my opinion it is almost impossible to keep this mindset, since - by living in a polarized Universe - we tend to have an opinion about everything. With high respect for most known agnostics such as Thomas Henry Huxley (whom agnosticism is coined to), Bertrand Russell or Charles Darwin I think that by calling oneself an agnostic one can excuse himself from exploring the concept any further. It may be that one becomes not interested in pursuing a certain problem any more i.e. it doesn’t matter to me if God exists or not, hence I will not search for arguments any longer. It also may be that one is bored, tired or has ran out of concepts on how to pursue it, so they stop and decide to stay ambivalent.

I think we have all of these archetypes in us, but they surface according to the situation and topic. We are true and dedicated believers about something, atheists (in a sense) about something else and agnostics in reference to some other concepts. I call it balance. I call it wholeness. For me it is a sign of personality and strength when one is able to recognize all of the above-mentioned archetypes in him and accept it.

Have you ever thought about which group you belong to in respect to most important aspects of life?