Atheists don't read stories that don't sell

Not all atheists are alike. On the one hand, you have the hard core atheists who demand that others, like believers, open their eyes to the reality in which no deity can exist. God, they argue, cannot exist for the simple and undeniable fact that evil exists. Religion is dangerous and violent, and it’s time that people outgrow their psychological dependence on their childish images of the old white bearded man in the clouds.

On the other hand, you have atheists, like Alain de Botton, who recognize some merits to holding on to religion. To quote Alain de Bottom, Religion "teaches us to be polite, to honour one another, to be faithful and sober", as well as instructing us in "the charms of community". On Alain de Botton’s Religion for Atheists: “De Botton’s inspiring new book suggests that rather than mocking religions, agnostics and atheists should in fact steal from them. He boldly argues that the supernatural claims of religion are of course entirely false - but that religions still have some very important things to teach the secular world. “

In other words, religion, for the sympathetic atheists like de Botton, is socially useful. Without religion, there would be moral and social unrest that would spell the end of civilization.

But what does it mean for something or someone to be perceived as useful? For something to be useful, it serves a purpose outside itself. For example, the sharp pointed branch is useful in times of armed struggle, if one can not purchase a knife. The branch can be used for anything, e.g., killing, defending one’s self, or for any other use aside from killing, defending one’s self, such as sticking it deep into the ground to be used as a peg. Another example of use is when I treat another person as a means for my own selfish purposes.

Alain de Botton therefore perceives morality, as taught in religion, as a means for social cohesion. He means that the usefulness of doing good to to the other, is not performed for the sake of the person in front of me, but for the sake of keeping intact the group to which I, and possibly the other, belong. The act is right not because it is the right thing to do. It is right because it sustains the group.

I have no argument against those atheists if they are referring to a group of people who, out of  fear or habit,  attend mass every Sunday, or who act as Christians or Muslims or Jews because they’re conscious that others are watching their every step; or, who interpret the religious texts to their liking.  In other words, I don’t mind at all when the sympathetic atheists like de Botton say that religion is useful for as long as they are referring to a group of people who manipulate religion to suit their psychological dependence. The idea that religion is socially useful is valid because people’s behavior made it so.

However, when you consider those believers who are psychologically independent, truth seekers who have no regard as to how Truth appears to them; those who perform genuine acts of self sacrifice, and who expect nothing, I repeat, expect nothing in return, not even salvation for their sakes, atheists keep mum about them, as though they don’t count. As though, they don’t exist.

I say this at least: these psychologically independent, highly spiritual beings exist. And, they, not the psychologically dependent ones, are the ones whom one should study and emulate to be able to understand what religion really is all about. So, why are they not being talked about? It’s simple: they, with the exception of the Dalai Lama, are not popular. They are few. They don’t make the news. For the media, they are stories that don't sell. And, atheists don't read them.