For this week’s Mindlovemysery’s Menagerie Friday Faithfuls challenge, Jim Adams asks us to respond to this challenge by writing if we think that religious doctrines should evolve as man gets smarter, or why religions don’t seem to be receptive to change even when there seems to be a flaw in their beliefs, or write anything about the sunk cost fallacy, or write about whatever else that we think might fit.

I’ve been debating with myself all day about whether or not to respond to this prompt. Here is why. Believing in the existence of a supernatural deity (or deities) is foundational to almost all organized religions. But I’m an atheist and not believing in the existence of such a deity (or deities) is foundational to being an atheist.

Most people I know in the real world are not atheists and believe there is something — God — out there that is larger than themselves. And I am equally sure that most of the bloggers I interact with here in the blogosphere also believe in God. So even though I personally don’t participate in any organized — or even unorganized or disorganized — religion, I’m not about to throw everyone under the bus who does believe in God and who does practice their religion by denigrating their religion or their belief in God.

So I’ll just say that being an atheist suits me. And if believing in an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent supernatural being and following the dogma, tenets, and rituals that were created thousands of years ago suits you, well, whatever floats your boat.