Irreligion

Wikipedia says "irreligion" can mean many things and includes agnosticism, atheism and secular humanism. I would lean more towards agnosticism because that is close to religious scepticism and free thought. As the "rebel without a cause" I have always been, I take care not to follow things that do not make any sense to me. A major chunk of that would fall under religion and rituals.

I don't want to have anything to do with religion, or organized religion when it comes to "my God is better than yours" and "if you don't believe in my God, then you are a non-believer". That is the leading cause of violence and wars all through history and way up to today. Another thing that do not make sense to me is the gazillion rituals. Firstly, choosing which idol you want to worship is a hectic one. Given that you can zero down on one, you need to figure out the right rituals, then hire a priest to act as your go-between to God (or gods/goddesses) and finally by the time you sit down for the actual worship, you are so engrossed in following the rituals to a meticulous detail that you forget the entire purpose of worshipping. To quote Rabindranath at this point, he said তোমার পূজার ছলে তোমায় ভুলেই থাকি ("I have forgotten you amidst trying to worship you").

It's no wonder that I am not a theist but before I come to being an atheist or agnostic or transtheist or "absolutely nothing that I can think of", let me tell you a little bit about Carl Sagan. 

Unlike the other people whose thoughts I admire, Carl Sagan entered my life when I was already in my 20s and my thoughts (read freethoughts) on humanity and spiritualism were well formed. What I found in Sagan's writing was a deeper echo of what was already inside my head, explained in a far superior way with unquestionable points. There have been way too many incidents when I have exclaimed "exactly!" or "yes, yes, yes" while reading Sagan's works. For those of you who have read "Contact", you'll understand my point. Ellie Arroway's argument with Palmer Joss and Brother Rankin is a chapter which I have probably read thousands of times.

Now to the question of what I am.... I am an agnostic. Why so? Because I am not sure of the existence of God. Then why not call myself an atheist? Because I am not sure the other way as well. Here's what Carl Sagan has said about agnosticism (he was one of the tribe too) -

Put on your (free) thinking cap!

"An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence. Because God can be relegated to remote times and places and to ultimate causes, we would have to know a great deal more about the universe than we do now to be sure that no such God exists. To be certain of the existence of God and to be certain of the nonexistence of God seem to me to be the confident extremes in a subject so riddled with doubt and uncertainty as to inspire very little confidence indeed".

This is why I like free thinking.... think before you do anything, don't cloud your judgement with dogma or conservative traditionalism. Don't just follow what's always been there, try to lead to something that's not yet formed - a new idea, a new act. Talk to other people to know different aspects of the same thing, expand your horizons (like Sidhu-jetha said, মনের দরজা জানালা গুলো খুলে রাখো - keep the doors and windows of your mind open) and let's not worry about after life, just make most of the one we are living now. 

Take a look at this url of zenpencils, it's worth the hassle of going to it.