Basically, existence is inexorably enigmatic; without question. I am convinced that everyone can experience where he is put, to a certain extent, in front of itself as 'can-be', that is to say also in front of a radical enigma and of the possibility of 'not-to-be', enigma both encouraging and - most often - overwhelming. In this respect, I think that 'distraction' must be conceived in a non-cynical way: as an absolutely positive
resource of the life in the face of absurdity and violence (and, par excellence, political violence) and death as a thought that can only be overwhelming (because of anomie, social exclusion etc.
). Nonsense, violence... - if I am not mistaken, religions call this (with the help of words that I find for my part reifying): Evil or Sin.
I notice that many people take a malicious pleasure in the fact that 'evil' 'exists' in our world: either to participate in it in a voluntarist way (out of cruelty, cynicism etc.), or to pervert, in a complacent despair, the true meaning of 'distraction', 'entertainment': from a positive resource to a guarantor
of a negative headlong rush. However, we must assume 'distraction' as it is; that is as ambivalent, giving ourselves the means to reflect on it together and if possible in a non cynical
way. That's the reason why, as for me, I have a priori
no problems with religious institutions as long as they also help to 'assume', to think 'the sin', 'the evil'
(and, furthermore, being of service to the philosophy, mostly ignoring it, on principle). However, I note that, very often, on the side of the religious institution and/or the believer, and for various reasons, its far from being the case...
The fact that someone defines himself with the help of 'labels' such as 'agnostic', 'gnostic' etc. already has, in my view, an intrinsically fetishized side. I would say however that I am atheist because I'm betting that its the right to do for me: religions simply do not talk to me