Posts
Ever since leaving religion behind me, I've become increasingly sceptical of anything which seems remotely like a religion, or anything that claims that it's idea of the supernatural is true. However despite this, I've tried to remain as open as I can to new ideas. I detest the idea of rejecting all religious claims on the basic of them being religious. Rather, I think it more reasonable to investigate the claim in question, and then make a logical decision as to it's truthfulness.
Now, of course there are so many religious claims that I wouldn't have the time to investigate all of them. But with what I've read, I find it easy to dismiss the vast majority of them. I don't believe in any god with any personality. As for the spiritual world, I'm undecided.
If I went back in time a few thousand years and took a gun, the gun would seem like magic. I could walk around all day going on and on about the power it had to kill people with a tiny little bullet. Sure, a few people might listen to me, and some might even believe me. But at some point, a thinking person would come along and ask for proof. Maybe he might ask me to shoot an animal to demonstrate it's power. So I reach into my bag, but realise that I've left all my bullets back in the future, which means that I am incapable of backing up my claim that the gun could kill.
With a situation like that, though I understood exactly how the gun worked, unless I could explain it or offer proof, these ancient people would be completely justified in rejecting my claim that the gun could kill (if this is unreasonable, let me know and why). But the rejection of my claim doesn't negate the fact that the gun can kill given the correct bullets.
Following from this, I think there are things in this world that some people do know about, but science is currently incapable of providing an explanation for them, so we reject their claim. I'm not saying that god is real, but that some things which we reasonably reject, might turn out to be real.
But of course, that's not a reason to believe in anything and everything. But it is a reason to remember that science is not absolute (as a great many do understand), and that science doesn't have all the answers.
I've been reading a book called the Ringing Cedars (http://www.ringingcedars.com/), and I have found the book to be amazing. I remain sceptical of the vast majority of things in there. It talks about the correct way to grow plants, and that if used, you can be cured of all diseases. It talks about man as the ruler of the world, about how technology is distorting who we are, and a great many other things. It's a very interesting book, and I plan on getting the next 8 (there is 9 in the series).
I personally want to try out some of the things in the books to see if I can verify some of the claims. It certainly doesn't seem like a religion, and I haven't heard of there being any sort of angry god and a fiery hell. But I'm wary of it, not because I think it is bad, but because it simply might not be true. However, the book has had a profound effect on me personally, at least immediately when I read it. And it has sold 10 million copies with no advertising. I'm well aware that the amount of people who believe in something is no indication of truth, but still, it's interesting.
Some say that the author (Vladimir Megre) made it all up, taking elements from a variety of different religions and spiritual systems, and turned it into a book for monetary gain. I think that that is a very valid idea, and it might very well turn out to be true.
Despite this, like I said I do plan on getting the rest of the books, if only to find out more about it. There's nothing bad in it (not that I've read so far), rather it advocates natural living; that is, living in nature, growing your own garden and only eating food from there, being kind to animals, using your 'energy' to have a positive influence on people, and so on. If one were to believe in it all, they would hardly become a bad person. Rather, they're simply not doing what other want to do, such as pursue money, career, or something else.
There are some incredible things in there, almost all of which I would question the credibility of. Despite being very sceptical, I'm am also very interested, not just in reading the books, but trying to do the things set forth in them. I have no problem doing this, because there are no rules, and no dogma to which one has to adhere to. People are free to believe as little or as much as they want, and people can even conduct whatever experiments they want.
As an atheist, I have a problem with religion when it has a negative effect on people's lives, either individually, or in a group. As far as someone's personal religion or faith, it is simply that, a personal matter. So long as they do not force it no another, and do not risk their own lives irrationally, I have no problem with it.
So an atheist I remain, but a curious atheist, at least when it comes to spirituality. Anyone the same?
Fact or Fiction?
Losing Hope & Discovering Truth
And so the existential crisis continues.
When I lost religion, I lost my reason to live. I found my purpose in my faith, which worked out fine, until I gave my faith away. I had been brought up to believe that I was a child of god and that my one true purpose was to worship him. For years and years, I felt comfortable knowing that I had a true purpose, that is, a purpose which was decided before I was born. It gave me a lot of comfort to know that someone outside of the world cared about me and cared about what I did with my life.
But after many hours of thought, I gave my faith away. What I didn't immediately realise was that I was giving my purpose away. My faith was my purpose, so to lose one was to lose the other. And initially, this didn't seem to bother me. I found all sorts of ways to fill the void, and they all worked for a time.
However, over time my attempts to cover up the hole that used to be my purpose started to fail. What once was enough to satisfy me was no longer capable. I started thinking about purpose once more, and started worrying when I realised that I didn't have one.
You see, for so long I had derived my purpose from my religion, which meant that I never had to create it myself. So when given the opportunity to do it my way, I naturally freaked. Of course, nothing bad happened. But I started to have these niggling thoughts which slowly eroded my confidence in myself and my well being. Rather than being able to live and enjoy life, I started wondering whether it was all worth it.
The ironic thing is, atheism doesn't give you one single reason to live. Being an atheist simply means you have no belief in any god or gods, and beyond that, you're on your own. But this made it hard, for I was used to finding purpose from what I believed about god, but now I could no longer do it.
I started getting depressed. I started thinking about life, and how in the end there was absolutely no reason to live. And I still think that. As far as atheism is concerned, I could kill myself and a hundred others without giving a damn. But that neither helps me nor anyone else.
Sure, I could mope about and pity myself, but that doesn't get me anywhere. And I realised that purpose was such a stupid idea. I realised that no one has any external purpose whatsoever. No one is born to be a certain person, and no one has a calling. So why do people feel 'called' to a certain profession or lifestyle? It's beyond me. All I know now is that that calling is something which they decide. And I know they might not have made the actual decision. What I mean is that in the end, someone's purpose or calling is completely and utterly up to them.
But if that's true, the word 'purpose' becomes somewhat devoid. Why? Because when we use words like purpose, we tend to suggest that there is some meaning in someone's life that came before birth and will last after death. But that's simply not true. If one is religious or spiritual, it may seem like it is. However in the end, what people do and who they become is simply a matter of choice. People choose to be enslaved. They choose to remain as they are and never grow. It's not because it's their purpose to be poor, or whatever they feel it is. Life has simply given them a plate with a bit of food on it, and they can either sit there and mope, or they can head to the buffet to create whatever meal they desire.
So if purpose is devoid, then what word do we use? Well, I think for convenience, we might as well keep using the word purpose. It suits a great many things just fine. But when it comes to contemplating our lives, we need to remember that life is what you make it. And instead of 'searching' for our purpose, we should simply do whatever we want to do, and be prepared to accept the consequences. Rather than believing that life is as it is and we can't change it, we should approach life like it's a drawing board, and create it.
Instead of purpose, we should talk about want. Life is about what we want. It's not our purpose or calling to be a rockstar, or a famous sportsperson, or an entrepreneur, or a nurse, or whatever else. But if it makes us happy, and we want to do it, then we should go ahead and do it. When I think of purpose, I think of a prison. If I have a certain purpose, then I've got to find that purpose or I'll never be happy. But if my purpose is simply what I make it, I'll have a much better time.
And as far as atheism goes, there is no such thing as a true purpose or true calling. We use the words for convenience, nothing more. So, from this point forward, rather than searching for some purpose, I will simply do what feels closest to my heart.
A Flawed Christianity?
I was just reading through some things I wrote down a while ago. This one was written in October 2007, so it was a while ago, and it explains a little about my gradual slide from Christianity. I thought it was interesting that I tried to hold onto it, almost as if I was trying to make it real by believing it, and that I gave it every chance to give me a revelation. But obviously, it failed. Anyway, here are some ramblings from almost 2 years ago.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In my thinking I have been driven to question a great many things, one of them being my faith in God. I cannot stop, even now, to think. My mind will not leave the subject alone. All the time I am thinking of new ways that it cannot be real. The latest is an evolution on relative thinking.
It must be understood that I am no advocate of relative truth, as I believe it to be a silly proposition to make. To say that ‘relative truth exists’ in any meaningful way is to impose an absolute nature on it. Of course, things can be relative sometimes, such as my feelings, but not everything is relative. Much less than we would like to think, or it must at least be this way for God to be real.
Relative cannot exist; by logic it argues against itself.
With that in mind, I would like to point to something so common that we miss it. It is the idea of opinion, belief, value, or any other personal word you would like to use. When we say opinion, we often do not understand the full weight of the word. To say that someone has an opinion is to say that they believe something which is not necessarily true, that’s why it’s called an opinion.
We cannot escape this. Whenever something is said, understood or experienced, it is understood via the medium of opinion. And the funny thing is that opinions are relative to the individual. No one could seriously say that everyone is of the same opinion.
With this in mind, let us approach the mighty topic of God and ask a question, how do we know God?
Quickly the Christian jumps in to say, “oh by the bible”! Can you ever get more obvious than that?
But what is the bible? It’s a book written by a man. “No, God wrote it!” says the Captain Obvious Christian. Yes, I know. The bible is the inspired word of God. But just let me go for a minute here.
The bible is written by men; Moses, Paul, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, etc. The simple fact is that men wrote it. Deal with it. Who collated it? Men. Who decided what went into it? Men. Who preserved it? Men. Who translated it? Men. Who publishes it? Men.
On and on and on. And before all you women get your knickers in a knot, I say men to mean humans, male and female.
It never really ends. It always comes back to men. Who reads the bible? Men. Who writes books about the bible? Men. Who taught men to read? Men. Who taught men to write? Men.
It’s frustrating, but the point is that it always comes back to men. Christians talk about listening to God’s testimony about man and not man’s testimony about man, but how in the world do we do that? Sure, the bible might be divinely inspired, but who’s reading it? If we are to have the correct understanding of God, then we must be inspired as we read it, AT LEAST TO SOME DEGREE.
So herein lies the flaw of Christianity. I cannot disprove the existence of God, indeed no one can. But I can show you the flaw of man. Even if God were real, we would still be lost, because we are all still mere men. We are all still figuring everything out on our own.
So to return to the idea about opinion, Christianity is nothing but another opinion. Prove me wrong. WITHOUT using your opinion.
Such a task is impossible, and of course, everything stated here is just another opinion. So why am I right? Well, to be honest, I don’t really think myself right. But think about it this way. God is an absolute. He must exist whether or not I have an opinion or not. Yet the only way you can give me God, is via an opinion, if not yours, then another man’s. And if you say it’s God’s, then I will tell you that it’s your opinion of what God said to you. Which basically reduces it to nothing, unless of course you’re divinely inspired. But who should say that? Because you can’t; it would just be another opinion of yours.
This is my opinion, you have yours. So what? Well, you will probably keep believing. It’s not necessarily a bad thing, it’s just something worth noticing. It’s worth understanding that the only way we know God, is via man. THERE IS NO OTHER WAY!
Unless God himself were to meet me. But how could I do anything with that experience if it were just my opinion of the experience?
God is not flawed, but Christianity is. Please tell me how I can know God without telling me your opinion.
There is no way. There is no option. It is perhaps a depressing thought, and I myself might be just on a rant. I may one day, sooner or later, return to my faith in God, for better or worse. I would hope that God is real and I find him, for my sake. I know that he is the greatest person I could know, but only if he is real. If he’s not then it’s just wishful thinking.
Although it’s sad if there is no God, it does not mean that we have to run from it. There is much sadness in this world, throughout the ages. It is a universal feeling and when it comes to us, we want to run from it. Just as the sad man who’s just divorced his wife knows that he has divorced his wife, I know that although it’s sad if God is not real, I must not run from it.
If God is real, then he is here, hearing me type and knowing my thoughts before even they come into my mind. He knows my heart and my strength. He sees the road I am going down and he sees my choices before I have made them. He hears my questioning, and perhaps he answers. He is not worried in the slightest, for he knows exactly how they will pan out. He knows the answers to all my questions and doubts, yet if he really is there, I’m having a hard time finding him.
I'm Facing an Existential Crisis
I don't believe in god. Great.
My atheism gives me freedom. It's liberating. It gives me the ability to investigate all claims equally. I'm not bound by 'faith' any longer. I'm not making choices based on an imaginary hell. I'm not afraid of making my own mind up.
What I'm realising though is that atheism does not give you a purpose. I'm sure all honest atheists have realised this at some point. If you were ever part of a religion, you'll understand me here. Religion gives you a purpose, however silly. Regardless of whether it is true or not, it gives you something to live for. And that something is better than nothing.
So am I turning back to god? Of course not! I'm merely remarking on the fact that atheism can never replace religion as a purpose for life. That much is known. Atheism is simply non-belief in god.
I was lying in bed last night with a killer tooth-ache. My tooth still hurts. It hurts real bad. Even after taking the strongest OTC painkillers I can find. But anyway, while I was lying in bed I started to think about life (I like to do it every now and then ;) ). And I started getting depressed because I no longer have anything to give me a purpose.
I play rock n' roll, I drink, I fuck, I do drugs, but in the end none of these things are satisfying me. Sure, I party hard and definitely don't go easy, but it's certainly not fulfilling me.
But I suppose it's better this way. In fact, I know it's better this way. Instead of turning to someone or something else for my purpose, I'm forced to find my own purpose. Whether this 'purpose' is something determined before birth or something we create, I don't care. All I want to do is find my purpose.
And that's why I'm facing an existential crisis.
You see, atheism is cold. It makes you realise that the world isn't on your side and that the universe doesn't care about you. The world doesn't give us a purpose. It doesn't set life up for us. It doesn't give us a goal. And it certainly doesn't care whether we live or die. The universe simply exists and we're here for no reason. That's the true atheist stance.
No one can argue otherwise without attaching some unfounded belief onto it. Atheism is non-belief in god and gives you not one single reason to live. It simply explains that you are not here because god made you and you are not here to achieve a given purpose.
But this doesn't mean that we give up, as much as I sometimes want to (such as right now). Our purpose comes from within us. There are plenty of successful atheists who have changed the world for the better, but that was in spite of their atheism.
So where do I go from now?
Do I give myself to hedonism and party my life away? I don't think so. But currently, that's all I'm doing. That and trying to put a band together. However, that's not satisfying me.
Some will say I'm just venting; that I'm just complaining rather than making the most of life. But the best lessons in life come from times like these. And I want to find this lesson.
Part of me wants to do the normal thing, ie - uni, job, marry, kids, retire and die. But that, to me, seems like the dumbest thing I can do. Life isn't about copying the template of others for life - life is about creating your own template! Does my atheism give me that? No! I give me that.
But what I'm facing now is an existential crisis because I've lost my reason for existence. I left church around 2 years ago, and it's taken 2 years to catch up with me. I've filled the void with sex, drugs, alcohol and so on, but they're not working anymore. And I have no idea where to go from here.
I have different ideas about what I want to do with my life. But I can't commit to any. At the moment I'm focusing on music. But for as long as I focus on music, I can't focus on a career. That's a personal choice, not one I'm forced to make. And for as long as I keep focusing on music, I'll keep partying.
I feel like I need to get away. I need to go somewhere. I need to go on a pilgrimage to go find myself and to find my purpose. When? No idea. Where? No idea.
But I know that I need to do something to find my purpose. I have no idea what it is but I hope I find it before it's too late.
Another thought on evil...
Imagine a person who is the nicest person in the world. This dude isn't a pushover, rather he's the nicest person in the world because he always helps people. He's always putting people before him, and at any opportunity will help someone with a problem, relieve their pain, listen to them talk and basically anything they need.
This person would probably have a profound effect on people. Sure, they wouldn't rid the world of evil, but they would definitely make a lot of difference. He would give anything to cure the world of all the evil in it, only problem is, he doesn't have the power.
But imagine if he had the power. Oh boy. Goodbye aids. Goodbye earthquakes. Goodbye murder, rape, tsunamis, nuclear weapons, and so on. He would purge the world of all evil, and would do it without hurting one single person. How would he get rid of terrorists without killing them? Well, I'm not really sure, but this person would be all-powerful, so could certainly get rid of the evil they do without doing evil to them.
Imagine what this person could achieve. We'd have an evil-free world. Great. What was the recipe? The will to help others, and omnipotence (all-powerful).
Hang on a second. Isn't this meant to be what God is? At least the Christian God?
He's all-powerful. And, they say he has the will to save the world. Or at least wasn't that why Jesus died? But Jesus didn't have to die. Don't tell me he did. God IS all-powerful, so God wasn't bound by any law. He didn't have to obey any law. If he wanted to, he could have saved the world without his son having to die.
As it is, we're told his son has died. And all these good things promised are awaiting the holy Christians in heaven. But what about now?
God has both the will to save us, and the means, yet nothing. He could rid the world of evil with just a single thought. He wouldn't have to raise a finger. He'd simply think it and it would be done. Because remember, he's perfect. And one must be perfectly powerful (read... all-powerful) to be perfect.
So the question remains, why is evil still here? Any moderately good human would destroy evil if they had the means, but the perfect God so many follow?
And people say he's good...
He's either not good, or he has some other reason for letting the evil remain. But what other reason? Sin? But that's not fair. Since he created us, gave us free will, knew the exact outcome and consequence of our actions and his actions, then put the tree in the garden, thereby giving humans the opportunity to sin! So sin finds its origins in God. So the idea that he's punishing us is a joke.
I sense this a stupid, doomed to-the-bin question, but I'll ask it anyway. Does anyone have a better explanation of evil?
The Problem of Evil
When I was a Christian, I used to ignore the problem of evil. And though I never had a concrete answer as to why there was evil, I nevertheless continued believing for many years regardless. Sure, there was evil, but even if I don't know why it's here, surely God must! Or so I thought. Every now and then I'd ask the question "If God created everything, then did he create evil?". But if that was true, then how could God be good? Despite lacking an intelligent answer, I believed in God for many more years.
But since turning to atheism, or more accurately, non-belief, I've been able to have a better look at evil. Where as I used to ask questions only in so far as they did not change my belief in God, now I can look at things and not be worried about what effect they might have on my beliefs. I'm more interested in making intelligent, reasonable observations then using faith to support a worldview. so if anyone has any advice, criticism to make of me, feel free.
Anyway, back to evil. Now when I look at evil, I see something completely incompatible with an all-loving God. With the amount of evil in the world, how can one believe in a benevolent God? Especially an all-powerful one? A much better man called Epicurus summed this up nicely.
"Is god willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god?Epicurus
The above quote highlights all logical possibilities regarding the presence of evil and a God. Reality simply doesn't add up. Christians believe that God is omnipotent (all-powerful) and all-loving, while seeing evil everyday. If God is all-powerful and all-loving, then where did evil come from? Surely, most Christians would say that God is willing that evil should be gone, and that he has the power to get rid of it, but if that's true, then why does it linger on?
What perfect, all-loving God would let any evil remain in the world if he had both the will and the power to destroy it forever? What perfect, all-loving God would create humans with the capacity not only to murder each other, but also with the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and terrible methods of torture?
Some will say that evil remains only because God lets it, but why would he let it remain if he had the power to remove it?
Even if we go back to the beginning of the bible into the garden of Eden, it still doesn't add up. God seriously fucked up. Here he is, creating the world in all it's glory in JUST 7 DAYS! He made it good and saw that it was good. He created man and gave him dominion over all the animals. Oh man, this God was the best. No one could outsmart him. No one could foresee more than him. No one was more powerful than he.
Adam and Eve are hanging out in the garden, having the time of their lives (well it's their first day isn't it...), naming the animals, when God gives them one rule. JUST ONE RULE! The rule was, don't eat from tree in the middle of the garden for you will surely die.
OK STOP.
Why the fuck did he put the tree there in the first place? Excuse the language, but wouldn't a God of supreme attributes know better? I mean, even I would know not to put a tree in the garden of Eden if I knew it would kill someone I'd created. But God, in his divine excellence, not only put the tree there, but he put it there with full knowledge that Adam and Eve would eat from it. You'd think he was trying to set them up, you know, frame them. And what do you know... they eat it, God gets mad, kicks them out of the garden, and eventually they die. Couldn't God have solved all the problems of the last 6000 years (well we are talking Genesis...), by simply not putting the tree in the garden? He would have been able to let humans go on living blissfully free, completely unaware of good and evil... but no, he created man in his own image, gave him a rule, gave him exactly what he needed to break that rule, cursed man, and now we get blamed for it? Give me a break.
An all-loving, all-powerful God is a logical impossibility. It is completely in contradiction to reality. I can't believe it took me so long to understand this. I'm open to a good explanation of why God put evil in the world, but please, tell me something I haven't heard before.
Christianity and the 'Thousands' of 'Proofs'
I think it's funny that when talking about Christianity, a Christian will start to go on and on about the proofs of God's existence, whether it be the complexity within nature, an innate desire for god, morality, and so on. Sure, all these things can be used to argue for a supreme being's existence, but the God of Christianity? Not one single bit.
Let's back up a little. This only occurred to me recently, but it's been on my mind ever since. I got talking with a Christian and made the mistake of claiming God cannot exist, after which he asked me to back up my claim. Fair enough - if I make any claim, I should be able to back it up. But that's another idea for another time. Back to the topic...
When talking about Christianity, or any specific religion, there are very few arguments for it's existence, yet so many of it's adherents will list countless arguments. Say where talking about Christianity, a Christian being a person who believes the Jesus is "the way, the truth and the life" and who believes in the bible as the inspired word of God. There are only two arguments. Yep, that's it - the bible and Jesus.
For the Christian God to be real, Jesus must have lived, died, and rose, and the bible must have been the word of god. If either of these two things is not true, then it follows that Christianity is not true.
Any other argument for God's existence is simply an argument for the existence of A God. It says nothing about the identity of this God. Take the first cause argument. Everything that exists must have a cause. The universe exists. Therefore, God exists as the un-caused first cause of the universe. Even if we accept this argument as valid, all we have proven is that God exists. Which God? No idea. This argument, and many others like it only argue that God exists. What many Christians fail to realise is that they cannot use these arguments to back up their belief in the Christian God, because these arguments prove nothing about the identity of the God. Sure, it's all well and good to accept that God exists. The problem arises when we start trying to assign names or identities to it.
This applies to any religion with the belief in a God. The specific religion believes in a God with an identity, but almost all arguments for God's existence only postulate his existence, and not his identity.
So next time a Christian (or any theist for that matter) starts rattling of proofs of God's existence, remind him that the only two that count in his case, are proofs for the bible as the divine word of God, and proofs of Jesus life, death and ressurection. The silly thing is that these two proofs are tied together. What book beside the bible testifies to Jesus existence? I know of none, but feel free to let me know.
What this also means is that if there is proof that the bible is inconsistent, shows signs of human interference, or has any defects, it is likely that it is not the word of God and therefore the Christian God does not exist. Same with Jesus - if there is no substantial proof that he lived, died and rose then he certainly was not God.
Of course, no one can prove that Jesus does not exist, as it's impossible to prove that something doesn't exist. But we can make a rational assessment of the facts at hand and decide with intelligence whether it is reasonable to believe in his existence. There are countless sites and YouTube videos about this subject, so I won't go into it.
I for one, do not believe there is any good reason to believe in Jesus (at the very least, his resurrection), and nor the bible.
Another reason why I don't believe in God.
The Bible and Matters of Divine Inspiration
I was brought up in a Christian family and was taught to believe the bible was the word of God - divinely inspired. For years, I took it on faith, never once doubting that this best-seller which has been translated into more than 2,000 languages might not be the word of God. I mean, if we read it every day, surely it must be special. On my more disciplined days I would wake early, read my bible, study it and pray. Sometimes I would manage to do it every day for a few weeks. Or sometimes I would go without for a few weeks. Everyone else at church read it, we sang songs based on it, we prayed using it, and to at least some of our ability, made the foolish attempt to live our lives by it.
Foolish? Yes! Not just because it was a standard to which no one can achieve, nor that it is misused, misrepresented and used for some of the greatest evils in this world, but because I don't believe it's inspired. Don't get me wrong, it's an amazing book. But why should it be divinely inspired? What gives anyone any right to say that the bible is inspired?
Let's look at it's basic history of around 6,000 years.
The Old Testament was written by Moses and a bunch of prophets and then believed by the Jews to be their holy book. Then when Jesus rocked up, along came the New Testament with it's new group of human authors such as the disciples.
So the bible started as a book written by men. Then over the next 2,000 years it was preserved by men, translated by men, published by men, bought by men and read by men. I'm no scholar but somewhere during it's history a council of men came together to decide which books would be in the final canon or bible.
It doesn't take an idiot to recognise the large part man has played in the bible's history. At what point did God step in? Did he inspire it from the beginning? Or did he jump in as they were translating it? And if the original authors (Moses, David, Daniel, etc) can be deemed 'inspired by God', why shouldn't any author today have the same thing said about them?
I have read plenty of books about the bible, or about God, or about Christianity, and they were all written by men and women who have read the bible and formed an opinion. But when I read it, I'm just another person forming another opinion. So what I understand from the bible is just as invalid as any Christian book I've read, or any Christian I've ever met. I mean, where does it ever end?
Have you ever had someone tell you not to rely on Christian books, just to rely on the bible? I know I have. Plenty of times. But I haven't even been to bible college. I haven't even studied religion formally anywhere. So why would my opinion of what I read in the bible be any help whatsoever?
Those Christian books that I have read, they're not 'inspired by God' some say. Read the bible instead. But it's all the same thing. It all arrives at the same basic point - not one person, dead of alive, has the authority to deem something 'inspired by God'.
This is why I don't believe in God. I could call myself an atheist, but I think they've got their own problems, so for now, with all my problems, I'll call myself an agnostic.
But isn't Christianity a personal experience? Isn't each person to read the bible and find out what God is saying to them? Shouldn't I be humble and read the bible, listening for the 'still, small voice of God'?
No! Christianity is personal, but to tell someone to go to the bible and find out what God is saying to them is the beginnings of heresy. There has to be some sort of standard to judge if what one person says he has learned about the bible is true. So you compare it to the bible to the whole, not for once remembering that the bible has been used to justify great evil throughout the history of mankind.
But oh, this case is different. You're doing it how it's meant to be done. You can show how the other guys, the 'bad guys' were wrong.
But I think they can show you were wrong. And anyone can show anyone is wrong.
Enter my agnosticism. Now you know why I don't believe in God.
Is it possible to authentically experience God?
Imagine that you've just woken up after a long relaxing sleep. You live with your Mum but she's left to go to work and won't be back for another six hours. It's almost lunchtime as you grab a big bowl, filling it up with cereal and milk. As you go to grab the sugar you notice a nice, big cake on the bench.
Mum baked you a cake! And it looks so very tasty as you quickly decide that a small slice can't hurt; it's lunchtime you reason, so eating some cake is fine.
So after seeing the mouth-watering cake, you decide to slice a piece and pick it up. It makes a soft sound as you pull the piece off the plate and it feels heavy, like a chocolate mud cake, only it's lightly coloured; like a banana cake. The aroma of the fresh cake becomes even stronger as you lift the piece and take a bite, and at once your taste buds are rewarded.
But your Mum never returned home that day. She died in a fatal car accident on the way to work that morning.
I suppose by now you're wondering where I'm actually going with this, and I'm going to tell you. In the story, you saw the cake. Then you touched it, pulling it off the plate, hearing it as you did so. The smell filled your nostrils and taste aroused your taste buds. You used all five of your senses as you enjoyed that cake.
However, the cake was not proof that you're Mum was alive. She was dead before you even woke. But nonetheless, you assumed that the cake was made by your Mum and that you're Mum was obviously alive. Or perhaps, you're Mum didn't actually bake the cake, someone else did and left it there for you. Maybe your sister, or your Dad, or someone sneaky trying to play with your mind. But if it really were your Mum it makes no difference - from that point on, you cannot have a relationship with her.
Though you used all five senses to enjoy her cake, you cannot enjoy her as a person. She's gone forever. And this is where it connects to Christianity, or religion for that matter.
Why is it that so many Christians insist that the intricately detailed world around us is evidence of God's reality? Sure, we can experience the whole thing with our five senses, but really, that's just evidence that we can sense something. God may or may not be real - he might have died millions of years ago, or the force that created this thing we're experiencing might be completely different to the God we're trying to imagine.
Just for a second however, suppose God is real, and he has created this amazing world for us to experience. We use our five senses and find great beauty spread wide and far around the globe. And even further the beauty goes, as we begin looking around the universe.
But Christianity is about a relationship with God; with Jesus. Christianity is about a sacred marriage between the church and Jesus. And if it is a relationship which this religion is concerned with, why don't they focus on building a relationship? It doesn't matter whether God created all this or not, unless one can experience him with their five senses, then a relationship is impossible.
How many people do you know who you can't see, hear, touch, smell or taste (for the more intimate...)? How many people have you spoken to who you have never sensed?
No one! If you can't see someone or hear them, then the basics of communication will not work, and it is impossible for you to have a relationship with them, whether they are actually real or not. Remember the story from the beginning? If you're Mum died, you would not be able to have a relationship with her. Some will beg to differ and say that they can feel their Mum though she's not alive, but that's beside the point. The fact of the matter is, your Mum's dead. Or at least a whole lot more less alive than your other friends and family, with whom you have a relationship with.
So if God is so big and powerful, if Christianity is about a relationship with this God, if Jesus came to earth, died on the cross, rose three days later JUST SO WE COULD HAVE A RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD, why is the relationship impossible in any rational sense of the word!?
Why is it that we have separate standards when relating to God? Sure, they will be slightly different, but in the end, shouldn't experiencing God and relating to him be far easier rather than harder than other people? Instead of approaching God with all five of our senses not sensing anything, why can't we see God? Why can't we hear God? Why can't we touch God? Why can't we taste God? Or smell God?
If this is what Jesus sacrificed his life for, if this is what his blood has paid for, then why oh why is it near impossible to have any realistic experience of him?
I know there are hundreds, perhaps even thousands of people who will say they've experienced God, and that therefore they are right. But why should they be right? Why is there experience any more valid than mine, or yours, or anyone elses?
If my experience says that God cannot be experienced with my five senses and therefore one cannot have a relationship with him, why should I believe someone else?
So if my experience says one thing, a Christian's says another thing, and everyone else's experiences say thousands of other things, is anyone really right? Is everyone right? Or does it mean that no one is right, that each person can create their reality for themselves? And if that's the case, then Christianity can't be true. If everyone his right, then no one is right.
If God and Jesus could be experienced with my five senses, then I would love to know. I don't really think it's possible, though people can tell me it is. People can also tell me it isn't. So who's right?
It's the thought that no one's right which is why I don't believe in God. It renders what anyone can say useless, and leaves me as an existentialist, creating my purpose rather than having my purpose dictated for me.
I used to work for a face to face sales company and my job was to set up somewhere in the streets or a shopping centre with a clipboard, and try and sign passer-bys up to various charities. I would try and stop these people, trying to arouse their curiosity with an interesting first statement, but nonetheless, there were hundreds who would avoid you; they'd walk around you, look everywhere except at you, pretend they can't hear you when it's obvious they can, swear at you, stare you down, and the list goes on.
The company would send us on road trips around the state to do the same thing. There would be conferences to go to and 5 star resorts to stay at, and a whole lot of fantastic things to do. The actual work was very gruelling - it tested you, it made you stronger, and sometimes it broke you. When you spend all day every day getting ignored by hundreds of people just to catch the five or ten sign-ups, it gets a little depressing, or so one would think.
I quit the job because I was sick of the hours. It was a long day and I found myself having no time for anything or anyone else, basically all I did was work. Besides I thought that I was over it, that I was sick of talking to rude people every day. But now in hindsight, it's in fact more of the opposite.
I look back with such a fondness on those times that it blows even me away. At first I couldn't understand it, but over time and some hard thinking, the veil was lifted. You see, the job was very mentally gruelling and testing like I said. Sure, it never wore you out physically (at worst, sore feet from standing up all day), but by the end of most days, the mind just wanted to switch off. But during my time there, I developed a strong positive attitude for it was one of the companies requirements that you have to have a positive attitude and maintain it.
Instead of the expected reaction to rejection on the job, I was inspired. Every day when I woke up I said various affirmations 3 times in a row, taking me about ten minutes to kick the day off. They would revolve around sales, keeping the goal and target in mind and never backing down. Then when I got to work, I would take a five minute break every two hours to refresh my attitude. I'd have a smoke, put on some high energy music, and start encouraging myself. I might even you into the bathrooms and if no one was in there, look at myself in the mirror and slap myself, challenge myself to prove I'm not a wimp, and then walk back out. I used NLP (not explaining it here, look it up) to anchor positive feelings with squeezing my thumb. And the strangest thing of all, is that everything worked.
Instead of coming home depressed and mentally worn, I came home energetic and motivated. I was having a ball, if not for the long hours. So then I quit, leaving it all behind. But looking back, I loved those days. They were amazing. The people, the job, the experiences; it was all just so magnificent. And that's when I realised, that all my work with affirmations and attitude shaping had shaped the memory. I had anchored hundreds of positive feelings with that job. So now, when I thought about the job, I felt those feelings. It thought it was a profound discovery.
Then I thought, well, why doesn't every one do this? It would make the world a whole lot better if everyone was thinking positive, wouldn't it? But then I realised, there are people who are already doing it.
Religions all over the world are doing it this very second. They are meditating, praying, reading, all the while affirming their faith in their god. There attitude is one which is finding things to believe in and reasons to believe in them. It's a psychological program and it's working, for better or for worse.
When someone invests their life into Christianity for example, they are generally reading their bible most days, which in turn affirms their belief in god. They memorise verses to remind themselves of it's truth. Then they pray, which really is the same thing as affirmations. Anyone can pray to whichever god, and many of them think they are praying to the real god. And by praying, they are affirming god in their loves, his reality and his power. Then comes church. This part I think is really interesting. Here everyone is singing songs to 'god', once again affirming his truth in their lives. But it goes further.
There is a concept in sales called the 'jones' theory. Basically it is the idea that if everyone's doing something, then I should probably do it to. It applies to everything. It's just a natural, guiding human principle. And here it is in action in the church. Everyone singing together, praying together, dancing together, etc, is affirming their belief, but it is all the more potent with everyone doing it.
Or have you ever been at a Christian rally, and the altar call comes up at the end? At first, only a few people put their hands up to become Christians. Then, slowly at first, more people put their hands up, and then still more! It can get very strange, and sometimes even people who call themselves Christians will go and 'get saved' again. It's Jones theory in action.
So here we arrive at my final point. My ability to create a positive experience in my job, and thereby create fond memories is the ability of any human and indeed many of them are using it now. Using it does not prove that something is real or unreal however, it merely shows that even if it were not real, people would still believe in it. But if it were real, then no one would have any need to 'create' the experience, instead, God would come to them.
So Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Athiests, and everyone else, remember this -
Your attitude determines your beliefs, not whether something is real or not.
But this leads us onto an even more important question: how in the world can we then know if anything is real or not? If there is no way with which I can know if something is actually real, then I must assume it is not real. I could make myself believe in God, with affirmations and prayer and singing I could become a man of faith. But what would that serve if none of it is real? This is but one more reason why I don't believe in God.
Isn't it peculiar how almost everyone needs to be sure; sure of their job, sure of their other half, or sure about the morning train. Without the certainty in place, anxiety and tension fills in it's gap, however small. Why is it that people say, "I just need closure...", about any number of things? Why is it we have to be sure of our job? Jumping to the point, why is it that humans have an insatiable desire to be certain about their purpose in life, the nature of the universe, or the existence of God?
But before I run off with myself, it seems pertinent to mention that not everyone is like this. To nearly every rule, there is an exception, and this does not escape. I know there is people who can relax in the midst of uncertainty, indeed, if I were not one of them, I think I should have proclaimed my allegiance to Atheism or Christianity by now. It is this trait which pulled me from God, and that which prevents Atheism from becoming. So if you are one of these people, not eagerly desiring of certainty and surety, then you will better understand everything in this blog. However, if you hold to a certain idea with unwavering faith, then some (or most) might fail to understand. I am honoured that you would take the time to read my blog, and even more so if you give me patience, for I am not a professional scholar, but an amateur attempting to wrestle with ideas with ideas larger than myself.
The thing I find frustrating while simultaneously amusing about Christianity, is that many of them seem to cling to their faith, simply on the basis that it gives them certainty about life and death. As a Christian, I would have faith and know (relatively speaking of course) the purpose of my life, the difference between good and evil, my destiny after death, and many other things. It would be of supreme comfort to one knowing that after death, he is to receive eternal blessing, delight and pleasure.
Of course, this does little to reveal any exact truth, but it is very interesting. I start wondering how many Christians, have their minds convince them of God's truth. For the human mind is capable of convincing itself of many things being true, despite conflicting evidence. To start with, why are there so many religions in this world? How is it that so many different people can believe so many different things? Perhaps if someone were well read on this subject they would tell me that the vast majority of religions have very few followers, and that the main religions of the 21st century number 5: Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, and Hinduism. But the fact remains down to two religions - if there is any conflict in ideas, with people on both sides being absolutely sure of their side, then we end up at the same point.
Perhaps I might add atheism into the ranks of religion. But before everyone starts shouting, let me add it broadly. I'm using the word religion to describe a system of ideas, even if the idea is about how other ideas can't be true. Yes, I believe Atheism should be called a religion, however with no Atheist bible and no central purpose being discovered by it, it is a very simple one. It leaves people free to choose their purpose in this life.
So if people all around the world are convincing themselves that their religion is the true one, surely some of them must be wrong. We must remind ourselves of the exclusivity of some religions (Christianity and Islam), for they and only they can exist at the non-existence of every other. It can only be Christianity, or it can only be Islam, etc. It is no use claiming that all roads lead to God, or that each person should find their own way, for that leaves us with no solution.
Supposing that some religions cannot exist with another, we must hold that some are wrong. If wrong, then we must ask, why do they believe as they believe. They are convincing themselves of the truth of their faith, but it is no statement of fact. The amount of Christians who take their faith on 100% certainty is very large, and surely not all of them can genuinely believe in the truth. If Christianity were not real, then every single Christian has convinced themselves of it's truth.
Walk into a church, any church, and their will be people who claim that Christianity is absolutely true, and cannot understand any other view. I use cannot here intentionally. It is not a case of them refusing to look at other religions, it is a case of them neither caring nor being interested in any other religion than they're own. But if one were truly convinced of the God of the bible, then why would he have to worry about other religions? Surely a true belief in God would liberate, allowing any Christian to explore other religions while being completely comfortable in their own faith. But such it is not the case.
To return to the main point (got a little sidetracked there...), these people who believe in Christianity, completely and utterly unwaveringly, are the people who have convinced themselves of its truth. For some psychological reason, their mind has found reason to believe in it. Their mind associates security with belief and anxiety with unbelief (or lack of belief), so when anything threatens their belief, they convince themselves even more strongly. This is the reason why some Christians refuse to explore other religions more fully.'
I am not saying however, that the Christians who are able to evaluate all religions, have actually made contact with God. I am saying that these Christians have found reason to believe. Instead of succumbing to the inherent need for certainty, they have been more reasonable, not caving in to basic human emotions.
So with a lot of rambling and mindless talk, which I hope has achieved something, I come to the conclusion. Humans have an inherent need for certainty. It is not so much a provable fact but rather an observable phenomenon. We see the need for certainty everywhere and everyday. We see it in religions and systems of thought all over the world. It is why some people are surely and fully convinced that they know the truth. They don't, for I believe no human can know it. But despite not knowing the full truth of the universe, their minds have convinced them that they know a large portion.
I suppose you can apply this to many situations, but I find it is revealing when talking about Christianity with someone. Some things which reasonably make no sense, are taken as absolute fact by a lot of Christians, with little to no research. It starts off with a mild belief in Christianity, and slowly but surely turns into a headstrong, "I'm right, you're wrong!" belief. They have lost their reason, and their humility has been replaced by arrogance, a process which should be in reverse if someone wants to become a true saint.
Humans need certainty, it is a fact without doubt, and this is how I've observed it to work in relation to Christianity. You can see it in every other religion, Atheism included. But as usual, there are a few who break the status-quo and will always show me how wrong I am.
I must make one last point though - I have very high respect of some Christians, and they often surprise me with their humble but confident faith. They are people who truly believe, not out of a psychological need, but because they have truly found something worth keeping. I must ask their forgiveness for this last quote:
I hope you understand me now, when I say that the inherent need for certainty in humans is one reason why I don't believe in God.
I suppose now is the time to tell you about myself and what this blog is for.
I spent a long time as a Christian, and had some amazing times. However, due to the nature of my questions, I turned my back. I am not an atheist, though I have come close. I do not claim to know any answers at all, and I will explain my reasons why in this blog. There is much I want to write about. As for the usual debate between Christians and non-Christians, it bores me. For the most part, it is mud-slinging or just handled by people who make no effort to actually understand the other's point of view. And if anyone is ever to win properly in a debate, they must properly and full understand what is being argued.
Too many times, name-calling and labeling begins, and I, if it happens on this blog, will refuse to debate these people, for I feel nothing good can come of it.
I have asked many questions, and often I am asked why I'm not a Christian anymore, and often I am left trying to remember all my reasons. They are all there, and I remember them in due course, however since I have not expressed my thoughts in detail (only the odd journal here and there), they are not clarified enough for me to be able to pull them out at random.
And finally, I am most welcoming if you wish to read this blog, and if you have a keen and open mind, would be willing to talk about anything discussed here further.