💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › punkerslut-atheos.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 13:10:53. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Atheos Author: Punkerslut Date: 2001 Language: en Topics: religion, atheism, evolution Source: Retrieved on 22nd April 2021 from http://www.anarchistrevolt.com/books/atheos.html
I do not believe in god. The position that I hold on the position and
question of religion is one of a minority in today’s culture. It is
within this work that I hope to provide an accurate and well argued
defense to Atheism. I have chosen the title Atheos for this work.
“Atheos” is Latin for “without god” and it is the origin of the word
“Atheism.”
It is perhaps first noteworthy that I define the being that I doubt
exists. Not only is it noteworthy, but it is absolutely necessary. An
Atheist doubts the existence of a god, whereas a Theist acknowledges the
existence of a god(s). However, a Pantheist believes in the existence of
god, but redefines “god” to the workings of the world and the world
itself. To quote the Merriam-Webster Dictionary: “a doctrine that
equates God with the forces and laws of the universe.” [1] To quote
Baruch Spinoza (1632–1667), one of the founding Pantheists: “Whatsoever
is, is in God, and without God nothing can be, or be conceived.” [2]
This position of Pantheism is taken insomuch that if one believes that
the universe exists, then they believe in god. If god is the Universe,
then an Atheist is left to argue against the existence of the Universe,
something I do not agree with. Pantheism is the changing merely the
definition of a word so commonly associated with a mythical,
supernatural being. If someone wanted to say the word “Universe,” may
they not simply say “Universe” instead of “god?” I think that it is an
impractical system in regards to question of the existence of a god
society so commonly believes. If there was a Pan-Easter Bunny-ist, they
may state, “I believe in the Easter Bunny, because everything is the
Easter Bunny and everything exists, therefore so does the Easter Bunny.”
This does not solve the problem and is actually a rather impractical
system when we wish to find answers to questions. If someone wishes to
change the definition of a word, that is perfectly fine, but I am
dealing with the concept of god which I will shortly define. As my last
note on Pantheism, I shall quote Arthur Schopenhauer (1788–1860), “The
chief objection I have to pantheism is that it says nothing. To call the
world God is not to explain it; it is only to enrich our language with a
superfluous synonym for the word world.” [3]
Over the tides of time and throughout the various philosophical and
religious groups, the idea of what exactly god is has been a subject
that is constantly evolving and changing. To some it means the Universe,
such as demonstrated by the Pantheists, and to others it means a
benevolent being who will grant miracles at the notice of a prayer, such
as many Christians, Muslims, and Jews. So certainly, I shall define the
god in the next paragraph that I am arguing against. It is absolutely
imperative that this god is defined, otherwise I shall have nothing
concrete to argue against. It is this god that I shall attempt to
demonstrate does not hold enough proof to deserve belief.
The god I am arguing against is a supernatural being of immense power.
It is not necessarily omnipotent, but immensely powerful. Along with the
power of this god is an immense amount of knowledge regarding the
Universe. This god may or may not perform miracles or answer prayers.
He, she, or it is a conscious and animate being. This god is also
responsible for creating the Universe. This is what god is:
supernatural, immensely powerful, immensely intelligent, conscious,
animate, and responsible for creating this Universe.
Within this work, I am going to demonstrate that god does not have
enough evidence — or at least enough valid and reliable evidence — to
warrant belief in this god. By this, I mean it may be possible that this
god exists, but the commonly purported evidence of this god (origins,
design, miracles, revelation, etc.) are faulty. A convict who killed an
innocent person, for example, may have evidence brought against them
that is tampered or planted and even though the evidence is untruthful,
it does not mean that the convict did not kill the innocent person.
However, it is possible that a convict did not kill this person and that
tampered or planted evidence is the only reason that he was convicted.
Evidence has consistently shown that it is regularly capable of finding
the truth, although it is not absolute. Just as I approach the question
of the existence of a god, I am dispelling the evidence for this god
that is faulty or unfounded. I am simply dispelling commonly given
evidences of god, although not entirely ruling out the existence of god
as of yet. I did, however, dedicate one chapter to discussing the
possibility of the existence of god.
Furthermore, I shall be arguing against the supernatural outlook on
life. I am a Materialist. That is to say that I only believe in the
physical material that is the composite of the Universe. Concepts such
as gods, spirits, souls, magic, reincarnation, heaven, hell, afterlife,
etc., are ones that I doubt. The evidences for the supernatural outlooks
on life, such as Theism, Deism, Animism, or what not, are the ones I
shall attempt in my ability to debunk. I will not attack any religions
in particular, such as Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, or one of the
other thousands of religions; and I certainly shall not attack sects,
such as Catholicism or Protestantism of Christianity, nor Shingon or
Tendai of Buddhism. The intellectual attack I am launching on
supernaturalism is to debunk evidences for a god I previously defined.
In so doing, I shall also debunk the evidences for other supernatural
beings. Whether a Theist believes a mystery to be a miracle, an Animist
believes it to be the workings of spirits, or a conjurer believes it to
be his very own magic, these are claims of supernaturality that I shall
attempt to debunk the evidence. If one person claims that this Universe
is proof of a god, or if another person claims that it is proof of many
spirits keeping it working, by disproving any supernatural
possibilities, I disprove the concept of a god as well as spirits. When
the concept of miracles performed by god is disproven, then certainly
there is no weight for the concept of miracles performed by spirits or
miracles performed by the magic of a magician.
It is necessary that it be noted that the burden of proof lays on the
Theist. When anyone asserts any idea, they are the one responsible for
proving said idea, or else it loses intellectual respect. I am not
saying that Supernaturalists have not offered evidence in support of
Theism, as the point of this work is to criticize the evidence that they
have offered thus far. I am simply saying that the burden of proof lays
on the one who purports an idea. The Theist, purporting the existence of
a god, must then prove the existence of this god with evidence. The same
goes with all regards to all fields. If a doctor wishes to make a claim
about a medical procedure, a scientist wishes to make a claim about
geology, or a historian wish to make a claim about history as we know
it, they must bring with their claims evidence, otherwise their claims
carry with them no weight. Similarly, if one were to claim the existence
of a god, it is their duty to prove the existence of this god with
evidence.
The next inquiry of my wholly naturalistic philosophy is “what should I
call myself?” As I have stated earlier, I have chosen the title Atheos
for this work, for the reason that it is the least confusing in regards
to the terminology of nonbelievers of god. “Atheos” is Latin for
“without god” and it is the origin of the word “Atheism.” I have also
already stated clearly that I denote myself as an Atheist, but there are
many other titles left untaken: Agnostics, Secularists, Freethinkers,
Skeptics, Secular Humanists, Humanists, Rationalists, Realists,
Naturalists, Materialists, and Epicureans. Amongst these wide variety of
titles come many definitions and many meanings. Having used the Latin
roots of “Atheism,” I have simplified the terminology to a degree — at
least the terminology I use to title myself. I should separate the
meanings of these various words so that they make sense and can be used
independently.
Perhaps the only error of my selection to be called an Atheist and not
one of the other vast array of titles, is that many take it often to
imply that I believe god cannot exist. Atheist and Agnostic are the most
commonly used names for the nonbelievers of god. I choose to call myself
an Atheist because of its Latin roots. The word Agnostic was not
invented until the 19^(th) century, whereas the word “Atheist” — or at
least “Atheos” — has survived millenniums. The term “Agnostic” was
coined by Thomas Henry Huxley (1825–1895). He recounts his coming to
Agnosticism...
When I reached intellectual maturity, and began to ask myself whether I
was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist;
a Christian or a freethinker, I found that the more I learned and
reflected, the less ready was the answer; until at last I came to the
conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these
denominations, except the last. The one thing in which most of these
good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them.
They were quite sure that they had attained a certain “gnosis” — had
more or less successfully solved the problem of existence; while I was
quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the
problem was insoluble. And, with Hume and Kant on my side, I could not
think myself presumptuous in holding fast by that opinion. [...]
So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate
title of “agnostic”. It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to
the “gnostic” of Church history, who professed to know so much about the
very things of which I was ignorant; and I took the earliest opportunity
of parading it at our Society, to show that I, too, had a tail, like the
other foxes. [4]
From what he has stated, it would appear that he has concluded that he
has no answers. However, this does not solve much. The Theist claims he
has the answer of a god whereas the Atheist claims that he has no answer
of such. For an Agnostic to claim himself without an answer is no more
than to take the Atheist position with a different title. However,
Huxley still claims that there is more to Agnosticism. He declares basic
rational principles when he defines Agnosticism further. To quote him...
Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which
lies in the rigorous application of a single principle. That principle
is of great antiquity; it is as old as Socrates; as old as the writer
who said, ‘Try all things, hold fast by that which is good’; it is the
foundation of the Reformation, which simply illustrated the axiom that
every man should be able to give a reason for the faith that is in him,
it is the great principle of Descartes; it is the fundamental axiom of
modern science. Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of
the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without
regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the
intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not
demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic faith,
which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look
the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him.
The results of the working out of the agnostic principle will vary
according to individual knowledge and capacity, and according to the
general condition of science. That which is unproved today may be
proved, by the help of new discoveries, tomorrow. The only negative
fixed points will be those negations which flow from the demonstrable
limitation of our faculties. And the only obligation accepted is to have
the mind always open to conviction. [5]
From the previous statements, it would appear that Agnosticism is
somewhat of an Epistemological system. Epistemology is the study of how
we know what we know. In his description of Agnosticism, he declares
that it is a method for attaining knowledge, thus allowing it the
definition of an epistemological system. With one last note on
Agnosticism, Huxley declares...
That it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth
of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically
justifies that certainty. This is what agnosticism asserts and in my
opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism. [6]
Agnosticism, however, breaks off into two different branches. There is
the Agnostic Theist and the Agnostic Atheist. An Agnostic Theist
believes in the existence of god, but believes that the nature of this
god is unknown. Agnostic Theism is in terminological error, just as
Pantheism, in that it is based on the word “god” and could be applicable
to anything. In this case, it is something unknown but existent. I could
say that god exists, but I do not know what god is, yet this still
solves nothing. How could one know that something exists, but knows not
what it is? It is impossible. However, I take it that the god believed
by Agnostic Theists is somewhat related in character to the gods of the
currently existing religions: supernatural, powerful, and responsible
for creating the Universe. An Agnostic Atheist is what is commonly
implied when someone says the word “Agnostic.” An Agnostic Atheist
asserts that if a god exists, then god is unknowable and beyond
knowledge and therefore undeserving of belief.
I find nothing detestable or disagreeable about Agnosticism as implied
by Huxley or as commonly used today. It is an institution that is
doubtful of a god or any form of supernaturality. Robert Green Ingersoll
(1833–1899) is known as the Great Agnostic, and when asked “Then you
would not undertake to say what becomes of man after death?” Ingersoll
responded...
If I told or pretended to know what becomes of man after death, I would
be as dogmatic as are theologians upon this question. The difference
between them and me is, I am honest. I admit that I do not know. [7]
Robert Green Ingersoll admitted that he did not know what happens after
death. He asserts nothing that he cannot prove. He has no claims, and
therefore there is no reason for him to support any statement. As I have
discussed Atheism and Agnosticism, and the positions taken by both
sides, I can only say that I find no intrinsically valuable line that
can be demonstrably drawn between the two. Call me Atheist, call me
Agnostic; I only lack belief in the existence of a god. Madalyn Murray
O’Hair (1919–1995) has stated, “The agnostic is gutless and prefers to
keep one safe foot in the god camp.” [8] Such a statement speaks volumes
of her own tolerance. However, allow me to state that although I am an
Atheist and I call myself an Atheist, and I would find nothing
disagreeable with someone labeling me an Agnostic. As I have stated, I
find no difference between the two terms and would allow myself to be
called either. Allow me to restate that I did dedicate one chapter to
discussing the possibility of this god or any form of supernaturality.
The word “Freethinker” is commonly also attributed to nonbelievers in
God. There are Atheists who will not allow themselves to be called
Agnostics, and there are Agnostics who will not allow themselves to be
called Atheists, but both of them will most often accept the term
“Freethinker.”
A Secularist is what many Atheists and Agnostics are. It is someone who
wishes for the separation of church and state in civil, educational, and
public affairs. The application of the term Secularist would not
necessarily separate the believers from the nonbelievers in terms of
religion. There are many religious believers who are also Secularists
and wish for the separation of church and state. One who wishes
government to be mixed with religion is a Theocrat, or a supporter of
Theocracy.
Although the word “Skeptic” is commonly applied to those who doubt
religion and a god, it is inappropriately applied. A Skeptic may very
well be someone who doubts religion, such as David Hume (1711–1776) who
was an Atheist and was a Skeptic, but philosophically a Skeptic is
someone who belongs to the school of Skepticism, the doctrine that no
knowledge can be known. Consequently, a large amount of Skeptics have
also been skeptical about Theism and church doctrines. However, there
are Skeptics who do believe in the existence of a god.
A Realist is someone who seeks to discover true reality. A Rationalist
is similar, in that a Rationalist seeks to understand the true and
rational world in purely rationalistic terms. M. D. Aletheia (c. late
1800’s to early 1900’s) wrote The Rationalist’s Manual and dictated the
path to postmodern Rationalism. To quote him from his book...
The questions which Rationalists fearlessly set themselves to solve are:
— Is there any truth in the so-called Christian “revelation” which has
for so long a period maintained its hold over the Western world? And,
further, has any revelation of a supernatural character ever taken
place? Or, is the only revelation which possesses any human value the
revelation of natural science?
If a revelation had been made to the human race by a divine and almighty
being, we should be justified in expecting it to be done in a manner
clear, unmistakable, and evident to all, and it would have had an
irresistible claim upon our allegiance. But this has not happened. On
the contrary: instead of being furnished with proofs, we are enjoined to
ask no questions; we are told that doubt is sin, and that we must reduce
ourselves to a condition of infantile dependence; we are bidden to
accept all the statements which the priestly dispensers of “revelation”
choose to dole out to us, however much opposed to reason, nature, and
science. When we examine the alleged revelation, we discover that it
consists of a series of legends, characterized by a morality which is
frequently atrocious, and by absurdities which rank with the tales of
the nursery. And we find that the divinity worshiped by the churches is
an imaginary figure, a fetish established for the benefit of the
clerical caste, and supported by the priesthood for mercantile ends. It
is time to cast off the bondage so long imposed upon us, and snap the
rod of hell so long held over our heads. We must transfer our allegiance
from God to Man. Instead of wasting our time and energy in contemplating
and appeasing a fictitious deity, and obeying the selfish motive of
desire for future reward, let us dedicate our lives to the interests of
the present world, to social cooperation, to the study of natural
science, to the explanation of the phenomena that environs us, to the
spread of knowledge and happiness. [9]
A Rationalist is perhaps nearly equatable with Atheist or Agnostic.
However, I would like to think of Rationalism not entirely as another
synonym for Atheism or Agnosticism, but rather the rational approach to
the problems and dilemmas that we are faced with. There are Rationalists
who are Deists, or other Theists who disbelieve in traditional religion.
I am a Rationalist in regards to how I approach the problem of god:
there may be the possibility of the existence of a god and I discuss
that logically and reasonably. I do not seek special interests, unless
truth is a special interest. I will only believe in a god or form of
supernaturality on grounds of rational reasoning evidence, and if there
is no rational reasoning or evidence I will not believe, which is my
current standing.
Secular Humanism and Humanism are also terms commonly applied to
Atheists by Atheists themselves. It is a rather fanciful title for
“Atheist.” However, Humanism itself has various definitions. Warren
Allen Smith (20^(th) Century) denotes the common usages of the word
“Humanism”...
Humanism is not a basic technical term in philosophy, but it has been
applied to various quasi-philosophical literary, political, and ethical
movements. Admittedly, Humanism, whether capitalized or uncapitalized,
is something of an eight-lettered semanticist’s nightmare.
Lexicographers associate it with ancient Hellenism. College freshmen
sometimes study it as being related to the Matthew Arnoldian concept of
culture. Fundamentalist seminarians are told that it represents a
dangerous threat to supernaturalism. Existentialists describe their
belief in man by it. And the intelligentsia associate it with the
secular humanists, or related groups such as scientific humanists,
religious humanists, naturalistic humanists, humanistic naturalists, and
so forth. [10]
The commonly asserted definition of a Secular Humanist is an Atheist.
There are several reasons why I will not apply this title to myself. It
appears to be a fanciful method of language by simply giving the concept
of Atheism a more fanciful title. The other error I find in this is that
it is often associated with human welfare or the ideals of humans. Such
an ideology is dogmatic. Who takes pride in their species? Surely, such
an action is as mentally deprived as one who takes pride in their race.
Especially as an Atheist, one would be knowledgeable enough to know that
men are animals and nothing special from the rest of animal creation;
and all the rights and liberties that applicable to men cannot be
legitimately divorced from non-human animals. To quote Henry Stephens
Salt (1851–1939) “This divorce of ‘humanism’ from humaneness is one of
the subtlest dangers by which society is beset; for, if we grant that
love needs to be tempered and directed by wisdom, stir more needful is
it that wisdom should be informed and vitalized by love.” [11]
Another stigma associated with the word Humanist is the so-called
Humanist Manifesto. The Humanist Manifesto has various versions,
changing every two or three decades to suit the times, which is quite
reflective of its efficiency. The error of these documents is that they
are so often updated and re-updated to suit only the dilemmas of the
current time. It has been less than one century and they are already
contemplating a third one. There are three basic initiatives upheld in
the latest version of the Humanist Manifesto:
problems of the century;
for reliable knowledge and impede human progress;
based on inherited prescientific concepts that do not apply to a global;
transformed future.[12]
So, you see, to be a Humanist or a Secular Humanist is surely more than
simply to be an Atheist, Agnostic, Rationalist, or Freethinker. It is to
imply the favoring of one’s own species and possibly — in fact, highly
likely — a special interest in advancing that species over other
species. Along with the special interest of one’s own species comes the
adherence to the Humanist Manifesto.
A Naturalist is one who does not believe in supernatural phenomenon.
Similarly, the Naturalist’s counterpart who believes in supernatural
phenomenon is called a Supernaturalist. A Naturalist agrees with or
advocates the doctrine of Naturalism; Naturalism is the institution that
all phenomenon can be explained naturally with scientific laws and that
to invoke the belief of a god or spirits to explain a phenomenon is
improper. Thus, a Naturalist — although not necessarily one who doubts
the existence of a god or spirits — disbelieves in the actions of these
beings, and thus miracles, revelation, magic, and other supernatural
phenomenon are not believed by this individual. A Christian, Muslim, or
Jew could not be a Naturalist, at least in the philosophical sense of
the term. A Christian believes that god ascended from heaven in man,
while a Muslim believes that the angel Gabriel gave to Muhammad the
secrets of the Universe, and while still a Jew believes that god was the
being who cursed the world with a global flood. These actions are all
forms of supernatural phenomenon governing our natural Universe in some
form or another. An Atheist, Agnostic, or Freethinker doubt the
existence of a god only. However, there are those who do not believe in
a god, but may believe in spirits or forms of supernaturality, such as
Jainists and Buddhists. A Deist — one who believes in the existence of
god but believes this god has no effect over the Universe — could also
be counted as a Naturalist. As a Materialist, I am a Naturalist. I only
believe in the existence of the physical material in the Universe. If
someone is asked what religion they are, and they respond with
“Atheist,” “Agnostic,” or “Freethinker,” there is a high chance that
they are also Materialists and Naturalists. It is important to note that
there are other meanings for the word “Naturalist” in other fields. A
Naturalist could be a student of natural history, or a field biologist.
However, when I state the term “Naturalist,” I mean the philosophical
term: one who accepts as the laws of science as an explanation to the
phenomena of the physical Universe. Perhaps one of the more famous
Deists, also a Naturalist, is Thomas Paine (1737–1809), sometimes
criticized as the father of Deism. To quote him...
I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this
life.
I believe the equality of man, and I believe that religious duties
consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our
fellow-creatures happy.
[...]
I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the
Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the
Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my
own church.
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or
Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions set up to terrify
and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit. [13]
A Materialist is someone who believes in the existence of the physical
matter in the Universe. The only thing that exists, believes a
Materialist, is the material of the Universe. The term is not to be
confused with some Eastern philosophies that are based on gaining
material. Some people today who are called “materialistic” are usually
called that in the sense that they are greedy. The means that I imply
the term Materialism is based on the existence of the physical Universe
and nothing else. A Materialist is an Atheist, yes, but an Atheist is
not necessarily a Materialist. The members of the Jainist religion, for
example, do not believe in a god, but they do believe in various forms
of supernaturality. A Materialist will not believe in gods, ghosts,
magic, souls, spirits, karma, or any other supernatural concepts. I, for
one, am a Materialist as are many proclaimed Atheists today.
The last term is an Epicurean, sometimes spelled “Epicurian.” An
Epicurean today is defined as a Hedonist, or one who seeks pleasure, but
this is a distortion of what the word Epicurean originally meant. The
word comes form the ancient Athenian philosopher Epicurus (341–270
B.C.E.). A follower of Epicurus is not necessarily one who seeks
pleasure. The possible reason that someone may get this impression is
that Epicurus dealt with a theory of happiness or how to obtain
happiness, as many philosophers have been known to contemplate. Epicurus
did not advocate the outright gaining of pleasure. He taught that men
and women should live simply and avoid fame, extreme wealth, and other
supposed desirables in reasoning that such items were actually
detrimental to happiness. To quote him in regards to religion and the
afterlife, “Death is nothing to us; once the body and brain decompose
into dust and ashes, there is no feeling or thought, and what has no
feeling or thought is nothing to us.” [14] In regards to happiness, he
has said, “While some safety and security from others might possibly be
obtained if you were to amass great wealth and power, safety, security
and tranquility would more certainly be yours if you simply lived a
quiet and simple life withdrawn from the world.” [15] A follower of
Epicurean philosophy is not necessarily an Atheist, but someone with a
liberal outlook on religion. An Epicurean is not one afraid of any
religious afterlife, although not necessarily one who disbelieves in the
afterlife. The only thing an Epicurean can be defined as is one who
follows the philosophy of Epicurus based on attaining a wholesome
happiness through simplistic living without fear or anxiety. Perhaps the
most inspiring of all his writings was...
Let no one be slow to seek wisdom when he is young nor weary in the
search of it when he has grown old. For no age is too early or too late
for the health of the soul. And to say that the season for studying
philosophy has not yet come, or that it is past and gone, is like saying
that the season for happiness is not yet or that it is now no more.
Therefore, both old and young alike ought to seek wisdom, the former in
order that, as age comes over him, he may be young in good things
because of the grace of what has been, and the latter in order that,
while he is young, he may at the same time be old, because he has no
fear of the things which are to come. So we must exercise ourselves in
the things which bring happiness, since, if that be present, we have
everything, and, if that be absent, all our actions are directed towards
attaining it. [16]
I have, in finality, discussed all the terms that nonbelievers have
applied to themselves as well as terms associated with the field of
Atheism. An Atheist, Agnostic, and Freethinker are practically the same
thing: those who doubt that a god exists. I am still more than just an
Atheist, Agnostic, or a Freethinker; I am also a Materialist, as I doubt
the existence of any supernatural phenomena. The difference sometimes
seen between an Atheist and an Agnostic is how probable one thinks god
is. An Atheist may think it is impossible or highly unlikely for a god
to exist, whereas an Agnostic may think it is possible for a god to
exist much more so, but these are commonly believed stigmas of titles. I
have dedicated a chapter to determining the possibility of the existence
of a god. To quote Bertrand Russell (1872–1970)...
I never know whether I should say “Agnostic” or whether I should say
“Atheist”. It is a very difficult question and I daresay that some of
you have been troubled by it. As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a
purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself
as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive
argument by which one prove that there is not a God.
On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the
ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist,
because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought
to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.
None of us would seriously consider the possibility that all the gods of
homer really exist, and yet if you were to set to work to give a logical
demonstration that Zeus, Hera, Poseidon, and the rest of them did not
exist you would find it an awful job. You could not get such proof.
Therefore, in regard to the Olympic gods, speaking to a purely
philosophical audience, I would say that I am an Agnostic. But speaking
popularly, I think that all of us would say in regard to those gods that
we were Atheists. In regard to the Christian God, I should, I think,
take exactly the same line. [17]
A Secularist wishes for the separation of church from public affairs; a
Skeptic belongs to the philosophical school of Skepticism, thus
admitting that no knowledge is true; a Humanist wishes to advance their
own species over other species and upholds the values of the Humanist
Manifesto; a Secular Humanist is identical to the Humanist, but has a
rational, freethinking, or secular background; a Rationalist or Realist
is one who approaches the question of god — or any question — with only
the sole purpose of attaining truth through rational principles; a
Naturalist being one who is occupied with the natural Universe and none
other; a Materialist is one who believes only in the existence of the
physical Universe and holds no belief in anything supernatural; and an
Epicurean is one who wishes to live as the Grecian philosopher Epicurus
has taught. These are the titles of the profession of irreligion.
However, there are names applied to nonbelievers which are meant in a
quite derogatory remark. Pagan, infidel, heathen, heretic, godless one,
idolator, blasphemer, etc., etc.. I think it is unnecessary to describe
individually what each of these words mean. Robert Green Ingersoll
remarks on his opinions of titles...
Call me infidel, call me atheist, call me what you will, I intend to so
treat my children that they can come to my grave and truthfully say, “He
who sleeps here never gave us one moment of pain. From his lips, now
dust, never came to us an unkind word.” [18]
I have made my position on this matter clear: I doubt the existence of a
god and other supernatural beings due to insufficient evidence, but I do
not entirely rule out the possibility of their existence. This god is
defined as a conscious, supernatural being of immense power who is
responsible for creating this Universe. My doubt in this god comes from
its lack of sufficient evidence. I have given my position a title, while
defining the titles of the related positions. I am an Atheist, but would
certainly not object to being called an Agnostic or a Freethinker.
Furthermore, I am a Materialist and I believe only in the existence of
the physical matter that composites this Universe. I am also a
Naturalist and I hold the laws of science as wholly accountable for all
phenomena that occurs within this Universe. When I approach the question
of the existence of god, I approach it as a Rationalist and Realist:
just as I approach any question, I seek for logical, rational, and
reasonable answers.
It is important that I make it clear that when I speak of Faith, I speak
not of the common definition of it, but I speak of its philosophical
roots. Commonly believed is that Faith can be interpreted to be a
measure of piety. Someone very Faithful would be very religious and
someone slightly Faithful would be slightly religious. That is at least
the context it is used commonly by society. However, when I imply the
term Faith, I mean the philosophical meaning. Faith is the
epistemological belief that we can attain knowledge by believing
something without proof. It is this concept that I shall criticize.
I do not believe in god for the same reason I do not believe in Santa
Claus; both mythical beings, one of adulthood and the other of
childhood. God is the supreme being who created this Universe and Santa
Claus is the being who creates the presents for children and delivers it
to their homes on Christmas Eve. Both beings were taught to individuals
by their community, or the authorities of their learning environment.
With Santa Claus being the ruling power of the North Pole and god being
the ruling power of the heavens, it is quite clear that they both are
beings that live far away. With the concept of Faith being necessary to
believe both; with a child accepting Santa Claus through Faith and an
adult accepting god through Faith, it is quite clear that neither Santa
Claus nor god have been demonstrated, nor are either demonstrable (I
shall address logical and reasonable attempts to prove the existence of
god in the following chapters of this work). The similarities between
these two mythical beings could go on indefinitely. Both beings are
magical and have supernatural powers. Santa Claus works his magic while
individuals are asleep and god works his magic when individuals are dead
— both beings need a state of unconsciousness in their followers to
work. God rewards with heaven and Santa Claus rewards with presents for
doing as they request; and God punishes with hell and Santa Claus
punishes with no presents. The point has been clearly made: both beings
share a near unlimited amount of similarities.
There are certainly apologetics to separate Santa Claus and god. To
those who declare that Santa Claus has no evidence whilst god does, I
shall address those evidences in later chapters. One may disagree on the
first point that I drew: that Santa Claus and god are believed on
account of authorities in your early life Those who disagree with this
point may argue by saying that god revealing himself to individuals is
the only reason why individuals believe in a god, whereas Santa Claus
does not reveal himself to individuals personally. First, this
proposition is not backed with any evidence and the seemingly plentiful
amount of discrepancies rule it out entirely. If god truly did reveal
himself to individuals, then why are there so many people who believe in
different types of gods? To quote Mark Twain (1835–1910), “If he is
seeking after the Only True Religion, he found it in one or another of
the three thousand that are on the market.” [19] Surely, if a god did
truly reveal himself to people, then people would not go to wars
battling each other over different gods. Between being forced to choose
a religion because of religious intolerance and parental teachings,
there is nothing much that chooses one’s religion. Asia is mostly
Islamic and Hindu and has remained is such a position for the last
thousand years. [20] Europe is mostly Christian and has remained that
way for the last thousand years. [21] Religion is a question of
geography. If god speaks to everyone individually and reveals himself
that way, then missionaries, the prime reason why Christianity has
spread across the globe, would be obsolete. Clearly, the religious
beliefs of people is based on what their parents and community have
taught them.
If one were to say that the same god revealed him to different
individuals in different methods or different forms, then my first
inquiry is, “why?” Certainly, the religionist may concoct one of many
various different answers. They may say god is a particular nature who
enjoys playing tricks in his followers, or whatnot, but it seems
unreasonable, although possible. I may then point out that the natures
of these gods are different. The god of Christianity and the god of
Islam are significantly different beings, one defined by the Bible and
the other by the Qur’an. They are completely different gods — not
different forms of the same god. It could possibly be said that they
were the same god in different imagery, but they are completely
different gods in nature and in composition. Just as a child could have
the same personality as an old man, such a comparison is made between
the gods, but such an analogy is flawed, as the gods have completely
different personalities. Also, what are we to make of religions with no
god, as Buddhism and Jainism? There are Buddhists and Jainists who have
religious experiences and claim that they are revealed the true religion
by the divine. Not only does it separate the different gods, but the
different types of religions. And what are we to make of religions with
many gods, as Hinduism and Roman mythology? With completely different
religions each giving a completely different, although still
supernatural, outlook on the origin and workings of the Universe, it is
quite clear that all the religions are not spread, developed, or
revealed by the same god. The god(s/lessness) of these religions is
vastly different from the other religions, and therefore they are not
reconcilable under the same character. Through the countless and
plentiful discrepancies, to say that god personally reveals himself to
individuals rather than being a product of the environment is an error
in the many ways I have thus described. To quote Percival Bysshe Shelley
(1792–1822), “If God has spoken, why is the universe not convinced?”
[22]
Another method for comparing Santa Claus and god is in their locations.
Santa Claus is placed in the North Pole whereas god is place is in the
heavens, both places conveniently located a distance that is extremely
far away from us. In fact, I am sure that few people who believe in
Santa Claus or god will ever go to the North Pole or to the heavens. The
significance of both beings located far away is that it grants them an
explanation for not being demonstrable. We may not travel to the North
Pole, and surely we may not travel to the heavens. There are certainly
methods for getting to these places. One could demonstrate Santa Claus
by searching in the arctic North pole and one could demonstrate god by
dying and searching for an afterlife. However, both cases are quite
ridiculous, and to state that these beings live far away is simple to
excuse their indemonstrable nature. For example, if I doubt the
existence of person X in city Y, I can travel to city Y and visit person
X, thus confirming or disconfirming my suspicion. Although Santa Claus
is in much closer reach in North Pole and at least we have a general
idea of where it is, god is in the heavens — the very place in question
— both beings are extremely far away, thus disallowing the possibility
of confirming or disconfirming their existence. Santa Claus, however, is
at least within a demonstrable grasp and therefore may appear to be a
more reasonable concept to believe in than a god.
It is certain that both beings, Santa Claus and god, have magical and
supernatural powers. However, some may say that the difference is that
Santa Claus has magical powers whereas god has supernatural powers.
Although that may be true, it is irrelevant. It is a play on words, as
both magical and supernatural are nearly identical concepts. The primary
connection between both magical and supernatural that I so clearly
wished to show was that they were capable of accomplishing a large
amount work with methods that are incapable of usage by the natural
beings of this Universe. A normal human cannot fly a normal sleigh and
deliver presents to all the Christians in one night just as normal
reindeer certainly cannot fly. Similarly, any natural being cannot
create universes at the whim of their will. There is certainly proof
that what Santa Claus and god do are unnatural actions that break the
very laws of physics. Of course this is hypothetically. The gods and
supernatural concepts of the various religions are certainly
supernatural or magical. The various religions have proven this quite
clearly...
[Judaism] Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the
earth.
[Christianity] Matthew 1:23 “The virgin will be with child and will give
birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel”--which means, “God with
us.”
[Islam] The Cow, 2.28 How do you deny Allah and you were dead and He
gave you life? Again He will cause you to die and again bring you to
life, then you shall be brought back to Him.
[Buddhism] Fourth Noble Truth: There is a way to overcoming all
suffering.
[Hinduism] Katha Upanishad, Part 1, Chapter 1, Verse 16: There are one
hundred and one arteries of the heart, one of which pierces the crown of
the head. Going upward by it, a man at death attains immortality. But
when his prana passes out by other arteries, going in different
directions, then he is reborn in the world.
[Roman Mythology] Prometheus gave fire to man.
Certainly, these verses may appear to any rational man to be completely
absurd in the utmost degree! Who can comprehend of a god creating
worlds, of a virgin who is pregnant, of someone being resurrected, of
escaping all pain and suffering through an 8 step path, of immortality,
or of a god who gives fire — a behavior, not an item — to man? I am not
attacking the validity of the scripture, but at a closer glance it does
look as though religion is a form of lunacy. I am simply trying to
demonstrate that the various religions are certainly supernatural or
beyond the natural ability of accomplishing their goals. Santa Claus is
the same way. To quote a book in regards to the myth of Santa Claus...
Santa Claus is not required to visit all 2,000,000,000 children under
the age of eighteen, for he does not (appear to ) handle the Muslim,
Hindu, Jewish, and Buddhist children on Earth. This reduces his workload
to perhaps 15% of the total, or 378,000,000, which based upon 3.5
children per household averages down to 91,800,000 homes. With
thirty-one hours of Christmas to work with, according to John Michael
Keller in Skeptic (Vol. 2, No. 3), thanks to the different time zones
and the rotation of Earth, assuming he travels east to west (which seems
logical), this works out to 822.6 visits per second. Assuming one good
child in each household, this leaves Santa 1/1000^(th) of a second to
park, hop out of the sleigh, jump down the chimney, fill the stockings,
distribute the remaining presents under the tree, eat whatever snacks
have been left, get back up the chimney, get back into the sleigh, and
move on to the next house. This means that Santa’s sleigh moves at 650
miles per second, or 3,000 times the speed of sound. On land,
conventional reindeer can pull no more than 300 pounds, but, assuming
each child gets at least two pounds, the sleigh carries 321,300 tons,
not counting the overweight Santa. Instead of only eight or nine
reindeer, he needs 214,200 for such a load, which must tote 353,430 tons
(or four times the weight of the Queen Elizabeth). It follows that
353,430 tons traveling at 650 miles per second will create enormous air
resistance. The lead pair of reindeer will absorb 14.3 quintillion
joules of energy per second, each. In short, they will burst into flame
almost instantaneously, exposing the reindeer behind them and creating
deafening sonic booms in their wake. The entire team will be vaporized
within 4.26 thousandths of a second, and Santa will be subjected to
centrifugal forces 17,500.06 times greater than gravity. Thus, a
250-pound Santa would be pinned to the back of his sleigh by 4,315,015
pounds of force. This, of course, is entirely credible to Christian
children, who also believe God is in Heaven and one day if they are good
little boys and girls they will be rewarded by seeing Him. [23]
Clearly, both the gods of the various religions and Santa Claus share
the same attribute of unnaturally accomplishing their goals, and whether
this be called a form of magic or supernaturalism is to argue
linguistics; there is no meaningful difference between the two words. I
have made this connection quite clear between both: that both beings are
either magical or supernatural.
There are others who insist that Santa Claus is a myth that evolved from
a Christian who gave presents on Christmas Eve, whilst god did not.
Although it would appear that religions are built upon older
superstitions of primitive man, with Christianity founded on the
premises of Judaism and Buddhism founded on the premises of Hinduism, I
will simply state that it is irrelevant. Regardless of whether or not
Santa Claus or god came from older myths, to point out the roots of
Santa Claus and the roots of god is not to excuse the fact that both
beings are accepted on Faith without evidences and the primary reason
being that both are beings are believed is because authorities teach
them without evidence. Insomuch, the argument to separate Santa Claus
and god through explaining their roots is dismissed: there is no
relevancy is explaining where the myths of god or Santa Claus came from.
At least, there is no relevancy in explaining where the myths came from
in attempts to separate god and Santa Claus in efforts to prove that god
deserves belief whereas Santa Claus does not.
Another similarity that I shown light on to was the fact that both Santa
Claus and god will reward if you do as they wish. Santa Claus delivers
presents and god brings you to heaven. To quote Thomas Paine in regards
to invisible beings that reward or punish, “All national institutions of
churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other
than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and
monopolize power and profit.” [24] Similarly, for not doing what Santa
Claus or god wish, you are punished, either with no presents (possibly
charcoal in their place, as the myth goes) or hell. What the various
religions wish is quite different. Judaism will ask that you follow the
Ten Commandments, Christianity will ask that you repent and accept
Christ as your savior, and Buddhism will ask that you follow the Eight
Fold Path. All these religions wish that you do something different to
attain their supernatural effects and all of their followers have often
given testimony of their religion’s own supernatural effects. Santa
Claus, on the other hand, is a being who only wishes that boys and girls
be good. Edward Gibbon (1737–1794) puts it quite clearly when he states,
“The various modes of worship which prevailed in the Roman world were
all considered by the people as equally true; by the philosopher as
equally false; and by the magistrate as equally useful.” [25]
Thus far I have neither made attempts to show how Faith in either
religion or Santa Claus is flawed. I have only made attempts to show the
quite enormous amounts of similarities between both belief structures. I
was hoping to show that if the foundation for belief in Santa Claus is
unreasonable, thus rendering Santa Claus unreasonable, then if the same
foundation is used for belief in god (which I have tried to
demonstrate), then it renders god unreasonable.
If Faith is superfluous, since it may demonstrably prove the existence
of Santa Claus or god, then what ought we base our knowledge on?
Certainly, only the vice of reason may be acceptable in attaining
knowledge. Through reason, demonstration, observance, cause and effect,
through naturally explainable methods it is by which we can attain true
knowledge. Faith is based on one thing: accepting something as truth
without any evidence; and it is by this very concept of Faith that
children accept the existence of Santa Claus and adults accept the
existence of god, both figures with an astoundingly large amount in
common. When we negate Faith, we negate all that which is illogical and
unsupported, foolish and unreasonable. When we embrace reason, we accept
all that is logical and supported, intelligent and reasonable.
By reason, I mean we ought only accept something that is logical,
consistent with previous facts, and supported with evidence. When
something is logical, it does not contradict itself. To be consistent
with previous facts is also necessary. For example, we cannot all of a
sudden find out that the first flute was invented 600 A.D.E. when we
already know that it was first invented 200 B.C.E.. The flute can only
have been first invented in on one date. It is surely possible that we
may discover it to have been invented earlier for the first time or
possibly later for the first time, but it will be one sole date, not two
irreconcilable dates. Such would be a historical inconsistency, as there
can only be one date when something was first invented, not two. The
third requirement of reasonably accepting something is that it is
supported with evidence. Certainly, something can be true without
evidence, but reason is an epistemological system. It is an
epistemological system insomuch that its chief purpose is to help us
attain knowledge accurately with the highest chances. If we accept
purported facts that have evidence to back them up rather than accepting
any purported facts that are logical yet unsustained with evidence, we
are more likely to find truth and consistently so. Through reason, we
have a higher accuracy of attaining truth, an accuracy that is higher
than that of Faith.
It is certainly true that evidence is significantly helpful when
accurately searching for the truth. If someone is on trial, would it at
all be reasonable for the jury to convict them on Faith despite lacking
evidence? Quite unreasonable it would be! So it is with god who has been
put on trial. Certainly, though, god is not fighting any legal
accusation, but he is fighting against those who would doubt his
existence and the theologians and apologists across the world are his
defense attorneys. Is there any evidence to support this god? There
certainly has been evidence brought to the attention of society for god
and I shall address that; but for a theologian or apologist to claim
that we need no evidence for a god or any form of supernaturality is
absolutely ludicrous. A prosecutor or defense attorney certainly would
not ask anyone to convict someone on grounds of Faith. When someone is
to judge something on truth, it should be through reason, evidence, and
logic that they accept something as truth. When scientists search for
answers, do they look to Faith or do they look to evidence? Scientists,
at least true scientists, certainly do not use Faith as their method for
obtaining truth. Charles Darwin (1809–1882) is perhaps one of the most
brilliant biologists of the modern era. To quote this ingenious man...
I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be
true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the
men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother, and
almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is
a damnable doctrine. [26]
Nor must we overlook the probability of the constant inculcation in a
belief in God on the minds of children producing so strong and perhaps
so inherited effect on their brains not yet fully developed, that it
would be as difficult for them to throw off their belief in God, as for
a monkey to throw off its instinctive fear and hatred of a snake. I
cannot pretend to throw the least light on such abstruse problems. The
mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one
must be content to remain an Agnostic. [27]
Charles Babbage (1791–1871) was another great thinker in the era of
Darwin and is accredited with developing the idea of the modern
computer. To quote a passage about Babbage from Darwin’s
Autobiography...
Another day he [Babbage] told me that he had seen a pump on a road-side
in Italy, with a pious inscription on it to the effect that the owner
had erected the pump for the love of God and his country, that the tired
wayfarer might drink. This led Babbage to examine the pump closely and
he soon discovered that every time that a wayfarer pumped some water for
himself, he pumped a larger quantity into the owner’s house. Babbage
then added-“There is only one thing which I hate more than piety, and
that is patriotism.” [28]
Ferdinand Magellan (1480–1521) was another scientist who did not have
Faith. To quote him, “The church says the earth is flat, but I know that
it is round, for I have seen the shadow on the moon, and I have more
Faith in a shadow than in the church.” [29] Thomas Henry Huxley was a
Naturalist and scientist, and to quote him, “The deepest sin against the
human mind is to believe things without evidence,” [30] and “I have no
Faith, very little hope, and as much charity as I can afford.” [31]
Luther Burbank (1849–1926) was a botanist who bred high-yield fruit
trees, vegetables, grains, and other crops. To quote him on religious
matters, “The idea that a good God would send people to a burning hell
is utterly damnable to me-the ravings of insanity, superstition gone to
seed! I don’t want to have anything to do with such a God.” [32] If
there is a scientist who is close to Darwin’s influence, it is Albert
Einstein (1879–1955) who should surely requires no introduction. He was
the German physicist who invented the Theory of Relativity, and to quote
him in regards to religion, “I do not believe in the God of theology who
rewards good and punishes evil.” [33] Carl Sagan (1934–1996) is a recent
scientist who is very popular and is noted as an explainer of science,
and to quote him, “If some good evidence for life after death were
announced, I’d be eager to examine it; but it would have to be real
scientific data, not mere anecdote.... Better the hard truth, I say,
than the comforting fantasy.” [34] Isaac Asimov (1920–1992) is another
brilliant man who wrote 470 books on quarks, quasars, radiation,
relativity, gravity, galaxies, and a vast amount of scientific
knowledge. To quote him in regards to religion...
I have never, in all my life, not for one moment, been tempted toward
religion of any kind. The fact is that I feel no spiritual void. I have
my philosophy of life, which does not include any aspect of the
supernatural. [35]
Certainly, though, there have been many scientists — although not
necessarily many famous ones — who have made prominent discoveries and
also had Faith in a god, such as Isaac Newton. A point I was trying to
demonstrate however is that no scientist who has made any significant
contribution to science has had Faith in his theory. With no Faith-based
theory, many scientists found that the scrutiny of logic and reason
ought not only apply to science, but religious matters, rendering many
of them as Atheists and Agnostics. Darwin did not say that man descended
from primates and that this was to be believed on Faith. Magellan did
not claim that the world was round and that this was to be believed on
Faith. And certainly, Albert Einstein did not purport his Theory of
Relativity and declare that it needed to be believed on Faith. Certainly
not! Their claims would be Quite atrocious if there was no evidence to
support them and they would be dismissed if they claimed that Faith was
required for belief in their theories. As rational and logical beings,
their theories were based on evidence and logic. When we accept
something as fact, it is usually on proven grounds. Scientific truths
are based on evidence; historic truths are based on evidence; and
mathematical truths are based on evidence; so why are religious truths
exempt from this pattern insomuch that they are not based on — nor are
they said to require — evidence?
Scientific and historical beliefs vary from religious beliefs. When a
scientific belief or a historical belief has the evidence pulled from
them, we no longer believe those beliefs. We should, at least, no longer
believe those beliefs. However, when a religious belief has its evidence
pulled from it, then people still will not pull their belief from such
religion (sometimes religious beliefs are formed without any evidence at
all, but only on the word of authorities who rely on baseless
assertions). I am not saying that it is impossible to pull belief from
such doctrines, but only that it rarely occurs when evidence is pulled
from religious beliefs. By Faith one may hold onto a religious belief,
and it is often by baseless Faith alone that one believes in any
religion at all. However, since scientific and historic beliefs stand on
the ground of reason, logic, and evidence, they need no Faith. And this
is true insomuch we only believe the truths of science and history
because of the evidence and not once because of Faith we may or may not
have in those ideas. We believe them, surely, but by no regards are they
believed through Faith. Religion is believed by the masses, surely, and
it is not by evidence, logic, or reason, but by Faith. To quote Arthur
Schopenhauer, “Any dogma, no matter how extravagantly absurd, inculcated
in childhood, is sure to retain its hold for life.” [36] Perhaps another
impressive quote is by Thomas Edison (1847–1931)...
The great trouble is that the preachers get the children from six to
seven years of age, and then it is almost impossible to do anything with
them. Incurably religious-that is the best way to describe the mental
condition of so many people. Incurably religious. [37]
The only conclusion that I can see is that any hypothesis — be it
scientific or religious — must be supported with evidence before it is
considered a founded theory, and only after enough evidence and proof
should it be considered a fact. A scientist must have reasonable grounds
to believe theory X. A jury must have reasonable grounds to believe
verdict X. And certainly, if a religionist wishes us to believe in his
hypothesis with concerns to the realm of supernaturality, he must
present reasonable grounds to believe religion X. However, it is by
Faith — not reason or logic — that the religionists asserts we should
believe in his religion Faith, with concerns to philosophy and truth, is
an abstract epistemological theory that has been able to prove nothing
factual; it is by Faith that one can accept Santa Claus or god as truths
of the Universe. If we are to find truth, then certainly it must be
through reason, logic, and evidence. History has shown that it was been
consistently through reason that we obtained truth, not through Faith.
Science has prevailed over religion in regards to truth and knowledge.
However, there are those who wish to defend this atrocious concept of
Faith and I shall now address those defenses.
The primary arguments for Faith are made to demonstrate that everyone —
Atheist or Theist — has Faith in something other than a god. These
demonstrations are done so to conclude two points: (1) that a Theist is
justified in having Faith in god, because everyone else also has Faith,
and (2) Faith is necessary as an everyday function in life, and
therefore Faith in a god (somehow) applies to everyone as well.
The first tactic for Faith — since it rather does not really qualify for
an argument, in content and purpose — is to mock reason. This can be
done in a numerous amount of ways. People could go on indefinitely with
of a list of information that cannot be known empirically. One may say,
for example, that we may not see the brain in a person’s head. Another
example is how a blind man cannot see stars. One of the more popular
ones among Christians is to demand without expecting an answer, “prove
love!” One that is commonly stated is to ask whether you can see the
wind or not. Certainly, however, the obscure point they are trying to
demonstrate is that knowledge is not all known empirically, and
therefore that knowledge cannot be accepted as truth unless by Faith.
When I say “empirically,” I mean in the sense that something is
personally justifiable. Person X, Y, and Z may say that this shoe is
brown, but if you can look at the shoe, then you confirm or disconfirm
through Empiricism the claim.
When someone tries to assert that we do not know X (love, wind, etc.) to
be true and then claims we believe it, there is a discrepancy that it is
to be observed. The discrepancy to be observed is that they claim that
something is unknowable, or at least unproven, and then they state that
we believe in it regardless. Was it by Faith that Biologists claimed
that we have a brain in our bodies? Perhaps it was by Faith that
scientists tested and measured? Or was it by the whimsical branch of
Faith that Magellan concluded that the world was round? The answer to
all of these inquiries is: no. The reason why people believe these
things is that they seem logical, they are taught be authorities, and
they are proven by authorities. However, two statements are delivered:
(1) we do not know that X is true, (2) we believe X is true. We may even
substitute the word believe with the word know, as we would take this
belief with truth. We are given two irreconcilable sentences: we do not
know X is true yet we know X is true. Surely, we may not be able to
empirically demonstrate that we have a brain, but we surely can known
that we have a think organ that highly resembles a brain, as we surely
can think. We may not see the wind, but we can feel it. These things we
hold to be truths, although they may not be personally demonstrable, are
proven and held as scientific facts. To those who doubt these facts,
they may challenge them and rewrite the science books if they are
successful.
The move by Faith advocates to mock reason and logic is quite a
ludicrous action to take. By insulting reason, it accomplishes nothing.
It is to say that “reason has proven insane things” or “reason cannot
prove these simple things,” yet it makes its move further: “Faith is
equally foolish to reason, so it is justifiable to be Faithful.” Faith,
as shown in the previous section, is incapable of demonstrating or
observing truth. Reason and logic alone have been capable of finding
truth in the fields of science and history. When reason and logic are
responsible for finding proof in religion they find none. To demonstrate
that reason and logic are incapable of finding truth is to arrive at the
conclusion that information is impossible. It is not to conclude that
some knowledge may be flawed and therefore we must accept a god or
another form of supernatural on grounds of Faith; it is to demonstrate
Skepticism, the belief that we cannot know any knowledge at all. Our
method for attaining knowledge, it claims, is flawed, and therefore
Faith — which appears equally flawed — then attempts to make its case.
In regards to the mocks of knowledge where an sensile deficient person
is asked to identify something that their lacking sense can only sense,
these arguments require a little bit more of an examination. An example
of an argument like this would be to ask if a blind man should not
believe in stars or if a deaf man should not believe in music. I offer
the counter argument: if a blind man should believe what he is told
about the parts of the Universe he cannot empirically demonstrate, would
it be reasonable for him to believe the world was flat simply because he
was told so and could not prove otherwise? If a deaf man should believe
what he is told about the parts of the Universe he cannot empirically
demonstrate, would it be reasonable for him to believe that there was no
such thing as sound and that he was not really deficient in any way? No
matter what this blind or deaf man may be told, they may or may not be
inclined to believe it, and any decision would be equally unfounded. If
a blind man should believe what he is told about the parts of the
Universe that he cannot personally demonstrate (such would be the sun or
colors), would that make it reasonable for him to believe whatever he is
told about the Universe? For the empirical point of view, it is
impossible for a blind man to know the truth about such matters. For a
blind man to believe someone when told the world is flat or to believe
another when told the world is round are equally justifiable decisions,
as both authorities can hold no weight over the other. One could have
pictures of the Earth as a sphere, but it would hold to no avail; what
use are pictures to a blind man? Unfortunately, a blind man cannot
empirically demonstrate the existence of such things as the stars or
colors, nor can a deaf man empirically demonstrate the existence of such
things as sound. To this end, their beliefs in such regards cannot stand
on solid ground.
The mocking of reason by Faith is an unreasonable position to take. I am
debating philosophically and reasonably. As a Rationalist, I wish to be
presented with evidence and logic so that men and women may prove their
claims about this supposedly existent god or other form of
supernaturality. What am I to make of a debate, if my philosophical
adversary’s best defense is, “You cannot see the wind.”? Is the position
of Atheism and reason destroyed with such a statement? I would hardly
think so. In fact, the entire move itself to mock reason is ridiculously
absurd to the highest degrees. In a scientific debate where scientists
were arguing about the possibility of a new sea creature that could be
harming the environment, would a similar tactic be reasonable? “We may
not see the wind. Therefore, this sea creature must be damaging.”? No
qualified, respectable, or intelligent scientist would form his
arguments in such a manner. By Faith mocking reason it becomes quite
unreasonable, illogical, and dogmatic.
Another common approach to proving Faith is to claim that all have
Faith. For example, a child has Faith in their parent, a person has
Faith in their doctor, a business executive has Faith in his advisors,
and so on. Similarly, a Theist will argue that we must have Faith in god
through two methods: (a) just as we have Faith in a professional’s word
about their profession, we must have Faith in a theologian about god,
and (b) we must have Faith in the scripture of god, because it commands
it. To quote Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274)...
It seems that this doctrine cannot be defended through argument, for
Ambrose says, “Away with argument where Faith is sought!” Faith,
however, is primarily sought in this doctrine, for as John says, “These
things are written in order that you may believe” (Jn. 20:30). Thus
sacred doctrine cannot be defended through argument.
[...]
...it must be said that argument from authority is very appropriate to
this doctrine, since its premises are derived from revelation. Thus one
must believe in the authority of those to whom the revelation was given.
Nor does this fact derogate from the worth of this doctrine, for an
argument from authority may be the weakest kind when it is based on
human revelation, but it is the strongest kind when based on divine
revelation. [38]
In regards to accepting a what a professional tells us on grounds of
Faith, it is flawed for several reasons. Accepting what a theologian or
apologist tells us in regards to the supernatural comes to several fatal
flaws. Firstly, which theologian ought we believe? A Protestant
theologian or a Catholic theologian? A Hindu theologian or a Jainist
theologian? Certainly, if it is acceptable to have Faith in a Christian
theologian in regards to the divinity of Christ, then certainly it must
be acceptable to have Faith in a Hindu theologian in regards to the
divinity if Vishnu. The error is that it proves too much information,
and the information is irreconcilable with the other attained
information. A Christian theologian may prove Christ as divine and a
Buddhist theologian may prove Buddha divine, but both cannot be the same
god in a Monotheistic outlook. Through the same method of Faith, we come
at invariably many completely different answers. If we were to search
the globe and look for theologians that belong to every religion, then
we would end up with thousands of different answers that we make take on
Faith. In fact, what qualifies a person as a theological expert? Is it
mere belief in such matters? Certainly not. An Atheist could read the
Qur’an, the Vedas, or the Bible and come to their own conclusions,
possibly strengthening their Atheism. They would be equally qualified to
the other theologians of the other various religions. To quote Thomas
Paine in regard to Atheists resulting from Christianity...
Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is none
more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifying to man, more repugnant
to reason, and more contradictory in itself, than this thing called
Christianity. Too absurd for belief, too impossible to convince, and too
inconsistent for practice, it renders the heart torpid, or produces only
atheists and fanatics. As an engine of power, it serves the purpose of
despotism; and as a means of wealth, the avarice of priests; but so far
as respects the good of man in general, it leads to nothing here or
hereafter. [39]
An Atheist, however, may be just as qualified as a theologian, or at
least could be just as qualified in such matters. This does not make
their opinion better, but it only means that they are equally well
informed. Ought we accept the word of any theologian of any religion
blindly, thus arriving at one of a near infinite amount of possible
conclusions, or ought we accept the word of an Atheist in regards to
religion blindly? However, we could come to a logical and legitimate
conclusion that to accept what a theologian tells us on Faith will
result in finding no answers at all. Faith thus proves nothing. We ought
to accept what is reasonable and logical.
What, then, do we say in regards to the Faith that we already have in
authority figures? Certainly, this must be addressed. Two professionals
may argue each other on the validity of their conclusions. Admittedly,
evidence is a key part and if a professional can bring forth evidence
and explain it legitimately, we may take the evidence which he has
brought forward. The other professional may argue against the validity
of such evidence. Through this method, different professionals may argue
each other and with evidence, reasoning, observation, and demonstration;
they may prove their theories.
The second method for demonstrating that we ought have Faith in
authority is to claim that the Bible was written “to be believed on
Faith,” as Aquinas pointed out that the book of John said similarly.
However, the fact that the Bible was written to be believed in no way
warrants that we ought to believe it. The Qur’an, Confucian writings,
and the Vedas were also all written to be believed. The Qur’an is surely
an authority of Islam, the Confucian writings are certainly an authority
of Confucianism, and the Vedas are certainly an authority of Hinduism.
Why should we not accept them any more than we should accept any other
religious scripture? In fact, if the Atheistic books over the century
were written to be believed, may we not also believe them? We run into
the same flaws as we do when we consider believing theologians due to
their authority: they all come to different opinions. Similarly — just
as we arrived at how we may take a professionals word (if they argue
each other for validity of their claims) — we should believe books and
articles based on the reasoning and evidence they produce. Just as I am
sure that there are hundreds of books on theology written by many
authors, there are also many books written on the topic of Atheism.
Evidences by many theologians and religionists over the centuries have
been offered as proof of the supernatural elements of their religion. It
is within the later part of this work that I argue against their
evidences and proofs.
A final attempt to reconcile the Atheist and Theist position that they
both take their beliefs on Faith is to say that an Atheist believes that
god does not exist or is not likely to exist just as a Theist believes
that god does exist. This is stated insomuch to demonstrate that both an
Atheist and a Theist have beliefs and — at least it is insinuated —
these beliefs are equal in their validity. Some would say that through
reason we know things and through Faith we believe things. However, I
would not say that I know anything unless I was absolutely sure of its
validity. The difference between the beliefs of one person and the next
is that one may be verifiable through logic and reason. Surely, a Theist
and an Atheist both have their own beliefs that ought to be respected,
but in no way does this insinuate that they are equal in regards to
validity. It is through logic and reason that I wish to prove Atheism.
Through the seemingly large list of similarities that can be construed
between god and Santa Claus — the primary similarity being that both
beings are and have been believed on Faith — we come to the conclusion
that Faith, as far as an epistemological construct, is inept. Both Santa
Claus and god live far away, threaten and reward us, and both were
learned the same method: through authorities. If we wish to know
knowledge and truth, it is certainly not by ignoring evidence or
accepting something without evidence. It is through reason, logic, and
evidence that we can find truth. It was through these principles that we
found truth in the scientific, historical, and mathematical fields. It
should also be how we look for truth in the theological field. There are
arguments for Faith, however. There are those who argue for Faith and
declare that knowledge is flawed insomuch that we may not see the wind
or microscopic organisms, and that we accept their existence on Faith.
However, this is certainly not true, as there are scientists and
biologists who have discovered the existence of such invisible things.
They offer evidence and proof. Once they hold the evidence and proof, it
is now on the Skeptic’s hands to debunk the proof to the point where the
claim may no longer stand. The point of this argument is trying to
demonstrate something that is not empirically true and therefore is not
true at all, however not all knowledge must be empirically demonstrated,
but at least empirically demonstrable.
There are also those who argue for Faith by declaring that we should
accept the word of authority, either the theologian’s authority or the
scripture’s authority. The error with accepting a theologian’s word on
Faith is that the theologian — unlike the other professions — has no
evidence. Other professions offer evidence to their claims. Furthermore,
an Atheist can be trained in theology very well and that would qualify
them as being equal in the decision to any other theologian. To say that
the scripture was written to be believed is equally foolish. Books and
writings must have evidence and reasoning to support themselves. I am
sure that every non-fictional book was written to be believed, but if we
believe them all we will encounter an enormously large amount of
contradictions and discrepancies. There are opposing views on all the
subjects of non-fictional books, including biology, ecology, and
economics, and especially in theology and philosophy. Simply because
these books were written “to be believed” in no right grants them a
justification for Faith. The last apologetic for Faith is to say that
both an Atheist and a Theist believe beliefs and thus they are equaled
in legitimacy, but this is not so, as certain beliefs can be justified
and proven through reasoning and logic whereas those that cannot be
justified or proven through reasoning and logic — those beliefs accepted
on Faith — are dogmatic. All apologetics for Faith stumble upon numerous
and countless contradictions and errors.
Now that Faith has been debunked, it is absolutely necessary that this
epistemological system remains buried. Let Faith rise up no more to make
fallacious and unproven claims. If we are to find truth, it must be
supported with evidence and logical reasoning. I shall examine and
criticize the evidences offered for the existence of a god or
supernaturality in the following chapters, dedicating one chapter to the
possibility of the existence of god. Now that Faith has been incapable
of finding god legitimately, will the evidences and proofs held for the
existence of god stand examination?
Since the beginning of time when man could question the reality and
origin of his environment, he has come to the conclusion in many cases
that there is a supernatural being(s) at work. When one asks why they
themselves are here and if they have a purpose, they may often come to
religious answers. It is here, by examining the origins of us animals —
human and non-human, as they are both equally valuable — that we come to
a conclusion that involves some supernatural force. “How did I get here?
What’s my purpose here?” These are questions asked since the dawn of
humanity. Whether a religionist sees design in the Earth or in the stars
at night, they see that god was the one who was responsible for the
existence of this Universe. And it is this doctrine — that natural
phenomenon can satisfactorily be explained with supernatural
explanations — that I shall attack.
Phenomena
Perhaps in the ancient times it would be considered reasonable to use a
spirit or a ghost as an explanation to things. If something uncommon or
unknown occurred, perhaps an eclipse or a flood, it may be associated
with religion or spiritual things; in fact, it may be claimed to be a
derivative from spiritual beings. Similarly, where men and women came
from, where the Earth came from, and where the animals and plants came
from are questions answered by religion in its own way. It is by lack of
knowledge, however, that people everywhere point to religious origins.
If one does not know the origin of the language, they may point to a god
who delivered or may recall how Adam from the Old Testament is
responsible for naming various animals. Surely, myths are simply that:
theological speculation which attempts to explain natural phenomena with
supernatural explanations. The reason why men and women point to
supernatural explanations for the existence of natural phenomena is
obvious: they do not know the natural explanation, or are at least
currently incapable of knowing the natural explanation due to their
current technology and knowledge.
The following is an examination of how various religious books explain
the origins and workings of the Universe. They explain how various
sciences work, but they do so in a supernatural way. The importance of
the Old Testament is significant. It is held as a primary holy book of
the Jews, known as the Torah. It is the foundation for the prophecies
that Jesus Christ fulfilled in regards to Christianity. And its prophets
are considered to be true by the Islamic religion. The Old Testament
formed and molded the culture and tradition of the West as it manifested
itself into the workings of various religions that many practice today.
The Qur’an, however, is a religious book that remains religious only to
those who are Islamic (or the Unitarian Universalists who value every
religious book). The Vedas are also important, just like the Old
Testament. Like the Old Testament, the Vedas manifested themselves into
the various religions of the East. The Vedas are the foundation (along
with the Upanishads) of Hinduism. Sidartha Gautama, or Buddha, based his
religion Buddhism on the scripture of the Vedas. One last look at
religion came from the primitive Greek-Roman mythologies — as the Roman
mythology are founded on the Greek mythology — as they try to explain
the origins and workings of the Universe.
Old Testament —
Where did light come from? God made it (Genesis 1:3).
Where did the sky come from? God made it (Genesis 1:8).
Where did plants come from? God made them (Genesis 1:12).
Where did the moon, the Sun, and the stars come from? God made them
(Genesis 1:16).
Why do we have night and day? God made them (Genesis 1:18).
Where do birds and fish come from? God made them (Genesis 1:21).
Where do mammals come from? God made them (Genesis 1:25).
Where do humans come from? God made them in his own image (Genesis
1:26).
Where did animals get their names? Adam named them (Genesis 2:20).
Where did the female human come from? She came from the rib of man
(Genesis 2:22).
Why do women feel pain by giving birth? Eve was punished by god and the
punishment just went to all of her children (Genesis 3:16).
Why don’t snakes have legs? God punished them by forcing them to crawl
on their bellies their whole lives (Genesis 3:4).
Where did the men and women come from who live in tents and raise
livestock? They were born from Jabal (Genesis 4:20).
Where did the men and women come from who play the harp and the flute?
They were born from Jubal (Genesis 4:21).
Where did the men and women come from who forge metals and make tools?
They were born from Tubal-Caine (Genesis 4:22).
Qur’an —
Where did the universe come from? Allah made it (Qur’an 2:29).
Where did man come from? Allah made man (Qur’an 3:59).
Where do darkness and light come from? Allah made them (Qur’an 6:1).
Where did the Sun and the moon come from? Allah made them (Qur’an 10:15,
Qur’an 13:2).
Where do thunderbolts come from? Thunderbolts are the result of Allah
trying to kill who he pleases (Qur’an 13:13).
Where do clouds and rain come from? Allah sends them (Qur’an 14:32).
Where do cattle come from? Allah created them (Qur’an 16:5).
Where do asses, horses, and mules come from? Allah created them (Qur’an
16:8).
Why do people die? Allah causes people to die (Qur’an 16:70).
Vedas —
Where does fire come from? The god Agni delivers the fire.
Where does weather come from? The god Indra delivers the rains and
thunderstorms.
Where do streams come from? The god Indra shattered a mountain,
releasing streams.
Where do the Sun and dawn come from? The god Indra gave birth to them.
Where does the air, the forest, and the village come from? They came
from the sacrifice of Purusa.
Where do the mantras [Rig Veda] and the songs [Samaveda] come from? They
came from the sacrifice of Purusa.
Where do the horses, cows, and sheep come from? They came from the
sacrifice of Purusa.
Where does the moon come from? It was born of Purusa’s mind.
Where does the Sun come from? It was born of Purusa’s eye.
Where do the gods Indra and Agni come from? They are born of Purusa’s
mouth.
Where does wind [or the god Vayu] come from? It is born of Purusa’s
breath.
Where do the heavens come from? They arose from Purusa’s head.
Where does the Earth come from? It is born of the feet of Purusa. [40]
Greek-Roman Mythology —
Why does the Sun go across the sky? The god Apollo pulls it across on
his chariot.
Why do plants grow? The god Ceres causes them to grow.
Why are there storms and rain? The god Jupiter causes them.
Where did warriors, poetry, medicine, wisdom, commerce, crafts, and
music come from? The god Minerva created and invented them.
Where do the precious metals of gold, silver, and tin come from? The god
Pluto put them in the Earth.
Why do people fall in love? The god Cupid is responsible for persons
falling in love with each other.
Where does fire come from? The god Prometheus gave it to man.
There may be arguments, however. Some people, the Christians, Jews,
Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Roman and Greek religionists, etc., may
argue that these verses have symbolic meaning. However, I am not arguing
for the meaning of the verse, nor am I attempting to point out
contradictions. I am simply pointing to statements that indicate a sort
of supernatural explanation for natural phenomena that we can explain
naturally today. The first believers of these religious verses took
their meaning as a literal one. They truly believed that when they saw
the Sun, it was the eye of Purusa, if they were to mine silver that it
was placed there by Pluto, or that the origin of the female is from the
rib bone of man. Surely, no educated man can believe these verses. If a
man were to walk into a musical instrument shop and state, “I think my
daughter is descended from Jubal, and I want to buy her a flute since
she will be able to play it,” he certainly would not be considered
intelligent. If a man were to witness a fire and proclaim, “The workings
of this fire are caused by Agni, let us praise him,” he would not be
considered intelligent either. The capability of playing an instrument
certainly does not come from being descended form Jubal because it is
from skill, practice, and talent. Fires do not burn because they are
willed to burn by Agni because a fire is caused by molecules and atoms
vibrating. Intelligent and learned men and women will not consider these
supernatural explanations as satisfactory for natural phenomena. In the
ancient times, fire was a mystery. By Hinduism it is claimed that it was
caused by a god. By Greek-Roman mythology, it is claimed that it was
given to man by Prometheus. Other natural phenomenon, such as lighting
bolts, are explained by religions, such as when the Qur’an claims that
Allah is the cause of the lightning bolts. However, the truth is that
lightning bolts are caused by a build up of positive and negative
electrons. Science has discovered natural explanations to natural
phenomena whereas religion has discovered superfluous and unfounded
explanations of the supernatural to explain natural phenomena. I will
choose the truth of science over the dogma of religion.
Ignorance breeds religion. When men and women do not know what causes
natural phenomena, they claim some sort of supernatural explanation.
Although no intelligent man will accept literally the origins of any
religious scripture, they may claim that a god is responsible for
creating the Universe and our origins. To claim that god created the
Universe is just one rung on the ladder lower than to claim that a god
creates fire, the animals, and love, all through mythological and
supernatural assertions. To claim that a god created the Universe is no
explanation, certainly, just as to claim that plants growing is the
workings of the god Ceres is no explanation at all. Science has
discovered that plants certainly do not grow because of a mythological
god. Plants grow because they get energy from the Sun and develop with
that energy. Science has proved fruitful in the explanations of the
Universe. There is no reason to drop science so that one may embrace
unfounded theological speculation, as with theological or mythological
speculation and assertion, nothing is learned. “Where did we animals
come from? Where did the matter come from? Why are we here?” These are
answers that only science is capable of answering. All theological
efforts to explain natural existence through supernatural speculation
have failed and were entirely based on the guesswork of what primitive
man could not explain naturally. To quote Baron D’Holbach (1723–1789),
“If the ignorance of nature gave birth to gods, the knowledge of nature
is calculated to destroy them.” [41] Arthur Schopenhauer was one person
who was well aware of religion being an inefficient toy of cavemen to
explain the origin of the Universe. To quote Schopenhauer...
Religions are like glowworms; they shine only when it is dark. A certain
amount of general ignorance is the condition of all religions, the
element in which alone they can exist. And as soon as astronomy, natural
science, geology, history, and knowledge of countries and peoples have
spread their light broadcast, and philosophy finally is permitted to say
a word, every faith founded on miracles and revelation must disappear.
[42]
One of Robert Green Ingersoll’s most popular speeches was The Ghosts. In
it, he talked of how ghosts and gods were used as explanations to
natural phenomenon. The ghosts were used in various fields of knowledge
to explain the workings of that field of knowledge. To quote Ingersoll
in the speech...
From these ghosts, our fathers received information. They were the
schoolmasters of our ancestors. They were the scientists and
philosophers, the geologists, legislators, astronomers, physicians,
metaphysicians and historians of the past. For ages these ghosts were
supposed to be the only source of real knowledge. They inspired men to
write books, and the books were considered sacred. If facts were found
to be inconsistent with these books, so much the worse for the facts,
and especially for their discoverers. It was then, and still is,
believed that these books are the basis of the idea of immortality; that
to give up these volumes, or rather the idea that they are inspired, is
to renounce the idea of immortality. [43]
“Let the ghosts go. We will worship them no more. Let them cover their
eyeless sockets with their fleshless hands and fade forever from the
imaginations of men.” — Robert Green Ingersoll [44]
The origin of the Universe is often attributed to the existence of a god
or other supernatural beings. Along with the origin, many purport the
design of the Universe is responsible to a deity or other supernatural
being. The existence of the Universe is one part attributed to a god and
the method of how it exists — its design — is another part attributed to
a god. The design and creation of the world are commonly purported
reasons to the existence of god. The Deist Ethan Allen (1738–1789) puts
it quite eloquently in his book...
We know that earth, water, fire and air, in their various compositions
subserve us, and we also know that these elements are devoid of
reflection, reason, or design; from whence we may easily infer, that a
wise, understanding, and designing being has ordained them to be thus
subservient. Could blind chance constitute order and decorum, and
consequently a providence? That wisdom, order, and design should be the
production of nonentity, or of chaos, confusion, and old night, is too
absurd to deserve a serious confutation, for it supposeth that there may
be effects without a cause, viz. produced by nonentity, or that chaos
and confusion could produce the effects of power, wisdom, and goodness.
Such absurdities as these we must assent to, or subscribe to the
doctrine of a self-existent and providential being. [45]
Despite the fact that Ethan Allen was in err when he believed that
matter was in the composition of earth, water, fire, and air, he makes
his point clear: the matter in this Universe exists and for matter to
exist, it needs a creator. He then associates design with matter by
stating that matter can form wisdom, order, and design. If there was not
a god, he states, then there would be nothing but “the production of
nonentity, or of chaos, confusion, and old night.” Allow me to simplify
the first proof for god: that the existence of matter indicates a
creator of it...
Premise One: Everything that exists needs a creator.
Premise Two: Matter exists.
Conclusion: Therefore, god created matter.
On the first premise, it claims that everything that exists needs a
creator. If that is true, then what conceivable being could have created
god? Certainly, whereas I am left to explain the origin of this tangible
and natural Universe, the Theist is left to explain the origin of a god
who may create a slew of Universes at the whim of his will! What is more
probable? A simple Universe constituted of natural and explainable
matter, or an infinitely complex god constituted of supernatural and
unexplainable matter? If I were to pick what is more likely to exist,
then certainly I would assume that it is more likely for there to be a
natural and explainable Universe than this unexplainable and
supernatural god. The error with claiming that god is responsible for
creating the Universe is that it creates a larger hole than it intended
to fill: in explaining the origin and workings of the Universe, it holds
no explanation for itself. To quote Percy Bysshe Shelley, “It is easier
to suppose that the universe has existed from all eternity than to
conceive of a Being beyond its limits capable of creating .” [46] I have
two questions. First, who created god? Second, why may not this
explanation be held to the existence of the Universe?
There will be those who argue that god has always existed for eternity.
However, that answers nothing, as I could place the same explanation to
the origin and existence of the Universe. The first premise of the
creation argument is that everything that exists needs a creator. There
may be those testimonies that claim, “I cannot conceive that this world
is without a creator or author,” but these bother me little. It is
simply a confession of ignorance. If it happens that the world is
without a creator or author, would that go so far as to be disregarded
by the believer and would they continue to believe in a god despite lack
of evidence? Possibly so, but it is all a question of how open minded
the individual is. The fact of the matter is, if someone is incapable of
believing this Universe exists without a god, then how intelligible
would be the idea that this god who is infinitely beyond the Universe
can exist without being created? Quite unintelligible.
There is the more common and more popular explanation of god by stating
god had created himself. The ancient myth of the Sun god Ra goes to say
that Ra was a dung beetle who rolled himself (as dung beetles reproduce
by a mother dung beetle rolling her eggs in a dung ball). However, this
explanation for a god falls victim to numerous problems. Have you ever
witnessed abstruse creatures appearing from nowhere and then after
interrogating them, they claimed to have created themselves? I seriously
doubt that anyone can lay claim to such phenomenon. To create something
is an action and before any action is committed by any entity, this
entity must first exist. A god cannot create himself, as to create
anything the god must already be in existence, and if the god were to
create himself it would mean that he was not in existence to create, and
therefore could not create himself. A similar analogy can be brought
between a person and their car. If you wish to get to your car, would
you drive your car to your car? You could not, as you would not have
your car. Before you could drive, you would need to be at your car, and
say that you drove to your car would imply that you did not have your
car (as you drove to your car), and therefore you could not drive to
your car. Similarly, could someone exist to create themselves, by
creating themselves? Certainly not.
There is one last argument that claims a god can exist independent of
other gods yet a Universe can only exist as dependent upon a god — or
that god doesn’t need a creator and the Universe does -, but this is
through an illogical course of reasoning. This argument goes so far as
to say that god has created the laws of logic and therefore he may break
these laws of logic as well. However, I believe this argument is
reserved for the mentally inept, as many of the people who purport this
argument know nothing on the workings of logic or mechanics in this
Universe. At the National Academy of Science, 95% of the biologists, 90%
of the scientists, and 85% of the mathematicians do not believe in a
personal god that answers prayers. [47] Assuming that god did create the
laws of logic, in no way does this entitle him to break them. Can the
man who invented the guillotine go through the process of guillotining
and survive? Can the man who invented the gun shoot himself in the head
and survive? If not, why may not a god create the laws of logic without
thus killing himself in the process? Certainly, a god could not break
the laws of logic simply because he is the creator of them. And just
what would we hold the creation of these laws to be? Certainly, to
create is a naturally action accountable through scientific laws. If god
creates these laws of logic, is it not the usage of a law already in
effect — the law of creation? Such a law may not exist today, but for a
god to create the laws of science and logic is a demonstration of the
currently existing laws of science and logic, and therefore it is not
necessarily an original creation. The flaw remains, however: a god
cannot break the laws of logic simply because he had created them, just
as the man who invented the gun may not shoot himself and survive.
One last argument offered for the idea that god existed and the Universe
needed a creator is not to claim that god did something special, but to
separate god from the Universe. The argument claims that god is
supernatural whereas the Universe is natural and this difference is
enough for god to need no creator and matter to need a creator. However,
the error in this argument should be obvious: it presupposes the nature
of the very thing that is in question! I could say, for example, the
difference between invisible, pink unicorns (IPUs) and the Earth is that
the IPU is magical and therefore could create itself and the Earth.
Certainly, there could be a god who is supernatural and created the
world just like there could be an invisible, pink unicorn that is
magical and created the world. However, modern science is yet to come
across anything that is either supernatural or magical. The difference
of one being supernatural and one being natural is certainly no
difference at all. A difference, yes, but not a relevant difference, nor
even an evidenced or proven difference. There is no proof of a god
existing because this god is supernatural. I defined the characteristic
of a god in chapter one as being a supernatural being, but being
supernatural does not entail in any way the lack of necessity to have a
creator. The term ‘supernatural’ simply indicates being beyond nature.
The existence of the Universe cannot prove the existence of a god, for
such a connection would be the beginning of an infinite line of gods,
all having created one another. The existence of matter, objects, and
atoms is no reason to believe that it had to be created by a god or
other form of supernaturality. Theism and supernatural creation, in this
matter, are spawned by tradition and ignorance: people are taught to
believe in the existence of supernaturality on account of the existence
of the natural world, and the ignorance of the natural explanation for
the natural world also spurs on religious sentiments. Supernatural
phenomenon is yet to be discovered in the Universe, so to claim that god
is supernatural and capable of creating himself is too much baseless
guesswork. By accepting an unknown, unseen god for the existence of the
Universe, then we can rest assured that the true, scientific explanation
for the origin of the Universe will remain undiscovered.
The argument from design can come in various forms, but it fails to the
same error as does the argument from creation. If existence requires a
creator, just like the Universe exists and many purport that god created
this Universe, then god himself must have a creator. Similarly, if
existence requires a designer, just like the Universe may have a
particular design and many purport that god designed this Universe, then
god himself must have a designer. Where this design may be found lies
within many fields. Some suggest that the way life exists suggests
design, but Charles Darwin has refuted that position and reasonably
well. To quote him...
The old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly
seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection
has been discovered. We can no longer argue that, for instance, the
beautiful hinge of a bivalve shell must have been made by an intelligent
being, like the hinge of a door by a man. There seems to be no more
design in the variability of organic beings and in the action of natural
selection, than in the course which the wind blows. Everything in nature
is a result of fixed laws. [48]
Everything within the world of life exists through the law of Natural
Selection. There is also a Teleological argument. The Teleological
argument goes so far as to claim that everything wishes to obtain an
end. It also fails the same flaw: those organisms which did not wish to
obtain the proper ends, such as food and mating that would progress
their species, perished and their genes did not survive their death. If
working towards a goal is a sign or proof that there is someone who
created you, and god similarly worked toward the goal and end of
creating us animals, would that not stand enough as ample evidence of a
god having created the god who created us? Surely, it ends up with an
endless line of different gods, all responsible for creating each other
that goes on indefinitely.
The Analogical argument is another poorly construed argument for proof
on the design of the Universe. It goes so far as to claim that man-made
items resemble natural items. However, this is just not so. Rocks are
formed by volcanoes spewing magma and the lava then hardening. Plants
and animals are formed through the processes of Evolution and Natural
Selection. The Sun formed by large masses of Hydrogen and Helium atoms
being drawn together through the law of universal gravitation and the
atoms were placed there through the Big Bang. However, a hammer is
formed by a smelter having smelted a hammer, or through a modern
assembly line. Books are made by trees being manufactured into paper,
then printed on, and finally being glued together. Certainly, there is
no correlation between these man-made objects and these naturally-made
objects that would prove that there is design in nature that can be
attributed to a god or any supernatural being, and even if so, it would
lie open the question of who had designed god so capable of designing
this Universe.
A final argument of design goes to claim that if the Universe exists
because of chance and not divinity, then the Universe could have taken
on any form. The Universe, this argument claims, could be one of
billions of possibilities. Perhaps instead of the Earth being the
7,926.41 miles (12,756.32 kilometers) in diameter at the Equator that it
is today, it may have been 9,000 miles in diameter at the Equator.
Perhaps instead of there being 24 hours in a day, there would be 28.
These are all possibilities that the Universe could have taken on. This
argument furthers itself by stating that simply because a possibility of
the nature of the Universe is chosen, because the Universe is the way it
is and not one of the billions of other possibilities it is not, there
is enough proof for a divine being having intervened and designed it.
The Universe could have been one of billions of things and therefore,
claims this argument, and since it is one of these things, it is
therefore designed. Consider this, however: if it rains, a drop of rain
has the probability to land almost anywhere. Since there are so many
possibilities as to where it may land, does that mean that divine
intervention is necessary to direct each drop of water, since it has so
many possibilities? It would be quite irrational and credulous to say
so. [49]
The design and creation arguments fail insomuch that they firstly claim
that everything needs a designer or creator and then purport that god is
this designer and creator of the Universe, yet it fails to analyze the
error that if the Universe needs a creator, then certainly a god would
need a creator or designer. Even if a god or form of supernaturality is
responsible for creating or designing this Universe, there is no proof
that this god is a conscious or animate being, and there is certainly no
proof that this god is still alive today. The animalia of Earth could
simply be an experiment by a highly advanced alien race. The error with
these arguments that the Universe is proof of god is that they create a
larger hole than they were initially trying to fill: if everything
existent needs an explanation, and the explanation of an existent
Universe is an existent god, then what explanation is there for this
existent god? God may become the temporary explanation to, “Who created
and designed the Universe?” But then god becomes the item of question
of, “Who created and designed god?” God, being infinitely more powerful
than this Universe, would also require a grand and magnificent
explanation, one that has not yet been provided and one that I am sure
will not come about. To claim that lightning is the result of Allah
trying to smite his opponents is ignorance. Similarly, to claim that the
Universe is the result of god trying to create a world is also
ignorance.
There are arguments that stem from the idea that there must have been a
First Cause or a beginning point in time and substance. The supposed
First Cause was what started everything. It was the “first domino” in
the line of dominoes that is the physical workings of the world. To
quote Saint Thomas Aquinas...
The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is
certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in
motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for
nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards
which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act.
For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from
potentiality to actuality... Therefore, whatever is in motion must be
put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself
put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another,
and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because
then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover;
seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in
motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in
motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first
mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be
God. [50]
Here is a more simplified version of the First Cause argument...
Premise 1: Everything is caused by something.
Premise 2: There is a First Cause not caused by something.
Conclusion: God is that First Cause.
The error with this should be obvious. The first and second premise so
decisively contradict each other that it is a mystery that the First
Cause argument was ever given any weight whatsoever. If everything is
caused by something (as stated by the first premise), then the “First
Cause” must have been caused by something. If not, then the necessity of
a First Cause is invalid. Complete contradiction to the point of
unbelievable absurdity!
There are, however, a few arguments posed in defense of the First Cause
argument. Some say that “every action, except the First Cause” needs a
cause. However, the First Cause is based on every action needing a
cause. If the First Cause is simply an effect that had no cause, then
why should other effects need a cause? The First Cause argument is
founded on the basis that everything needs a cause, thus implicating a
first one. However, if a First Cause needs nothing to cause it, then
certainly, nothing else will be needed to be caused. Things will just
happen without cause. In a line of a dominoes, for example, one of them
may fall without being pushed; therefore there cannot be a first cause,
because every effect needs a cause.
Things in this world do not move unless given power. Will a train go
unless powered with energy? Will a car go unless powered with gas?
Things do not simply move without cause. The “First Cause” — also known
as “Unmoved Mover” or “Uncaused Cause” — is therefore a breach in the
laws of physics. A First Cause would certainly be impossible, thus
implicating god as impossible. However, it renders god impossible
because god is claimed to be the unmoved mover, or the First Cause. If
an effect may occur, it is because it is caused. No effect may occur
unless with a cause. A First Cause breaks the foundation that it wishes
to be founded on. It is commonly accepted knowledge that ever effect has
a cause. The First Cause argument accepts this, but then destroys its
foundation by claiming that there must be an effect without a cause — a
First Cause — and thus contradicts the science of Cause-And-Effect. Even
if a god or a form of supernaturality is the effect without a cause —
the First Cause — there is still no proof that this god is necessarily
conscious or alive at all.
If a First Cause even existed, there is certainly no proof for one god
of any religion reflective to be the First Cause. In fact, the First
Cause is simply a First Cause and there is no proof if it is conscious,
animate, and — if it was alive — if it still is alive. Certainly, the
obvious and numerous contradictions of the First Cause and the countless
errors, there is certainly no reason to purport that a god exists
because of this poorly construed First Cause argument.
Where, if not from divine graces, did matter and the universe originate
from? Perhaps the first law of Thermodynamics may provide an answer...
First Law Of Thermodynamics: The total energy of a system plus the
surroundings is constant.
The first law of Thermodynamics may also be interpreted as, “energy is
conserved.” It states that matter cannot be created or destroyed.
However, Einstein’s later theory of E=MC? claimed that matter could be
destroyed, but if matter was destroyed it was converted into a
proportional amount of energy, which could then be converted back into
the same amount of matter. The basic concept of the first law of
Thermodynamics is that matter cannot be created from nothing and matter
cannot be destroyed into nothing. From this proven, scientific concept I
believe it is reasonable to conclude that matter — the substance of the
Universe and the world of nature — has always existed forever and shall
continue to exist forever in one of many various forms. My conclusion is
based on the fact that we know matter exists today. We also know an
attribute of matter: it cannot be created or destroyed. From this
conclusion, we know it was not created and we know that it cannot be
destroyed. Matter, as we know it, then inherits the nature of being
eternal.
The Big Bang Theory is not a theory based on the origin of matter. The
Big Bang Theory is based on how matter was spread across the Universe
and how particular elements were formed. The question of “Where did
matter come from?” is not what the Big Bang Theory attempts to answer
(this is a common misconception of the Big Bang Theory). To quote a
scientific article by Chris LaRocco and Blair Rothstein in regards to
the Big Bang Theory...
About 15 billion years ago a tremendous explosion started the expansion
of the universe. This explosion is known as the Big Bang. At the point
of this event all of the matter and energy of space was contained at one
point. What existed prior to this event is completely unknown and is a
matter of pure speculation. This occurrence was not a conventional
explosion but rather an event filling all of space with all of the
particles of the embryonic universe rushing away from each other. The
Big Bang actually consisted of an explosion of space within itself
unlike an explosion of a bomb were fragments are thrown outward. The
galaxies were not all clumped together, but rather the Big Bang lay the
foundations for the universe.
The origin of the Big Bang theory can be credited to Edwin Hubble.
Hubble made the observation that the universe is continuously expanding.
He discovered that a galaxy’s velocity is proportional to its distance.
Galaxies that are twice as far from us move twice as fast. Another
consequence is that the universe is expanding in every direction. This
observation means that it has taken every galaxy the same amount of time
to move from a common starting position to its current position. Just as
the Big Bang provided for the foundation of the universe, Hubble’s
observations provided for the foundation of the Big Bang theory.
Since the Big Bang, the universe has been continuously expanding and,
thus, there has been more and more distance between clusters of
galaxies. This phenomenon of galaxies moving farther away from each
other is known as the red shift. As light from distant galaxies approach
earth there is an increase of space between earth and the galaxy, which
leads to wavelengths being stretched. [51]
In regards to how matter has managed to spread itself across the
universe, this is all fine and good. However, how exactly did life form?
In 1952, Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey, working at the University
of Chicago, conducted an experiment that attempted and succeeded to
reproduce the elements necessary to create life. The two scientists took
a flask and reconstructed the conditions of the early Earth. When they
waited a week after having added energy to the flask — which could
easily have been produced on Earth through lightning or through the
ultraviolet radiation of the sun -, the flask produced organic matter
that was the building blocks of life. To quote Professor Fred L. Wilson
at the Rochester Institute of Technology...
H. C. Urey felt life started in Atmosphere I. In 1952, Stanley Lloyd
Miller, then a graduate student in Urey’s laboratories, circulated
water, plus ammonia, methane and hydrogen, past an electric discharge
(to simulate the ultraviolet radiation of the sun). At the end of a
week, he analyzed his solution by paper chromatography and found that,
in addition to the simple substances without nitrogen atoms, he also had
glycine and alanine, the two simplest of the amino acids, plus some
indication of one or two more complicated ones.
Miller’s experiment was significant in several ways. In the first place,
these compounds had formed quickly and in surprisingly large quantities.
One-sixth of the methane with which he had started had gone into the
formation of more complex organic compounds; yet the experiment had only
been in operation for a week.
Then, too, the kind of organic molecules formed in Miller’s experiments
were just those present in living tissue. The path taken by the simple
molecules, as they grew more complex, seemed pointed directly toward
life. This pointing-toward-life continued consistently in later, more
elaborate experiments. At no time were molecules formed in significant
quantity that see to point in an unfamiliar nonlife direction. [52]
How, though, did complex matter form into cells? Professor Wilson goes
on to state proof that complex matter can form into cells.
Of course, the step from a living molecule to the kind of life we know
today is still an enormous one. Except for the viruses, all life is
organized into cells; and a cell, however small it may seem by human
standards, is enormously complex in its chemical structure and
interrelationships. How did that start?
The question of the origin of cells was illuminated by the researches of
the American biochemist Sidney Walter Fox. It seemed to him that early
Earth must have been quite hot, and that the energy of heat alone could
be sufficient to form complex compounds out of simple ones. In 1958, to
test this theory, Fox heated a mixture of amino acids and found they
formed long chains that resembled those in protein molecules. These
proteinoids were digested by enzymes that digested ordinary proteins,
and could be used as food by bacteria.
Most startling of all, when Fox dissolved the proteinoids in hot water
and let the solution cool, he found they would cling together in little
microspheres about the size of small bacteria. These microspheres were
not alive by the usual standards but behaved as cells do, in some
respects at least (they are surrounded by a kind of membrane, for
instance). By adding certain chemicals to the solution, Fox could make
the microspheres swell or shrink, much as ordinary cells do. They can
produce buds, which sometimes seem to grow larger and then break off.
Microspheres can separate, divide in two, or cling together in chains.
[53]
If animals — human and non-human — are not originated from a god’s will,
then where did we animals come from? I believe that the origins of cows,
dogs, cats, humans, and other animals may be explained scientifically.
The origin of these animals can be explained through Evolution. There
are a few individuals who disbelieve in Evolution. There are
Creationists who believe that the Bible should be interpreted literally
as I described in section II of this chapter. I shall quote
authoritative references in regards to the Evolution Theory. It is
imperative to note that Evolution is based on Survival of the Fittest,
or Natural Selection. To quote Charles Darwin...
Can it, then, be thought improbable, seeing that variations useful to
man have undoubtedly occurred, that other variations useful in some way
to each being in the great and complex battle of life, should occur in
the course of many successive generations? If such do occur, can we
doubt (remembering that many more individuals are born than can possibly
survive) that individuals having any advantage, however slight, over
others, would have the best chance of surviving and of procreating their
kind? On the other hand, we may feel sure that any variation in the
least degree injurious would be rigidly destroyed. This preservation of
favourable individual differences and variations, and the destruction of
those which are injurious, I have called Natural Selection, or the
Survival of the Fittest. Variations neither useful nor injurious would
not be affected by natural selection, and would be left either a
fluctuating element, as perhaps we see in certain polymorphic species,
or would ultimately become fixed, owing to the nature of the organism
and the nature of the conditions. [54]
The point of Natural Selection that Charles Darwin was trying to make
plainly clear was that organisms that have advantages fit to their
environment will most likely live longer than the organisms lacking
those advantages. Similarly, organisms with disadvantages of their
environment will most likely live shorter than the organisms who are not
disadvantaged. From the analysis of the longevity of life based on
advantages and disadvantages of the body, it is conclusive that if the
probability of mating and how many offspring one has is based on time,
then those who live longer will have more offspring; thus meaning that
the newer generation will be outfitted with those advantageous
characteristics. The more offspring, the more they will live and the
longer they will survive, until there are battles over resources and
then organisms will fight each other for these resources. Through this
process of Natural Selection, of the fit surviving over the unfit, we
come to Evolution, which is the history of the process of Natural
Selection.
However, as one species or race changes to become fit to its
environment, it may take on entirely new characteristics. If an
environment, for example, has a food source located deep inside the
trunks of trees, then the birds that have long, tough beaks will survive
as they can dig deep into trees and get food; whereas the birds that
have short, weak beaks will be unable to get the food and they will die
and be unable to reproduce. (In fact, Charles Darwin made similar notes
on the variations of birds when he traveled to the Galapagos Islands.)
As organisms evolve and change over the millenniums, sometimes an organ
of their previous species will be left intact and untouched. These
organs and biological tissues are known as vestiges, sometimes called
rudimentary conditions, rudimentary organs, or vestigial organs. For
example, if there is a bird that flies in the air and eats flying
beetles and the food source of the beetles becomes extinct, then the
birds will need to find a new method of getting a food source. They will
evolve. If this bird starts eating fish in shallow streams and through
Natural Selection gains a better beak for catching fish, then that would
be an example of Evolution. However, if the bird retained its wings —
which it would have no use for since its prey before flew in the air
whereas now it swims in the water — then the wings could count as a
vestige, or a vestigial organ. There is, however, the possibly that the
wings would aid in escaping predators, but I am excluding that
possibility for the sake of establishing an example. To quote Charles
Robert Darwin, “Organs or parts in this strange condition, bearing the
plain stamp of inutility, are extremely common, or even general,
throughout nature. It would be impossible to name one of the higher
animals in which some part or other is not in a rudimentary condition.”
[55] In regards to these vestigial organs, he has also noted some of
their existence...
In the mammalia, for instance, the males possess rudimentary mammae; in
snakes one lobe of the lungs is rudimentary; in birds the “bastardwing”
may safely be considered as a rudimentary digit, and in some species the
whole wing is so far rudimentary that it cannot be used for flight. What
can be more curious than the presence of teeth in foetal whales, which
when grown up have not a tooth in their heads; or the teeth, which never
cut through the gums, in the upper jaws of unborn calves? [56]
The book On the Origin of the Species through Natural Selection (1859)
by Charles Darwin was full of an endless amount of evidence in regards
to proof of Evolution. This proof can certainly be found in the amount
of vestiges found in nature. To quote Darwin...
Rudimentary organs plainly declare their origin and meaning in various
ways. There are beetles belonging to closely allied species, or even to
the same identical species, which have either full-sized and perfect
wings, or mere rudiments of membrane, which not rarely lie under
wing-covers firmly soldered together; and in these cases it is
impossible to doubt, that the rudiments represent wings. Rudimentary
organs sometimes retain their potentiality: this occasionally occurs
with the mammae of male mammals, which have been known to become well
developed and to secrete milk. So again in the udders in the genus Bos,
there are normally four developed and two rudimentary teats; but the
latter in our domestic cows sometimes become well developed and yield
milk. In regard to plants the petals are sometimes rudimentary, and
sometimes well-developed in the individuals of the same species. In
certain plants having separated sexes Kolreuter found that by crossing a
species, in which the male flowers included a rudiment of a pistil, with
an hermaphrodite species, having of course a well-developed pistil, the
rudiment in the hybrid offspring was much increased in size; and this
clearly shows that the rudimentary and perfect pistils are essentially
alike in nature. An animal may possess various parts in a perfect state,
and yet they may in one sense be rudimentary, for they are useless: thus
the tadpole of the common salamander or water-newt, as Mr. G. H. Lewes
remarks, “has gills, and passes its existence in the water; but the
Salamandra atra, which lives high up among the mountains, brings forth
its young full-formed. This animal never lives in the water. Yet if we
open a gravid female, we find tadpoles inside her with exquisitely
feathered gills; and when placed in water they swim about like the
tadpoles of the water-newt. Obviously this aquatic organisation has no
reference to the future life of the animal, nor has it any adaptation to
its embryonic condition; it has solely reference to ancestral
adaptations, it repeats a phase in the development of its progenitors.”
[57]
Some may argue, however, that we as humans have no true rights over
animals now. Instead of being god’s chosen beings — us having been made
in his image — we are now animals equal to other animals. They may even
argue further that humans are equal to plants, but I hardly find this
acceptable: a dividing line between animals and plants is that animals
are sentient beings capable of feeling suffering and joy, desire and
pain. A religionist may argue that it was the fact that humans are
spiritual and other animals are not that separates us, but clearly this
is more of a reason why non-human animals are more advanced in this
area. There will be those who claim that it since there is no god, that
all animalia are equal. However, I shall answer: it is correct that all
animalia ought to have equal consideration of their rights; regardless
if a god does exist or not.
Matter has always existed, as far as science can tell us. The placement,
location, and future destination of this matter can be known through the
Big Bang Theory with its many evidences. The rising of life can be
detected and known through the many experiments conducted by scientists,
such as Urey, Miller, and Fox. The origin of organic matter used by life
was existent on Earth in its beginning phases and this has been proven.
The development of complex material to life occurred through extreme
heat which causes this organic matter to bind together, almost forming
cells. This life divides, reproduces, reacts to their environment,
obtains energy and uses energy, and is composed of a cell or cells. The
life forms evolve and adapt to their environment through Natural
Selection and mutations which give them advantageous benefits (while
those who have disadvantageous traits died and did not reproduce).
Through the lines of rudimentary and vestigial organs, we can trace the
line from where animals have come from; we have evolved from these lower
life forms. Through these clear demonstrations, it is obvious that we
can only know truth through science and not religion. Our origins were
discovered by a scientific laboratory, not a religious church, mosque,
or temple.
We — as animals, not humans, nor as whites or blacks, or males or
females, but as animals — must conclude that these divine methods for
explaining our origins are completely inadequate. When early man decided
that woman came from his rib bone, that light and darkness were formed
by Allah, that fire is the result of the god Agni, or that the god
Apollo is responsible for pulling the Sun across the sky, these men were
dogmatic and could not explain the natural world with natural
explanations. Man was incapable of explaining natural phenomena then
through natural explanations, and therefore explained it through
supernatural explanations. Certainly, however, today we may explain the
origin and the scientific workings of the Universe through natural
methods and there is no need for a god or a supernatural entity
whatsoever. Science has been conclusive and provable in demonstrating
the origin and distribution of matter, as well as the origin and
distribution of life. John Burroughs (1837–1921) puts it quite clearly
when he states, “If we take science as our sole guide, if we accept and
hold fast that alone which is verifiable, the old theology must go.”
[58] Another impressive quote by Burroughs is the following, “Science
has done more for the development of Western civilization in 100 years
than Christianity did in 1,800 years.” [59] Robert Green Ingersoll
speaks with triumph and glory when he addresses the Brooklyn ministers!
Only a few years ago science was superstition’s hired man. The
scientific men apologized for every fact they happened to find. With hat
in hand they begged pardon of the parson for finding a fossil, and asked
the forgiveness of God for making any discovery in nature. At that time
every scientific discovery was something to be pardoned. Moses was
authority in geology, and Joshua was considered the first astronomer of
the world. Now everything has changed, and everybody knows it except the
clergy. Now religion is taking off its hat to science. Religion is
finding out new meanings for old texts. We are told that God spoke in
the language of the common people; that he was not teaching any science;
that he allowed his children not only to remain in error, but kept them
there. It is now admitted that the Bible is no authority on any question
of natural fact; it is inspired only in morality, in a spiritual way.
All, except the Brooklyn ministers, see that the Bible has ceased to be
regarded as authority. Nobody appeals to a passage to settle a dispute
of fact. The most intellectual men of the world laugh at the idea of
inspiration. Men of the greatest reputations hold all supernaturalism in
contempt. Millions of people are reading the opinions of men who combat
and deny the foundation of orthodox Christianity. Humboldt stands higher
than all the apostles. Darwin has done more to change human thought than
all the priests who have existed. Where there was one infidel
twenty-five years ago, there are one hundred now. I can remember when I
would be the only infidel in the town. Now I meet them thick as autumn
leaves; they are everywhere. In all the professions, trades, and
employments, the orthodox creeds are despised. They are not simply
disbelieved; they are execrated. They are regarded, not with
indifference, but with passionate hatred. Thousands and hundreds of
thousands of mechanics in this country abhor orthodox Christianity.
Millions of educated men hold in immeasurable contempt the doctrine of
eternal punishment. The doctrine of atonement is regarded as absurd by
millions. So with the dogma of imputed guilt, vicarious virtue. and
vicarious vice.
[...]
I see that the Rev. Dr. Eddy advises ministers not to answer the
arguments of infidels in the pulpit, and gives this wonderful reason:
That the hearers will get more doubts from the answer than from reading
the original arguments. So the Rev. Dr. Hawkins admits that he cannot
defend Christianity from infidel attacks without creating more
infidelity. So the Rev. Dr. Haynes admits that he cannot answer the
theories of Robertson Smith in popular addresses. The only minister who
feels absolutely safe on this subject, so far as his congregation is
concerned, seems to be the Rev. Joseph Pullman. He declares that the
young people in his church don’t know enough to have intelligent doubts,
and that the old people are substantially in the same condition. Mr.
Pullman feels that he is behind a breastwork so strong that other
defence is unnecessary. So the Rev. Mr. Foote thinks that infidelity
should never be refuted in the pulpit. I admit that it never has been
successfully done, but I did not suppose so many ministers admitted the
impossibility. Mr. Foote is opposed to all public discussion. Dr. Wells
tells us that scientific atheism should be ignored; that it should not
be spoken of in the pulpit. The Rev, Dr. Van Dyke has the same feeling
of security enjoyed by Dr. Pullman, and he declares that the great
majority of the Christian people of to-day know nothing about current
infidel theories. His idea is to let them remain in ignorance; that it
would be dangerous for the Christian minister even to state the position
of the infidel; that, after stating it, he might not, even with the help
of God, successfully combat the theory. These ministers do not agree.
Dr. Carpenter accounts for infidelity by nicotine in the blood. It is
all smoke, He thinks the blood of the human family has deteriorated. He
thinks that the church is safe because the Christians read. He differs
with his brothers Pullman and Van Dyke. So the Rev. George E. Reed
believes that infidelity should be discussed in the pulpit. He has more
confidence in his general and in the weapons of his warfare than some of
his brethren. His confidence may arise from the fact that he has never
had a discussion. The Rev. Dr. McClelland thinks the remedy is to stick
by the catechism; that there is not now enough of authority; not enough
of the brute force; thinks that the family, the church, and the state
ought to use the rod; that the rod is the salvation of the world; that
the rod is a divine institution; that fathers ought to have it for their
children; that mothers ought to use it.
[...]
This is a part of the religion of universal love. The man who cannot
raise children without whipping them ought not to have them. The man who
would mar the flesh of a boy or girl is unfit to have the control of a
human being. The father who keeps a rod in his house keeps a relic of
barbarism in his heart. There is nothing reformatory in punishment;
nothing reformatory in fear. Kindness, guided by intelligence, is me
only reforming force. An appeal to brute force is an abandonment of love
and reason, and puts father and child upon a savage equality; the
savageness in the heart of the father prompting the use of the rod or
club, produces a like savageness in the victim. The old idea that a
child’s spirit must be broken is infamous. All this is passing away,
however, with orthodox Christianity. That children are treated better
than formerly shows conclusively the increase of what is called
infidelity. Infidelity has always been a protest against tyranny in the
state, against intolerance in the church, against barbarism in the
family. It has always been an appeal for light, for justice, for
universal kindness and tenderness. [60]
In regards to the scientific evidence I gave to Natural Origins, it is
best to note that I gave only an iota of all the science in the field of
cosmology, Evolution, and the other various fields of information. I
only gave what was necessary. Had I listed every available evidence in
regards to Evolution, it would take up hundreds of endless pages.
However, to those who are genuinely interested in Evolution, I have
provided a suggested reading list at the end of this chapter.
The concept of design and creation through a god or supernatural entity
is ridiculous and unfounded. They are first based on the necessity of
being created or designed, but then claim that god is uncreated or
undesigned. Contradictions galore rest within the theology that claims a
god is known by the existence of matter, or the design of that matter.
The First Cause argument fails from the same error. It is firstly based
on the necessity of causes and effects claiming that every effect has a
cause, but a First Cause does not. It creates contradictions and
discrepancies that are irreconcilable with rational reasoning and logic.
There is no reason to assume that there are supernatural causes to
natural events, and certainly no reason to assume we exist because a
supernatural deity created us. We can explain our own origins naturally
and logically. To invoke a god is to invoke superstition, and
superstition certainly holds no truth or validity. As a scientist, a
philosopher, and an animal who agrees with logic and reason, I find no
reason whatsoever to claim god is responsible for the existence of this
Universe. It is dogmatic to make such assertions of a god.
“Give me the storm and tempest of thought and action, rather than the
dead calm of ignorance and faith!” — Robert Green Ingersoll [61]
On the Origin of the Species through Natural Selection, by Charles
Darwin.
The Descent of Man, by Charles Darwin.
One Long Argument: Charles Darwin and the Genesis of Modern Evolutionary
Thought, by Ernst Mayr.
Charles Darwin: A New Life, by John Bowlby.
The Darwin Reader (2^(nd). Edition), by Mark Ridley, Ed.
Darwin, Adrian Desmond and James Moore.
Evolution: The History of an Idea, by Peter J. Bowler
On the Law that has Regulated the Introduction of New Species, by Alfred
Wallace Russel.
The divine intervention of a god or supernaturality that may be viewed
through miracles, revelation, or prophecy, is the reason why many people
personally believe in a god. It is through seeing something that appears
to be unexplainable through nature that many people conclude that god —
or another form of supernaturality — is responsible for things that are
not “naturally possible.” When a person sees these inexplicable
phenomena, much of the time they can only conclude that they do not know
the answer. Much of the other time, they conclude that it was divine
intervention. Something may be so awesome and infinite, they claim, it
must have been caused by a god or spirits. In this chapter, I will not
analyze each, individually proclaimed miracle. I shall analyze and
criticize the concept of miracles and divine intervention. A miracle is
an act of god or spirits intervening with the natural world. Revelation
is an act of god or supernaturality where a truth is revealed or
confirmed. And a prophecy is a promise of a god or supernaturality that
is fulfilled. Revelation by a god or a form of supernaturality is a
miracle of sorts, so that is how I shall deal with revelation: by
refuting the concept of miracles. It is these concepts — miracles,
revelation, and prophecies — that I shall attack.
In the previous chapter, I discussed origins and the theories — both
natural and supernatural — which attempt to explain the existence of
beings in this Universe. The flaw with a supernatural explanation is
that it is based upon ignorance, the lack of understanding of the
mechanics of the Universe. The most primal form of this ignorance is a
miracle: to claim that a simple (and most likely naturally explainable)
happening was due to the intervention of the omnipotent.
Universe
When something happens that is inexplicable, it is through science and
not theology that we ought to try to explain this phenomenon. Just as to
claim that plants grow because the god Ceres causes them to grow or to
claim that this Universe originated from a god is ignorance, to claim
that something unexplainable is divine just to explain it is also
ignorance. We can understand as logical and reasonable beings that the
laws of nature govern the cause and effect relationships of matter. If
one were to witness a rainbow and then to claim that it was a miracle,
it would be out of the ignorance of the witness, not out of the validity
of the miracle. Rainbows are scientifically caused by chemical
reactions. The true cause can be known scientifically. To claim that a
miracle is responsible for an action is to be ignorant. It is obvious,
then, that to claim a miracle is to admit ignorance the natural laws
that govern the Universe. To quote Percy Bysshe Shelley, “Every time we
say that God is the author of some phenomenon, that signifies that we
are ignorant of how such a phenomenon is caused by the forces of
nature.” [62]
There are those who will claim that prayer has power to cause miracles.
The error with prayer is that it only appears to work although it has no
real power. For example, if I pray that the Sun comes up tomorrow, the
way it has for the past thousand years every day, and the Sun does come
up, does that mean that the prayer is responsible for the Sun coming up?
Certainly not. The Earth revolves around the Sun due to gravitational
pull; thus what would appear as the Sun coming up. It is through science
that we have identified gravity and the laws of nature. These laws of
nature are what cause the bodies in this Universe to move and it governs
their paths. If I pray for the Earth to revolve around the Sun, it is
done in vain. Once again, scientific law is capable of explaining
natural phenomena whereas theological speculation leaves us with no
answers. Furthermore, if I prayed for the Sun not to come up tomorrow,
would it cease to come up? I seriously doubt this possibility. A prayer
may appear to work when someone prays for something natural to happen —
like the Sun coming up in the morning -, yet a prayer fails when we pray
for something unnatural to happen — like the Sun not coming up in the
morning. Robert Green Ingersoll gives us some light on the nature of
miracles and how they can be counted as valid. To quote Ingersoll...
When I say I want a miracle, I mean by that, I want a good one. All the
miracles recorded in the New Testament could have been simulated. A
fellow could have: pretended to be dead or blind, or dumb, or deaf, I
want to see a good miracle. I want to see a man with one leg, and then I
want to see the other leg grow out. [63]
I am sure that many people pray for certain things to happen that they
get: a friend to get healthy from an ailment, or for some self
benefiting request. I am certain that there are these situations where a
person prays for something and gets it. However, the qualm that I have
with these prayers being proof of a god or any form of supernaturality
is that the prayer was in no way related to the supposed effect. A
prayer absolutely has no effect on the rotation of the planets. If I
pray for a planet to change its orbit or to explode, my prayer is not
fulfilled. However, if a planet does change its orbit or explodes, of if
anything happens to a planet’s condition, it can certainly be explained
through the natural laws of science. If it is 2:00 PM and I pray for it
to be 8:00 PM later tonight, and time does go through its natural
occurrence of passing, would that mean that the prayer is responsible
for time passing? Certainly not, as the laws of science and physics are
perfectly capable for explaining the natural phenomena of the Universe.
To claim that things happen on divine account is to be arrogant.
Similarly, if someone prays for their family member to get healthy from
ailment — and the family member does get healthy from ailment -, it is
rather due to a doctor’s skill or a medicine’s efficiency. It is through
science and medical knowledge that patients recover. It is certainly not
through miracles or theological speculation. In ancient times, all
ailments were said to be of demons and mythological beasts. Also, our
primitive ancestors also believed that these ailments were cured through
a sort of divinity. To quote Ethan Allen...
Nothing is more evident to the understanding part of mankind, than that
in those parts of the world where learning and science has prevailed,
miracles have ceased; but in such parts of it as are barbarous and
ignorant, miracles are still in vogue; which is of itself a strong
presumption that in the infancy of letters, learning and science, or in
the world’s non-age, those who confided in miracles, as a proof of the
divine mission of the first promulgators of revelation, were imposed
upon by fictitious appearances instead of miracles. [64]
If a miracle was capable of causing unnatural phenomena or of ceasing a
natural phenomena — two things which are identical — then I may be
inclined to believe a miracle. When I state “causing unnatural
phenomena,” I mean causing something unprovoked. For example, in a row
of dominoes, each domino moves because it was pushed. No domino will
ever move without being provoked, or pushed. One may say that wind can
cause the domino to fall over, but this is simply a different form of
provocation, but still a form of provocation. If a domino falls over
without being provoked to fall over, then this is an unnatural
phenomena. If a domino is pushed sufficiently and does not fall over,
then this is the ceasing of a natural phenomenon. If a miracle were
capable of doing these things — of breaking the very laws of science —
then I may be more inclined to believe in their existence. The error
with the concept of miracles, at its primal core, is that a miracle is
defined as breaking the laws of physics and logic through divine
methods. If it is true that miracles are defined as breaking the laws of
physics and science, then all miracles by their own definition are
breaches in the natural laws of science and therefore are rendered
foolish and should not be believed, unless one is akin to believing that
a breach in the natural laws of science is acceptable. The Universe is
governed by natural laws of science. The divine powers of whatever
religion have no affect on our daily affairs. To believe that god may be
responsible for the Sun coming up, for someone getting healthy from a
disease, or from one of any other so-called miraculous events, is
ignorance.
There are many arguments, however, for defending the concept of
miracles. In regards to the breach of natural laws of science by god’s
or spirits’ miracles, such as a domino falling over without being pushed
or a domino not falling after being sufficiently pushed, one may say
that god himself moved the domino. Nothing happens without a cause, this
argument would agree, but the cause of miracles would be god physically
causing it to happen; a rock would move, for example, because god moved
it physically, just as a man could. Certainly, this explanation of the
problem may appear appealing at first. It explains that rather than a
miracle being an obscure calling or command of supernaturality, it
explains that a miracle is the actual physical movement of a god.
However, this position runs into problems. How does a supernatural being
— composed of nothing except supernatural parts — move a natural object?
All natural objects are measurable in their weight and mass. If
something were to knock down a pole, for instance, what knocked it down
could be measured as a natural object. For example, if it was a car, we
could measure the speed it was going at and the size of the car; and
cars certainly are not supernatural objects. If it was the wind, we
could measure the speed of the wind; and wind is certainly not a
supernatural object. However, if god is responsible for knocking down a
pole, there is no way to observe this god committing such an act and
there certainly is no way in which its actions are measurable. Until god
is actually seen committing these miracles, or measured in some sort of
way, then we have no reason at all to believe that this god is
physically causing these miracles. It is absurd.
One may argue, in finality, that god does not answer all of our prayers
for particular reasons. This seems ludicrous in its highest estimates.
The Christian god, for example, could be held responsible by several
thousand people for saving their lives, possibly from illness or a
accidents. These Christians may believe that god saved them at one point
or another. In what degree of righteousness, however, can god save one
Christians from cancer yet allow millions of children to starve in
foreign nations every day from malnutrition? How could this Christian
god save one life yet condemn the rest of lower animal creation because
they are born with four legs instead of two, just as the Christian god
permitted slavery of the races? [65] Perhaps the Christian god — or any
god who poses as “benevolent” or “loving of its creation” — is so
revolting and vile in nature that his regard for heathens is so less
than his regard for his followers that he will allow heathens to die
brutal deaths. In no respect do I mean to convict the Christian god
alone of iniquity. Why is Allah so content to get his followers a closer
parking space to a store when these countless famines across the planet
rage with unending anguish? Why is Yahweh undisturbed to get his
followers good luck at gambling when plagues continue to infect and kill
thousands? If the miracles of these gods are true, then there would be
no evil whatsoever in this world. There could be a tyrannical god who
causes miracles only for his favorite subjects, but certainly not a
benevolent god. Any argument that comes forward presenting that evil is
necessary, a blessing in disguise, or some other theological dogma, cuts
itself at its premises, as if there is no evil in the world, then
certainly, there is no need for miracles.
Of course, the concept of gods giving miracles to only their followers
and allowing infidels to die unaided only renders these gods as vile,
disgusting, and completely unworthy of worship. There is no such thing
as a benevolent god who leaves the infidels unaided. There may be a
tyrannical god, but certainly no benevolent god. However, if there is a
tyrannical god, then I would certainly see no reason why this god would
perform any miracles at all. Certainly, however, there was a time when
man was not advanced and a time when he needed miracles to explain why
people got sick or got better and to explain why the planets moved. They
were miracles, divine interventions, acts of gods. Clearly, this lack of
science and acceptance of divinity is a clear sign that ignorance breeds
religion, and nothing else.
There are those who propagate the concept of prophecies. They will claim
that religious scripture has indicated that a particular event will
happen and then they will claim that the particular event has happened.
The first error I encounter with these prophecies is that they are quite
vague to the point where they are unrecognizable. For example, a
prophecy may be fulfilled when a war happens or a region officially
becomes a nation. For a prophet to make a prophecy and then the prophecy
occurs, both the prophecy of an event and the prophesied event are
unrelated. Just as someone may pray for their family to get better from
an ailment and their family does improve in health, it is no proof of a
miracle, because improving in health is a natural and completely normal
event. Also, it would also be natural and normal for a patient to die
from an ailment. A miracle cannot be ascribed to a dead patient,
certainly, as it is a negative thing when miracles are supposed to be
positive. By what regards may one apply a miracle to a living and
surviving patient, when both events are completely and equally natural?
If a prophecy claims that a war happens, and a war does happen, both are
completely unrelated phenomena. Wars happen because of affairs in
politics and the will of the people of various nations. As time passes
many things will come to happen: famine, plague, war, political change,
etc.. However, these things have natural causes. Just as a rainbow
happens because of scientifically plausible explanations, a war or
political affairs happen because of the cause and effect of the various
institutions of government. For a prophecy to claim that a war will
happen in the century is equivalent to a meteorologist saying that a
rainy day will happen eventually in the month. The only difference
between a meteorologist and a prophet is that meteorologists have a
higher rate of accuracy. One could claim that, “One day it will rain,
and this is a prophecy of Allah,” just as much as one could claim that,
“One day it will thunder, and this is a prophecy of Vishnu.” Both are
equally fraudulent prophecies, as they are based on natural phenomena,
much in the way that miracles are.
Even if a prophecy, revelation, or miracle were indeed proof of a god or
supernatural being, by what means can we interpret them? If a miraculous
event explainable by no other way than a miracle happens, how shall we
interpret it? One may say that it is the god Zeus who is responsible for
it. Another may say that it is the god Ra who is responsible for it. And
another may say that it is the god Christ who is responsible for it. The
fact of the matter is that we cannot point to any one religion or
another for a miracle. In fact, one could create a religion based on
natural phenomena. If one were to claim, “When you see a river flow, it
is a result of invisible, pink unicorns,” it would be equal to someone
claiming, “When my daughter recovered from cancer, it was the result of
god’s good graces and his miracles.” Both statements are based on
ignorance; a river flowing, a patient improving, or any other natural
phenomena is completely explainable through natural and scientific
terms. There is no necessity to invoke dogmatic, theological speculation
to the realm of knowledge — it simply distorts reality. We may explain
the physical world naturally. Miracles, revelation, and prophesy do
nothing to prove god or any other form of supernaturality, as all
phenomena in the tangible Universe is explainable through scientific
methods. I now end this section with a quote by Thomas Hobbes
(1588–1679)...
If this superstitious fear of spirits were taken away, and with it
prognostics from dreams, false prophecies, and many other things
depending thereon, by which crafty ambitious persons abuse the simple
people, men would be much more fitted than they are for civil obedience.
[66]
Many will purport that it is absolutely necessary that a god or some
form of supernaturality exists on account of miracles and prophecy.
However, from the inconsistency of a god to cause miracles for a rare
select and allow other dire situations to go unaided with no miracle, it
would appear that god is simply an unconscious, erratic form of
supernaturality that is governed by chaos. For a god to heal a child who
has cancer yet let millions of children starve in foreign lands is
certainly not a consistent, nor even a benevolent god.
The error with claiming the necessity of a god to explain miracles falls
to the same scrutiny that claiming the necessity of a god to explain the
natural Universe: both end up creating a larger hole than they were
attempting to fill. For example, does it not seem miraculous that there
is a god or form of supernaturality that may alter the physical
Universe? Would it not seem as though the existence of this god is based
on a miracle of perhaps a higher god? The error is that to claim that
miracles and prophecies exist because of a god or form of
supernaturality is that god must have also been created by a miracle,
and that cause of the miracle must have also been created by a miracle,
ad infinitum. It creates an endless line of gods, each having miracled
the other into existence. Thus, in conclusion, we are given a lengthy
line of gods all having created each other.
Miracles are ignorance of nature and the laws of the physical Universe.
To claim that a rainbow is a miracle is ignorance of the chemical
reactions that take place to cause the rainbow. Furthermore, for a god
to break the laws of physics by causing a miracle is absolutely
impossible regardless of the apologetics that attempt to excuse god.
Prophecies are no mere mystical thing. To claim that something as vague
as a nation forming or a war waging is equal to claiming that it will
rain one day eventually. Rain, just like wars and politics, is a common
thing and if given the proper amount of time, you will have a war,
political upheaval, or rain. Prophecy, miracles, and revelation are
based on misconstruing the natural laws of nature so that they appear to
be what they are not. The concept of divine intervention is based on the
ignorance of the mind.
There are religious experiences that people will claim that a god(s) or
some form of supernaturality is responsible for. A religious experience
can qualify as simply a wholesome contentness inhibited in a religionist
or it may qualify as a major phenomena to religionists that has a sort
of universality. I regard that there are two closely related aspects to
religious experiences: mislead ignorance through emotions and mislead
ignorance through improper sensory. On the first account — mislead
ignorance through emotions — it is when a religionist may feel a leap of
happiness and automatically attributes it to a god or a supernatural
force and possibly when this religionist has something negative happen
to them, they may attribute it to a devil or negative, supernatural
force. This type of religious experience I regard as ignorance. On the
second account — mislead ignorance through improper sensory — I find it
somewhat more excusable. When someone has the second type of religious
experience it is instigated through the mind and this phenomena is
observed in scientific laboratories.
If someone has a religious experience and they live in North America or
Europe, it is called being Born Again and it is linked with the
Christian religion. If someone has a religious experience and they live
in southern Asia, it is called Nirvana and it is linked with the
Buddhist religion. If someone has a religious experience and they live
in Asia, it is called Enlightenment and it is linked with the Hindu
religion. If someone has a religious experience and they live in Asia,
it may also be called Satori and is linked with the Zen Buddhist
religion. If someone has a religious experience and they live in eastern
Asia, it may be called Wu Wei and is linked with Taoism. If someone has
a religious experience and they could live anywhere, it is called
Nirvakalpa Samadhi and is linked with Yoga. If someone is born in China,
they will not have any religious experience at all, as China is
officially an Atheist nation.
As it is obvious, the validity of religious experiences suffers from the
fact that the religious experience of any one religion is not universal.
If, however, the same religious experience was felt by everyone, then it
would hold more weight; but the fact of the matter is that these
religious experiences vary significantly. The significance is based no
the conclusions of these various religious experiences. There is a sort
of universality in these religious experiences in that they can be
conducted universally to a degree. Surely, there is no problem with the
religious experience itself, but almost everyone who has a religious
experience goes beyond what they know — the religious experience — and
claim that it is directly from a god of some sort. A religious
experience is proof of itself and nothing else. It cannot be used to
validate the existence of a god or any other form of supernaturality.
I am sure that there is some rational reasoning in these purported
religious experiences. When something dramatic or drastic happens to
someone, they may claim that there was supernatural intervention of some
sort. Some had claimed that the Great Fire of London of February 2^(nd),
1666 was the cause of Thomas Hobbes — one of the great infidels — living
there. There are certainly many situations where people may be filled
with so much love or so much passion that they conclude there is a god
or supernatural being of some sort; and that this supernatural being is
influencing their lives. The only qualm that I hold against these
religious experiences is that people are so ignorant that they must
uphold a divine presence as an explanation for their highly emotional
experience. Many Atheists certainly do have highly emotional experiences
and these emotional experiences can be explained naturally; no Atheist
has concluded that their emotional experiences are caused by gods or
spirits. Sigmund Freud was a psychiatrist and the developer of
psychoanalysis, and he knew quite clearly that emotions were not from a
god or any spirits. He explained that they were caused by the brain and
not by spirits. To explain a natural phenomenon with a supernatural
entity is ignorance. The highly emotional experiences and why they
happen can be fully explained through psychological studies, which are a
completely natural field of knowledge. There is no reason to presuppose
that an entity exists in the realm of supernaturality for something that
is natural and explainable.
There are NDEs (Near Death Experiences) and OBEs (Out of Body
Experiences) which are also more full-proof evidence, as they can be
experienced by everyone and everywhere under the proper circumstances.
However, NDEs and OBEs can be reproduced with proper drugs and other
effects. These two experiences take place when a person is close to
death. Whenever someone is close to death, they will have an NDE or OBE.
Scientists have traced the feeling to chemicals released in the brain. A
researcher named Dr. Karl Jansen did experiments regarding the NDE. To
quote the well respected scientific report...
The intravenous administration of 50 — 100 mg of ketamine can reproduce
all of the features which have commonly been associated with NDE’s.
Intramuscular administration also results in NDE’s, but events evolve at
a slower pace and are longer lasting (Domino et al., 1965; Rumpf ,1969;
Collier, 1972; Siegel,1978, 1980,1981; Stafford, 1977; Lilly, 1978;
Grinspoon and Bakalar, 1981; White, 1982; Ghoniem et al., 1985; Sputz,
1989; Jansen, 1989a,b, 1990b, 1993, 1995, 1996).
Mounting evidence suggests that the reproduction/induction of NDE’s by
ketamine is not simply an interesting coincidence. Exciting new
discoveries include the major binding site for ketamine on brain cells,
known as the phencyclidine (PCP) binding site of the NMDA receptor
(Thomson et al., 1985), the importance of NMDA receptors in the cerebral
cortex, particularly in the temporal and frontal lobes, and the key role
of these sites in cognitive processing, memory, and perception. NMDA
receptors play an important role in epilepsy, psychoses (Jansen and
Faull, 1991), and in producing the cell death which results from a lack
of oxygen, a lack of blood, and from epileptic fits (excitotoxicity).
This form of brain cell damage can be prevented by administration of
ketamine. Other key discoveries include that of chemicals in the brain
called ‘endopsychosins’ which bind to the same site as ketamine, and the
role of ions such as magnesium and zinc at this site (Anis et al., 1983;
Quirion et al., 1984; Simon et al., 1984; Benveniste et al., 1984;
Ben-Ari,1985; Thomson, 1986; Coan and Collingridge, 1987; Collingridge,
1987; Contreras et al., 1987; Cotman and Monohan, 1987; Rothman et al.,
1987; Mody et al., 1987; Nowak et al., 1984; Quirion et al., 1987;
Westbrook and Mayer, 1987; Sonders et al., 1988; Barnes,1988; Choi,1988;
Monaghan et al., 1989; Jansen et al., 1989a,b,c, 1990a,b,c, 1991a,b,c,
1993, 1995, 1996). [67]
In Philadelphia, a researcher discovered areas of the brain that become
activate during meditation; other doctors in universities in San Diego
and North Carolina studied how epilepsy and hallucinogenic drugs are
capable of producing religious epiphanies; still, another neuroscientist
in Canada fits people with magnetic helmets that produce spiritual
experiences. All around the world, scientists, neuroscientists, and
biologists are working together to understand what causes religious
experiences. Powerful brain imaging technology has revealed what mystics
call Nirvana and what Christians call being Born Again. It has been well
accepted within many parts of the scientific community that religion is
simply a component of the mind without an objective ground. [68]
Ingersoll also noted the origin and belief in immortality and religion
in the natural mind. The belief in immortality, he thought, would last
forever. To quote the great romanticist...
The idea of immortality, that like a sea has ebbed and flowed in the
human heart, with its countless waves of hope and fear, beating against
the shores and rocks of time and fate, was not born of any book, nor of
any creed, nor of any religion. It was born of human affection, and it
will continue to ebb and flow beneath the mists and clouds of doubt and
darkness as long as love kisses the lips of death. It is the rainbow —
Hope shining upon the tears of grief. [69]
There are those who believe that since we are biologically programmed to
“seek a god or spirituality” that it is proof of a god or
supernaturality in itself. It goes so far as to say that since the mind
has capability of religiousness in the area of NDEs and OBEs, it is
proof of “design” that god has implemented in us, but this is not so. An
NDE or OBE is proof of itself and nothing else. When someone goes as far
as to explain an NDE or OBE supernaturally, they are dogmatic. However,
when someone goes as far as to explain an NDE or OBE as a chemical or
hormonal reaction within the mind, they are legitimately reasonable. The
origin of these NDEs and OBEs can be explained legitimately. They are
chemical and hormonal reactions. Why would we have those reactions in
the mind? Perhaps, they have an evolutionary purpose. If someone nearly
died, but survived, then an NDE that granted them hope and happiness
would certainly spur on their survival spirit. However, if someone
nearly died, but survived without an NDE, they would most likely suffer
from depression without an NDE to keep them optimistic. There is no
proof, nor any reason, to believe that these NDE or OBE-causing
chemicals are the result from divine design.
There are also those who argue that we feel god, just as we feel many
other things which are not tangible. For example, we feel love and
conscience. We know these things exist. Similarly, one may argue that
through feeling god, we know that a god exists. This line of argument is
flawed, however. We certainly may feel love and conscience, but they are
axiomatic and proof of themselves. When we feel guilt from conscience,
we simply know that we feel guilt from conscience. We do not extend our
claims to say, “I feel guilt from conscience, therefore there must be a
supernatural being in this Universe.” Similarly, a religious experience
is simply proof of itself, as well. Just as love and the conscience are
feelings limited to the mind, so are religious experiences.
There are claims by many men and women that they have seen and talked
with god in dreams and visions. The error with this is that dreams are
just that: dreams. If someone claims that they spoke with god in a
dream, how do we know that this person did not just dream that they
spoke with god? After all, dreams present illusory images. If we dream
that we are talking to a king, it is no reason to presume that we
actually talked to a king. Similarly, if we dream that we are talking to
a god, it is no reason to presume that we actually talked to a god. One
may, of course, argue that all dreams — be they talking with god or a
king — are a gift from god and therefore hold some sort of divinity in
them. The error with this, however, is that dreams being divine does not
validate them any more. If a dream with a god is divine then certainly a
dream with a king is divine, but one is no more truthful than the other.
Also, the assertion that dreams or divine certainly lacks in evidence.
If a person claims that there is an invisible being telling them to do
things, then there is only one of two possible explanations: the person
is insane or religious. Both qualities are separated by a slight line.
A person may feel happy and content without assuming god is responsible
for these emotions. Furthermore, the explanations for being Born Again,
Nirvana, Wu Wei, or other religious experiences can be explained through
science. Gods were created by the minds of religionists, and
religionists were not created by a god(s). Religious explanations also
suffer from variety. Depending upon where someone is born, they will
either experience being Born Again, Nirvana, Enlightenment, or
Nirvakalpa Samadhi. Of course, there are Atheists and people born in
these Atheist nations who do not experience any religious experience, or
at least do not conclude that a god or another form of supernaturality
is responsible for it. I ask not people to deny these “religious
experiences” or “spiritual happiness,” but I ask them to deny the fact
that they are caused by religious or spiritual causes.
There are some who claim that there is a benefit from belief. They argue
that, although there may not be supportive evidence to religion, that we
ought to believe in a god(s) or a form of supernaturality for beneficial
reasons. Some argue that we ought to believe in a god or a form of
supernaturality because of the possibility of hell. Even for the mere
possibility of a hell where we could die and burn eternally, we are told
to believe in a god so that we will avoid hell. There are also those who
believe that the emotional height of faith outweighs the emotional
height of reason, regardless if the spiritual position is flawed by
lacking evidence and proof. It is these positions that I will argue
against.
Hell is a concept used by religionists, apologists, theologians, rabbis,
shamen, priests, ministers, reverends, spiritual advisors, and other
religious-oriented profession trades that wish to abuse their followers.
To threaten with hell is perhaps one of the most sadistic things done to
man. It is the imaginary place owned by the imaginary friend of certain
individuals who may be labeled religious. I certainly do not believe in
any hell whatsoever, and I am certainly not afraid of going to someone
else’s imaginary place when I die. The men who provoke thought and
belief in hell are sadistic men. To quote Thomas Paine, “Belief in a
cruel God makes a cruel man.” [70]
Charles H. Spurgeon was a Christian who advocated belief in hell and a
vivid belief in hell. To quote him...
When thou diest thy soul will be tormented alone; that will be hell for
it; but at the Day of Judgment thy body will join thy soul and thou wilt
have twin hells; thy soul sweating drops of blood, and thy body suffused
with agony. In fierce fire, exactly like that we have on earth, thy body
will be, asbestos-like, forever unconsumed, all thy veins roads for the
feet of pain to travel on; every nerve a string on which the devil shall
for ever play his diabolical tune of hell’s unutterable lament. [71]
Other religionists agreed with the position taken by Spurgeon. To quote
Spurgeon again...
The world will probably be converted into a great lake or liquid globe
of fire, in which the wicked shall be overwhelmed, which shall always be
in tempest, in which they shall be tossed to and fro, having no rest day
nor night ... their heads, their eyes, their tongues, their hands, their
feet, their loins and their vitals shall for ever be full of a glowing,
melting fire, fierce enough to melt the very rocks and elements; also
they shall eternally be full of the most quick and lively sense to feel
the torments; not for one minute, nor for one day, nor for one age, nor
two ages, nor for ten thousand millions of ages, one after another, but
for ever and ever. [72]
Father Furniss was an English Catholic who wrote children’s books. The
purpose of these books was to teach children what would happen to them
in hell if they were bad children. To quote one of his children’s
books...
The fourth dungeon is the boiling kettle. Listen: there is a sound like
that of a kettle boiling. The blood is boiling in the scalded brains of
that boy; the brain is boiling and bubbling in his head; the marrow is
boiling in his bones. The fifth dungeon is the red-hot oven, in which is
a little child. Hear how it screams to come out; see how it turns and
twists itself about in the fire; it beats its head against the roof of
the oven; it stamps its feet upon the floor of the oven. [73]
The love, compassion, and warmth are shown vividly in the words of this
English priest. To quote him again...
His eyes are burning like two burning coals. Two longs flames come out
of his ears...Sometimes he opens his mouth, and breath of blazing fire
rolls out. But listen! There is a sound just like that of a kettle
boiling. But is it really a kettle boiling? No. Then what is it? Hear
what it is. The blood is boiling in the scalding veins of that boy. The
brain is broiling and bubbling in his head. The marrow is broiling in
his bones. Ask him why he is thus tormented. His answer is that when he
was alive, he blood boiled to do very wicked things. [74]
This English, Catholic reverend was full of piety for his god. To quote
his children’s story one last time....
See! on the middle of that red-hot floor stands a girl; she looks about
sixteen years old. Her feet are bare. She has neither shoes nor
stockings. She says, ‘I have been standing on this red hot floor for
years ... Day and night ... Look at my burnt and bleeding feet. Let me
go off this burning floor for one moment, only for one single short
moment. [75]
Father Arnall was another Christian preacher who felt compelled to ad to
the currently existing volumes on hell. To quote him...
The torment of fire is the greatest torment to which the tyrant has ever
subjected his fellow creatures...But our earthly fire was created by God
for the benefit of man...whereas the fire of hell is of another quality
and was created by God to torture and punish the unrepentant sinner...
Moreover, our earthly fire destroys at the same time as it burns so that
the more intense it is the shorter its duration: but the fire of hell
has this property that it preserves that which it burns and though it
rages with incredible intensity, it rages forever... And this terrible
fire will not afflict the bodies of the damned only from without but
each lost soul will be a hell unto itself, the boundless fire raging in
its very vitals. O, how terrible is the lot of these wretched beings!
The blood seethes and boils in the veins, the brains are boiling in the
skull, the heart in the breast glowing and bursting, the bowels a redhot
mass of burning pulp, the tender eyes flaming like molten balls... It is
a fire which proceeds directly from God, working not of its own activity
but as an instrument of divine vengeance...Every sense of the flesh is
tortured and every faculty of the soul therewith: the eyes with
impenetrable utter darkness, the nose with noisome odours, the ears with
yells and howls and execrations, the taste with foul matter, leprous
corruption, nameless suffocating filth, the touch with redhot goads and
spikes, with cruel tongues of flame. And through the several torments of
the senses the immortal soul is tortured eternally in its very essence
amid the leagues upon leagues of glowing fires kindled in the abyss by
the offended majesty of the Omnipotent God and fanned into everlasting
and increasing fury by the breath of the anger of the Godhead. [76]
He felt that it was important to note all the pains and tortures of
hell. Continuing his consistently brutal doctrine, he notes on the
duration of hell...
Last and crowning torture of all the tortures of that awful place is the
eternity of hell. Eternity! O, dread and dire word. Eternity! What mind
of man can understand it? And remember, it is an eternity of pain. Even
though the pains of hell were not so terrible as they are, yet they
would become infinite, as they are destined to last for ever. But while
they are everlasting they are at the same time, as you know, intolerably
intense, unbearably extensive. To bear even the sting of an insect for
all eternity would be a dreadful torment. What must it be, then, to bear
the manifold tortures of hell for ever? For ever! For all eternity! Not
for a year or for an age but for ever. Try to imagine the awful meaning
of this. You have often seen the sand on the seashore. How fine are its
tiny grains! And how many of those tiny little grains go to make up the
small handful which a child grasps in its play. Now imagine a mountain
of that sand, a million miles high, reaching from the earth to the
farthest heavens, and a million miles broad, extending to remotest
space, and a million miles in thickness; and imagine such an enormous
mass of countless particles of sand multiplied as often as there are
leaves in the forest, drops of water in the mighty ocean, feathers on
birds, scales on fish, hairs on animals, atoms in the vast expanse of
the air: and imagine that at the end of every million years a little
bird came to that mountain and carried away in its beak a tiny grain of
that sand. How many millions upon millions of centuries would pass
before that bird had carried away even a square foot of that mountain,
how many eons upon eons of ages before it had carried away all? Yet at
the end of that immense stretch of time not even one instant of eternity
could be said to have ended. At the end of all those billions and
trillions of years eternity would have scarcely begun. And if that
mountain rose again after it had been all carried away, and if the bird
came again and carried it all away again grain by grain, and if it so
rose and sank as many times as there are stars in the sky, atoms in the
air, drops of water in the sea, leaves on the trees, feathers upon
birds, scales upon fish, hairs upon animals, at the end of all those
innumerable risings and sinkings of that immeasurably vast mountain not
one single instant of eternity could be said to have ended; even then,
at the end of such a period, after that eon of time the mere thought of
which makes our very brain reel dizzily, eternity would scarcely have
begun. [77]
Jack T. Chick is an American Evangelist. He writes small tracts, or
comic books, known as Chick Tracts. The propaganda utilized by him is to
sell these Chick Tracts to consumers and then the consumers distribute
them to public places, such as dentist offices, phone booths, and other
places that are frequented often. To quote one of his pamphlets...
Here is just some of what the Bible says about this horrible place.
HELL IS:
Lu. 16.28 [78]
Certainly, this list of what hell is appears impressive. It is
completely resourced with scripture. However, although it is purely
meant to give a meaning insight to what the Bible claims hell is, it is
riddled with contradictions. How can hell have a flame (Isa. 33:14) if
it is a bottomless pit (Rev. 20:1)? How can hell be a place where they
wail (Mt. 13:42) when the people there have no tongues to wail with
(Rev. 16:10)? However, the seemingly obvious and large amount of
contradictions between what hell is certainly is not what I am trying to
demonstrate. I am trying to demonstrate the vindictiveness of the
concept of hell, and the cruelty manifested in it.
The Christian religion is not the only one guilty of instilling fear and
terror instead of love and compassion. The Islamic religion is equally
disgusting. To quote the Qur’an in regards to treatment of
non-believers...
Qur’an 4:144
Believers, do not choose the unbelievers rather than the faithful as
your friends. Would you give Allah a clear proof against yourselves?
Qur’an 5:51
Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends. They are
friends with one another. Whoever of you seeks their friendship shall
become one of their number. Allah does not guide the wrong-doers.
Qur’an 5:57
Believers, do not seek the friendship of the infidels and those who were
given the Book before you, who have made your religion a jest and a
pasttime...
Qur’an 5:64
The Jews say: ‘God’s hand is chained.’ May their own hands be chained!
May they be cursed for what they say!...
Qur’an 8:12
Remember Thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): “I am with
you: give firmness to the believers, I will instill terror into the
hearts of the unbelievers, Smite ye above their necks and smite all
their finger tips of them.”
Qur’an 9:5
“Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolators wherever
ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them and prepare for
them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the
poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.”
Qur’an 9:29
Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last day, nor hold the
forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and his messenger, nor
acknowledge the Religion of Truth from among the People of the Book,
until they pay the Jiziyah with willing submission. And feel themselves
subdued.
Qur’an 9:30
The Jews call ‘Uzayr-a son of God’, and the Christians call ‘Christ the
Son Of God’. That is a saying from their mouth; (In this) they but
intimate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah’s curse be on
them: how they are decluded away from the Truth.”
Qur’an 13:13
..He hurls his thunderbolts at whom he pleases Yet the unbelievers
wrangle about Allah..
Qur’an 47:4
When you meet the unbelievers in the Jihad strike off their heads and,
when you have laid them low, bind your captives firmly. Then grant them
their freedom or take ransom from them, until War shall lay down her
burdens.
The Qur’an also duly notes on what kind of hell their compassionate,
“merciful, forgiving” god sends people to. In the eyes of this Atheist,
I find the Islamic god — Allah — to be vile and revolting. To quote the
Qur’an...
Qur’an 2:39
Those who reject faith shall be the companions of the Fire.
Qur’an 2:89–90
The curse of Allah is on the unbelievers... humiliating is the
punishment.
Qur’an 5:10
As for those who disbelieve and deny Our revelations, they are the heirs
of Hell.
Qur’an 5:33–34
The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and
strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or
crucified, or have their hands and feet and alternate sides cut off, or
will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the
world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom; Save those who
repent before ye overpower them. For know that Allah is Forgiving,
merciful.
Qur’an 9:73
Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal
rigorously with them. Hell shall be their Home: an evil fate.
Qur’an 18:28–30
For the wrongdoers We have prepared a fire which will encompass them
like the walls of a pavilion. When they cry out for help they shall be
showered with water as hot as molten brass, which will scald their
faces. Evil shall be their drink, dismal their resting-place.
Qur’an 21:96–21:101
..The unbelievers shall stare in amazement, crying: ‘Woe to us! Of this
we have been heedless. We have done wrong.’ You and your idols shall be
the fuel of Hell; therein you shall all go down.
Qur’an 22:19–22:23
Garments of fire have been prepared for the unbelievers. Scalding water
shall be poured upon their heads, melting their skins and that which is
in their bellies. They shall be lashed rods of iron. Whenever, in their
anguish, they try to escape from Hell, back they shall be dragged, and
will be told: ‘Taste the torment of the Conflagration!’
Qur’an 33:7–12
...But for the unbelievers He has prepared a woeful punishment...
Qur’an 40:67–40:73
Do you not see how those who dispute the revelation of God turn away
from the right path ? Those who have denied the Book and the message We
sent through Our apostles shall realize the truth hereafter: when, with
chains and shackles round their necks, they shall be dragged through
scalding water and then burnt in the fire of Hell.
Qur’an 43:74
..The unbelievers shall endure forever the torment of Hell. The
punishment will never be lightened, and they shall be speechless with
despair. We do not wrong, themselves.
Qur’an 44:40–49
..The fruit of the Zaqqum tree shall be the unbelievers’ fruit. Like
dregs of oil, like scalding water, it shall simmer in his belly. A voice
will cry: ‘Seize him and drag him into the depths of Hell. Then pour out
scalding water over his head, saying: “Taste this, illustrious and
honourable man! This is the punishment which you have doubted.”
Qur’an 55:41–52
..That is the Hell which the unbelievers deny. They shall wander between
fire and water fiercely seething. Which of your Lord’s blessing would
you deny?
Qur’an 56:52–56
Ye shall surely taste of the tree Zaqqum. Then will ye fill your insides
therewith, and drink boiling water on top of it. Indeed ye shall drink
like diseased camels raging with thirst. Such will be their
entertainment on the day of Requital!
Qur’an 58:5
Those who resist Allah and his messenger will be humbled to dust.
Qur’an 69:30–37
We shall say: ‘Lay hold of him and bind him. Burn him in the fire of
Hell, then fasten him with a chain seventy cubits long. For he did not
believe Allah the tremendous, and urged not on the feeding of the
wretched. Today he shall be friendless here; filth shall be his food,
the filth which sinners eat...
Qur’an 70:15–16
The fire of Hell will pluck out his being right to the skull..
Qur’an 70:39
We have created the unbelievers out of base matters.
Qur’an 73:12
We have in store for the unbelievers heavy fetters and a blazing fire,
choking food and harrowing torment: on the day when the earth shall
quiver with all its mountains, and the mountains crumble into heaps of
shifting sand.
Qur’an 76:1–5
For the unbelievers We have prepared chains and fetters and a blazing
Fire...
Qur’an 77:20–77:50
Woe on that day to the disbelievers! Begone to the Hell which you deny!
Depart into the shadow that will rise high in three columns, giving
neither shade nor shelter from the flames, and throwing up sparks as
huge as towers, as bright as yellow camels...Eat and enjoy yourselves
awhile. You are wicked men...”
Qur’an 98:1–8
The unbelievers among the People of the Book and the pagans shall burn
for ever in the fire of Hell. They are the vilest of all creatures.
To quote another reliable source in regards to the various hells of the
various religions...
HELL ACCORDING TO LA CIVILTA CATTOLICA
God does not inflict pain “through angels or demons as is illustrated in
many paintings or is read in the Divine Comedy,” according to a Jesuit
magazine in Rome, La Civilta Cattolica (July 1999). It “is not a ‘place’
but a ‘state,’ a person’s ‘state of being,’ in which a person suffers
from the deprivation of God. Hell’s new makeover was supported by Pope
John Paul II, who soon thereafter told visiting pilgrims that “more than
a physical place, hell is the state of those who freely and definitely
separate themselves from God who, the source of all life and joy.” In
other words, the Pope said, it is not a loving God who sends people to
hell, but individuals who consign themselves to hell through unrepentant
sin. That hell is real is true, the Pope appeared to be saying, but his
interpretation differs greatly from that of philosophic naturalists. For
the Pope, both hell and Hell are still real. Meanwhile, the Rev. R.
Albert Mohler Jr., president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in
Louisville, Kentucky, disagreed with the Pope’s stand, insisting that
Hell is “A very real place of very real torment.” In the Middle Ages,
Jewish descriptions of hell include all sorts of terrible torments like
boiling rivers.
HELL, BAPTIST
Hell, for most Southern Baptists, is the place of punishment described
in the Bible: outer darkness, fire, torment, isolation.
HELL, BUDDHIST
The Buddhist Hell, according to some of the varied Buddhist leaders,
consists of eight hot and cold places, each hell associated with a
particular type of suffering. The tortures that are described develop
compassion for the beings there and also create an incentive not to
engage in the nonvirtuous behavior described.
[...]
HELL, MUSLIM
The Muslim Hell is described as a fire having seven levels, the lowest
of which crackles and roars with fierce boiling water, scorching wind,
and wailing, wretched souls.
[...]
HELL, ROMAN CATHOLIC
Hell, according to the Roman Catholic theology, is a condition of
self-chosen, permanent alienation from God, who bestows all “blessings.”
[79]
In the older days, humans were very afraid of the possibility of hell.
They feared eternal torment. They were fed these concepts of hell,
eternal punishment, eternal burning, and these primitive humans were
incapable of thinking otherwise. Men and women would fear through their
whole lives, contemplating if what they were doing was the right thing
and if it wasn’t, they would be fearing hell. Hell, a concept so vividly
described by these dogmatic and harmful religionists as well as so
forcefully rammed down the throats of those who do not know any better,
is a destructive concept indeed. So vividly preached by high ranking
religionists, so firmly believed by the common, and so frequently and
ardently dispelled by infidels; these are all things that the doctrine
of hell are. It is with liberating words and beautiful language that the
infidels have debunked the concept of hell, freeing and unleashing the
minds of many from this horrible god who will torture you for eternity
if you do not worship him.
To quote Epictetus (50–135 BCE) “Where are you going? It cannot be a
place of suffering; there is no hell.” [80] Many of the ancient
philosophers fought against the concept of hell as they believed that it
brought immense amounts of pain to people. It was vividly believed by
the ancient Grecians who were fed religious lies and threaten with hell.
Epicurus was one man who stood out among the rest when he fought against
hell and he did so ardently. To quote him...
...Men, believing in myths, will always fear something terrible,
everlasting punishment as certain or probable.... Men base all these
fears not on mature opinions, but on irrational fancies, so that they
are more disturbed by fear of the unknown than by facing facts. Peace of
mind lies in being delivered from all these fears. [81]
It was obvious in all the works of Epicurus that he was a crusader for
peace of mind, happiness, and clear thinking. A lover of life and his
fellow brethren, he wished to liberate their minds from dogmatic
superstition of hell. To quote him from his Principal Doctrines with his
views on this subject...
Death is nothing to us; once the body and brain decompose into dust and
ashes, there is no feeling or thought, and what has no feeling or
thought is nothing to us. [82]
If the things which bring pleasure to licentious men and women freed
them from troubled minds, that is, if such a life freed them from the
fear of God, the fear of death and the fear of pain, and if those things
further taught them how to rationally manage their desires, we would
find no wrong with these men and women; they would have reached the
height of pleasure and would be free of all bodily and mental pain,
which is the beginning and the end of all evil. [83]
If there were no natural limit to pleasure, it would take an eternity to
satisfy the infinite number of desires and wants that one could imagine
and dream up. The mind, however, is able to discover the natural limit
and height of pleasure; it is also capable of freeing us from all fears
of any life after death so that we do not need, want nor fear eternity.
Therefore, even if the time has come for us to depart from life, we can
approach our final rest with the absolute confidence that we have
enjoyed all of the pleasure that it was possible to enjoy. [84]
Democritus (460–370 B.C.E.) was another who fought against the doctrine
of hell. Democritus was a member of the Garden, an Epicurean “church”
and is held as the original father of the Atomic Theory. To quote him,
“People who do not understand that death is nothing waste their lives in
fear because of the many superstitions about life after death.” [85]
Diogenes of Oenoanda (412–323 B.C.E.?) was another Epicurean who fought
against this despicable doctrine of hell. To quote him, “These are the
root of all evil: fear of god, of death, of pain, and desire which goes
beyond what nature requires for a happy life.” [86] Lucretius (99–55
BCE) was an Epicurean poet who lived in Rome while it was still a
succeeding empire. To quote him...
There is no murky pit of hell awaiting anyone.... Mind cannot arise
alone without body, or apart from sinews and blood.... You must admit,
therefore, that when the body has perished, there is an end also of the
spirit diffused through it. It is surely crazy to couple a mortal object
with an eternal.... [87]
Lucretius was a beautifully-written poet whose words would comfort mind
and soothe the senses. In his lengthy and beautifully written De Rerum
Natura (“On the Nature of Things”), he has said...
Now come: that thou mayst able be to know
That minds and the light souls of all that live
Have mortal birth and death, I will go on
Verses to build meet for thy rule of life,
Sought after long, discovered with sweet toil.
But under one name I’d have thee yoke them both;
And when, for instance, I shall speak of soul,
Teaching the same to be but mortal, think
Thereby I’m speaking also of the mind-
Since both are one, a substance interjoined. [88]
From the ancient philosophers and thinkers, from whom developed the word
“philosophia,” we come now to the modern day infidels and heretics who
have attacked the doctrine of hell. David Hume was among them. To quote
him, “Why, then, eternal punishment for the temporary offenses of so
frail a creature as man?” [89] Robert Green Ingersoll is perhaps the
greatest Agnostic who has ever lived — given the name the Great Agnostic
-, whose words are comparably the most beautiful constructed. It was
Ingersoll whose sole purpose was to eradicate belief in a hell. To quote
him...
Who can estimate the misery that has been caused by this infamous
doctrine of eternal punishment? Think of the lives it has blighted-of
the tears it has caused-of the agony it has produced. Think of the
millions who have been driven to insanity by this most terrible of
dogmas. This doctrine renders God the basest and most cruel being in the
universe.... There is nothing more degrading than to worship such a god.
[90]
Eternal punishment is eternal revenge, and can be inflicted only by an
eternal monster.... Infinite punishment is infinite cruelty, endless
injustice, immortal meanness. To worship an eternal jailer hardens,
debases, and pollutes even the vilest soul. [91]
The idea of hell was born of ignorance, brutality, fear, cowardice, and
revenge. This idea testifies that our remote ancestors were the lowest
of beasts. [92]
The doctrine of eternal punishment is in perfect harmony with the
savagery of the men who made the orthodox creeds. It is in harmony with
torture, with flaying alive and with burnings. The men who burned their
fellow-men for a moment, believed that God would burn his enemies
forever. [93]
Ingersoll freed the minds of men from this vindictive doctrine of hell.
To quote Elbert Hubbard (1856–1915), “Christianity supplies a Hell for
the people who disagree with you, and a Heaven for your friends.” [94]
Certainly the pain and suffering of hell — simply the concept of it — is
of vindictiveness and suffering. In this one life that we have, we may
be fed the lies of the clergy, and the most greatest lie of them all —
the one that has caused more suffering than any other — is the lie of a
hell. To quote Henry Louis Mencken (1880–1956), “I believe that
religion, generally speaking, has been a curse to mankind.” [95]
The numerous arguments that come from the divine defenders all fail,
however, when they try to defend the doctrine of hell. It is not so much
the doctrine of eternal punishment alone that needs defense (although
evidence would help bolster belief in it), but the arguments attempt to
reconcile a benevolent creator with eternal torment. There is no method
for this reconciliation of hell and a benevolent god. A benevolent god
would not send people to a hell for eternity. Such a concept is absurd.
One may argue that a good god sends bad people to hell, just like a good
cop sends bad people to jail, but a jail’s purpose is not — or at least
should not be — a form of punishment, but a form of protection of the
public; the jail is used to keep harmful criminals from endangering the
lives of law-abiding citizens. If a god is protecting good people by
sending bad people to hell, I find this also ridiculous. Could not a god
keep order and peace in a heaven with all souls coexisting? A god
certainly could, otherwise he is no god; and even if a god could not
keep bad people from acting bad in heaven, he could at least not make
hell such a torturous and vindictive place. A good person would not
torture, burn, or bake alive any conscious being. [96] If an individual
would find it amusing to torture, burn, and bake alive a sentient being,
then this individual is horrible, vile, revolting, and disturbed. If to
torture one sentient being makes you horrible, vile, revolting, and
disturbed, what should the verdict be of a god if he tortures, burns,
and bakes billions of sentient beings for eternity in hell when their
only crimes may be minimal or lack of belief? Only a rational man can
give a rational answer: a cruel, torturous, and vindictive god who is
beyond belief logically in regards to his compassion. I am not speaking
of an evil god imprisoning people for eternity with ultimate torments; I
am speaking of those who think god can be compassionate and can still
punish people for eternity with torturous punishments. I can conceive of
no being so utterly horrible, nor of any being so incomprehensibly
destructive and evil. To quote Mikhail Bakunin (1814–1876), the famous
Anarchist, “Even if God existed it would be necessary to abolish him!”
[97]
There are some who believe that a benevolent god exists and also that
this god created a hell full of tortures. However, their belief may stem
from the concept that god does not send man to hell, but gives man a
“choice.” Whatever this concept of “choice” means, I am left in the
dark. Perhaps it’s some form of the dogmatic concept of Free Will, the
doctrine that we animals may break the laws of physics to do our
bidding. Of course, the issue at question is not between Determinism or
Free Will, but whether this concept of choice still allows a benevolent
god; and it certainly does not. If a god is responsible for creating
everything, such as defined in chapter 1, then certainly, this created
the possibility of going to hell and — if this god knew a large amount
of data (if not all data) as a god would — then this god would know that
by creating the possibility of hell, he is solely responsible for
everyone who goes to hell. If god created man with a “choice” that
inevitably leads to hell, then that god is responsible. The error with
claiming that man sends himself to hell is that hypothetically, god
created man. If a god is held responsible for creating everything in the
known, natural Universe, which he is, then this god is responsible for
all the happenings in this Universe. To claim that a man sends himself
to hell is ludicrous, as that man’s actions are governed his own design
which is directly due to a god, be there one.
There are then those who claim that a hell and a god exist, but they say
that a god isn’t benevolent at all; he is a cruel, vindictive, and
torturous being. They agree that a god created a hell to torture us for
infinity and that he is truly a vindictive and cruel being. Suffering
and pain are caused by god and nobody else. That is what one selection
of religionists claim, and I cannot argue with them. However, I am
simply attempting to find if a hell and a god are reconcilable, and two
concepts are reconcilable if a cruel god is at work. There are also
those who claim a god exists and is benevolent, but a hell full of
tortures does not exist. Some state a hell exists in one of various
forms, sometimes being a separation from god. Many people believe that a
god exists, but they do not believe in a hell that is full of tortures.
Although the majority believe in a god, not everyone believes in a place
of eternal torment.
In this section, my aim was to show the history of the doctrine of hell.
In this history we see the religious scripture of many religions
advocate a form of eternal torment and punishment. With the religious
scripture, we see the theologians, priests, and spiritual men advocating
a form of eternal torment to minor crimes and nonbelievers. Alongside
this line of history, we see mind liberationists such as Epicurus and
Ingersoll fighting this revolting and vile doctrine of eternal
punishment. The doctrine of hell is founded on scripture, but bolstered
and emphasized through the words of their religious leaders. The
importance of this is to examine exactly what a hell is before we are
threatened to believe in a hell through some sort of possibility of a
god existing. The doctrine of hell, it should be noted, is not prevalent
within all religions. Now that I have made clear what hell stands for, I
shall continue to examine how this ties in with a possible benefit from
belief.
Does the fact that you will not live forever in a heaven put a damper on
your afternoon? I can understand why a deconverted Theist may find it to
be depressing that they will not have eternal life as their religion has
promised them. This is a perfectly normal emotion. The religionist was
promised something that was long awaited for and possibly well prepared
for. For this religionist to all of a sudden find out that their waiting
and preparation was all useless is a detrimentally harmful psychological
experience. However, I contend that the long term benefits of mental
liberation far outweigh the benefits of religious dogma. It is by the
sword of truth that we are to succeed.
The concept of immortality is perhaps the only happy concept that may be
retrieved from the wreckage of religion. Ingersoll thought that
immortality was “born of human affection” and was based on love.
However, Epicurus stated the following in regards to immortality...
An immortal life would not provide an opportunity for any more pleasure
than this mortal life does. A rational understanding of happiness makes
clear the fact that the height of pleasure is attainable here and now,
in this life, and it cannot be surpassed, even if one could live
forever. [98]
I think the point that Epicurus was trying to demonstrate is that
happiness should not be something measured in amounts, but something
that ought to be continuous in our life as it changes frequently. I
would think, however, that if someone can get more pleasure from more
time, thus meaning more opportunities to exploit pleasure for one’s
self, then I would disagree with Epicurus. However, his opinion in
regards to immortality measured against happiness are important, as it
is the opinion of a nonbeliever in regards to immortality. Clarence
Darrow, however, took a more aggressive position than Ingersoll towards
the concept of immortality. To quote him...
Upon what evidence, then, are we asked to believe in immortality? There
is no evidence. One is told to rely on faith, and no doubt this serves
the purpose so long as one can believe blindly whatever he is told. [99]
The origin of the absurd idea of immortal life is easy to discover; it
is kept alive by hope and fear, by childish faith, and by cowardice.
[100]
I would not say that the belief in immortality is better than non-belief
in immortality; however, the question of what is beneficial or not has
nothing to do with actual truth. I am not bothered by the fact that my
consciousness will cease at death, nor am I particularly afraid of
ceasing to exist entirely at death (although the form death may take may
definitely be scary). I see no reason for there to be an immortality,
both in evidence and meaning. There is no necessity for a future life. I
know and understand that I am alive today and that I ought to make the
best of life for myself and the Earth’s other creatures in this life; I
understand that there is no future life, and thus no necessity to
prepare for a future existence beyond death; and I understand that one
day I shall die and cease to be conscious eternally. From dust I came
and to dust I shall return. To quote Susan Ertz (1894–1985), “Millions
long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a
rainy Sunday afternoon.” [101] Perhaps the best person who captured my
view of immortality was that of Thomas Alva Edison (1847–1931). To quote
him...
I cannot believe in the immortality of the soul.... No, all this talk of
an existence for us, as individuals, beyond the grave is wrong. It is
born of our tenacity of life-our desire to go on living-our dread of
coming to an end as individuals. I do not dread it, though. Personally,
I cannot see any use of a future life. [102]
Perhaps another valuable quote in regards to the benefit from believe is
from George Bernard Shaw (1856–1950)...
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the
point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than as sober one. The
happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality. [103]
Unlike the possibility of immortality being warm and soothing to the
mind, the rest of religion can be regarded as painful, harmful, and full
of suffering. There is nothing more detrimental to the happiness and
mental health of sentient beings than religion. Happiness, in the form
of food, sex, self esteem, and the other necessities of a happy life
according to psychology, are taken away from the follower of religion.
It is by following and believing the scripture of religion that a person
can be torn apart inside.
Perhaps a great thing in the lives of all men and women is sex. Physical
intimacy and sexual gratification are perfectly normal and desired
things. I can see no reason why they would be considered evil, unless I
was religious. In regards to sexual morality, I believe that it should
not be considered anything in particular. As long as none are harmed, I
feel that sexually we should be unlimited. However, all world religions
are bent on restrictions, and especially so in regards to sexuality.
Catholic priests, as well as many Christian church officials including
monks, nuns, bishops, and higher authorities, must be completely
celibate; the sexuality of these men and women is dead. Homosexuality is
considered immoral and evil in the Old and New Testament. The verses
that condemn Homosexuality are Genesis 13:13, Genesis 18:20, Genesis
19:1–29, Leviticus 18:22–23, Leviticus 20:13, Deuteronomy 23:17–18, 1
Kings 14:22–24, Isaiah 3:9, Luke 17:25–32, Romans 1:24–32, 1 Corinthians
6:9, 1 Timothy 1:9–10, 2 Peter 2:6–9, and Jude 1:7–8. Divorce is
forbidden in Mark 10:7–9. Also, to think of sexual desire is immoral and
evil; Matthew 5:27–28 “whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her
hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” The same verse
is also seen in Nehemiah 12:17–28. Lust, or sexual activity or thoughts,
is one of the Seven Sins of Catholicism. Once during their lifetime,
every Muslim must go to the holy city of Meccah and on this voyage they
may not have sex (Qur’an 2:197). In the Qur’an, careless sex is
considered immoral (Qur’an 4:24). The Qur’an 17:32 says, “And go not
nigh to fornication; surely it is an indecency and an evil way.” In the
Qur’an 60:12, it compares careless sex with blasphemy, stealing, killing
your children, and disobeying goodness. The Fourth Noble Truth of
Buddhism includes restraining from sex. Sexuality is a sacred wrong as a
rule of the Pancha Shila (Buddhist rules that apply to Buddhist monks
and nuns). A Buddhist monk or nun must be completely celibate. Hinduism
does not allow its followers to be sexual active or promiscuous in any
way. In fact, according to Hinduism, you may not even think of sex or
talk about it. Nor can you do anything that is arousing.
Another important thing for life — along with sex — is food and eating.
To keep a fully nourished mind that is rational and logical, one must
consume enough fruits, vegetables, and grains to keep them healthy. A
healthy body will spur on a healthy mentality. Whereas the Judaic,
Christian, and Islamic religions allow the consumption of flesh —
something I would disagree with — religions in general are known to
limit food intake. There are certain religious ethics that regard
consuming particular fleshes as evil and other religious ethics that
regard consuming flesh on particular dates as evil, however, I disagree
with any action that causes suffering to a sentient animal. In
Catholicism, Gluttony, or eating too much food, is a sin. The fact that
you cannot indulge in food is ludicrous. In Islam, In the Qur’an 5:62,
it says, “And you will see many of them striving with one another to
hasten in sin and exceeding the limits, and their eating of what is
unlawfully acquired; certainly evil is that which they do.” Also, in the
Qur’an 2:183, it says, “O you who believe! fasting is prescribed for
you, as it was prescribed for those before you, so that you may guard
(against evil).” Again, in the Qur’an 9:112, it says, “They who turn (to
Allah), who serve (Him), who praise (Him), who fast, who bow down, who
prostrate themselves, who enjoin what is good and forbid what is evil,
and who keep the limits of Allah; and give good news to the believers.”
The Qur’an also suggests fasting in the Qur’an 33:35, Qur’an 5:89,
Qur’an 2:185, and Qur’an 58:4. Ramadan is the sacred month of Islam. For
the month of December, Muslims cannot eat any food during the day. They
may only eat food during the night when the Sun has set. If you are a
Buddhist monk or nun, the one of the rules of the Pancha Shila is that
you must only have one meal a day — a practice that is horribly
detrimental to your health.
Pleasure is a general concept accursed by religion in whole. In
Buddhism, the one of the rules of the Pancha Shila is to avoid
“substances which blur the consciousness.” Alcohol and drugs are thus
unethical. If you are a Buddhist monk or nun, the one of the rules of
the Pancha Shila is that you avoid entertainment. Also, if you are a
monk or nun, another rule of the Pancha Shila is that you must use a
simple bed and a simple seat. Another largely effecting rule of the
Pancha Shila is that Buddhist monks and nuns are not allowed to handle
money. There are 227 rules for Buddhist monks and 311 rules for Buddhist
nuns. Sloth, or resting luxuriously, is one of the Seven Sins of
Catholicism. In regards to the joys that the Christian life brings,
Robert Green Ingersoll has said...
Nothing can be more repulsive than an orthodox life — than one who lives
in exact accordance with the creed. It is hard to conceive of a more
terrible character than John Calvin. It is somewhat difficult to
understand the Puritans, who made themselves unhappy by way of
recreation, and who seemed to enjoy themselves when admitting their
utter worthlessness and in telling God how richly they deserved to be
eternally damned. They loved to pluck from the tree of life every bud,
every blossom, every leaf. The bare branches, naked to the wrath of God,
excited their admiration. They wondered how birds could sing, and the
existence of the rainbow led them to suspect the seriousness of the
Deity. How can there be any joy if man believes that he acts and lives
under an infinite responsibility, when the only business of this life is
to avoid the horrors of the next? Why should the lips of men feel the
ripple of laughter if there is a bare possibility that the creed of
Christendom is true? [104]
Robert Green Ingersoll has spoken many words in many speeches and
lectures. He was most noted for excellent speeches that held the ears of
his listeners tightly. Still in regards to the happiness provided by
Christianity, Ingersoll has said...
And if there is to be an acknowledgment of God in the Constitution, the
question naturally arises as to which God is to have this honor. Shall
we select the God of the Catholics — he who has established an
infallible church presided over by an infallible pope, and who is
delighted with certain ceremonies and placated by prayers uttered in
exceedingly common Latin? Is it the God of the Presbyterian with the
Five Points of Calvinism, who is ingenious enough to harmonize necessity
and responsibility, and who in some way justifies himself for damning
most of his own children? Is it the God of the Puritan, the enemy of joy
— of the Baptist, who is great enough to govern the universe, and small
enough to allow the destiny of a soul to depend on whether the body it
inhabited was immersed or sprinkled? What God is it proposed to put in
the Constitution? Is it the God of the Old Testament, who was a believer
in slavery and who justified polygamy? If slavery was right then, it is
right now; and if Jehovah was right then, the Mormons are right now. Are
we to have the God who issued a commandment against all art — who was
the enemy of investigation and of free speech? Is it the God who
commanded the husband to stone his wife to death because she differed
with him on the subject of religion? Are we to have a God who will
re-enact the Mosaic code and punish hundreds of offences with death?
[105]
John Calvin (1509–1564) was the founder of Calvinism and today it is
commonly associated with Presbyterianism. In Geneva, a Swiss city,
Calvin took control of the city and instituted his own ordinances. To
quote the ordinances of the city by Calvin himself...
Blasphemy.
Whoever shall have blasphemed, swearing by the body or by the blood of
our Lord, or in similar manner, he shall be made to kiss the earth for
the first offence ; for the second to pay 5 sous, and for the third 6
sous, and for the last offence be put in the pillory for one hour.
Drunkenness.
1. That no one shall invite another to drink under penalty of 3 sous.
2. That taverns shall be closed during the sermon, under penalty that
the tavern -keeper shall pay 3 sous, and whoever may be found therein
shall pay the same amount.
3. If anyone be found intoxicated he shall pay for the first offence 3
sous and shall be remanded to the consistory ; for the second offence he
shall he held to pay the sum of 6 sous, and for the third 10 sous and be
put in prison.
4. That no one shall make roiaumes [Referring to ordinances regulating
the holding of religious services] under penalty of 10 sous.
Songs and Dances.
If anyone sings immoral, dissolute or outrageous songs, or dance the
virollet or other dance, he shall be put in prison for three days and
then sent to the consistory.
[...]
Games.
That no one shall play at any dissolute game or at any game whatsoever
it may be, neither for gold nor silver nor for any excessive stake, upon
penalty of 5 sous and forfeiture of stake played for. [106]
Games, dancing, music, and other joys — especially blasphemy — are
completely taken from the hearts of men and women from this city! Once
it may have been a city full of joy and laughter, but it was silenced
and thoroughly so by the foolish and vindictively cruel theologian named
John Calvin. The notoriety of Calvin has not slipped by Robert Green
Ingersoll. To quote Ingersoll...
Calvin founded a little theocracy, modeled after the Old Testament, and
succeeded in erecting the most detestable government that ever existed,
except the one from which it was copied.
[...]
Calvin was of a pallid, bloodless complexion, thin, sickly, irritable,
gloomy, impatient, egotistic, tyrannical, heartless, and infamous. He
was a strange compound of revengeful morality, malicious forgiveness,
ferocious charity, egotistic humility, and a kind of hellish justice. In
other words. he was as near like the God of the Old Testament as his
health permitted. [107]
Along with food, sex, and entertainment, self esteem is a very important
thing to have. One must feel good about themselves. If someone is told
that they are imperfect or horrible in nature, they will not feel well
about themselves; and feeling happy about yourself and your
accomplishments — a pride of sort — is necessary for a happy life. The
concept of sin goes as far as to claim that all are sinners who deserve
hell. In Mark 2:17, Jesus is reported to having said, “Those who are
well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick; I came not to
call the righteous, but sinners.” In Numbers 5:6–7, it says, “Say to the
Israelites: ‘When a man or woman wrongs another in any way and so is
unfaithful to the LORD, that person is guilty and must confess the sin
he has committed. He must make full restitution for his wrong, add one
fifth to it and give it all to the person he has wronged.” In the New
Testament, the concept of sin is used to condemn or apply 275 times
[108] and in the Old Testament, the concept of sin is used to condemn or
apply 716 times [109], and in the Bible as a whole it nearly amounts to
1,000 applications and condemnations! In Qur’an 12:91, it is claimed
that man is a sinner and in Qur’an 12:92, it claims that only Allah can
forgive sins. In the Qur’an 20:73, it says, “Surely we believe in our
Lord that He may forgive us our sins and the magic to which you
compelled us; and Allah is better and more abiding.” In the Qur’an, the
concept of sin is used to apply or condemn 60 times [110].
Perhaps one of the most observed characteristics of religion is the
preaching of humility, or the lack of taking pride in one’s
accomplishments and being simple, not outstanding. Jesus asked us to
humble ourselves, in Luke 14:11, “For every one who exalts himself will
be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.” Pride is one of
the Seven Sins of Catholicism, so nobody may be proud. Envy is another
one of the Seven Sins of Catholicism, so no one may be envious. Greed is
yet another one of the Seven Sins of Catholicism, so no one may be
greedy. I do not regard envy or greed as sins myself, but I think they
are largely natural emotions that happen to us as animals. Islam claims
that the angels and heavenly beings do not show pride in the Qur’an
16:49, as it says, “And whatever creature that is in the heavens and
that is in the earth makes obeisance to Allah (only), and the angels
(too) and they do not show pride.” Those who turn away from Allah of
Islam are full of pride in the Qur’an 63:5, “And when it is said to
them: Come, the Apostle of Allah will ask forgiveness for you, they turn
back their heads and you may see them turning away while they are big
with pride.” Islam says that those who are patient and pray — basic
traits of a good Muslim — are humble in the Qur’an 2:45, “And seek
assistance through patience and prayer, and most surely it is a hard
thing except for the humble ones.” Humble Muslims are rewarded in the
Qur’an 11:23, “Surely (as to) those who believe and do good and humble
themselves to their Lord, these are the dwellers of the garden, in it
they will abide.” Islam claims that the believers who are humble will
succeed in the Qur’an 21:1–2, it says, “Successful indeed are the
believers, who are humble in their prayers.” The followers of Islam are
humble according to the Qur’an 25:63, as it says, “And the servants of
the Beneficent God are they who walk on the earth in humbleness, and
when the ignorant address them, they say: Peace.” Perhaps the most long
winded passage of the Qur’an that commands humbleness is the Qur’an
33:35...
Surely the men who submit and the women who submit, and the believing
men and the believing women, and the obeying men and the obeying women,
and the truthful men and the truthful women, and the patient men and the
patient women and the humble men and the humble women, and the
almsgiving men and the almsgiving women, and the fasting men and the
fasting women, and the men who guard their private parts and the women
who guard, and the men who remember Allah much and the women who
remember-- Allah has prepared for them forgiveness and a mighty reward.
In Islam, you must pray in the direction of Mecca five times a day. When
praying, a Muslim is in “submission mode;” They are bowing down. Not
only can this be seen as degrading, but it is also done five times in a
single day. To quote Arthur Schopenhauer...
Man excels all the animals even in his ability to be trained. Muslims
are trained to turn their faces toward Mecca five times a day and pray;
they do so steadfastly. Christians are trained to cross themselves on
certain occasions, to genuflect, etc.; while religion in general
constitutes the real masterpiece on the art of training, namely the
training of the mental capacities-which, as is well known, cannot be
started too early. There is no absurdity so palpable that one could not
fix it firmly in the head of every man on earth, provided one began to
imprint it before his sixth year by ceaselessly rehearsing it before him
with solemn earnestness. [111]
In Buddhism, the first Noble Truth proclaims that all life is suffering
and pain. The Eight-Fold Path continues yet to say that, in the Seventh
Path step, wanting or trying to accomplish anything is also wrong. If
you are a Buddhist monk or nun, the eighth rule of the Pancha Shila is
that you must not take pride. You cannot be proud of what you have done,
who you are, or what you are aspiring for. Hinduism also believes its
followers should be humble. They should not try to gain too many
material goods. A general humbleness is required by Hinduism. It does
not want followers to be extreme extravagant or trying too hard.
To quote Jesus Christ, Mark 9:43–48...
“...if your hand causes you to sin, cut if off; it is better for you to
enter life maimed than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable
fire. And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off; it is better for
you to enter life lame than with two feet to be thrown into hell. And if
your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out; it is better for you to enter
the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into
hell, where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.”
In Matthew 5:39–41, Jesus is reported as saying...
“Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right
cheek, turn to him the other also; and if any one would sue you and take
your coat, let him have your cloak as well; and if any one forces you to
go one mile, go with him two miles.”
Many Buddhist ministries practice self discipline. In such cases, you
are watched over by a master and you must stay awake for long, long
hours. If you fall asleep, you are beaten with a stick; or if you move
just a little bit, in some instances, you are also beaten with a stick.
The belief structure of Hinduism is founded on castes, or different
social structures. When someone is in a caste, it is either the lowest —
or the poorest -, the medium, the higher, and the highest. The chances
of being born into a particular caste system, through reincarnation, is
by how good you were in the previous life. Thus, to get to a better
caste in your next life, you must live your life by good morals in this
life. In the ancient times, members of the lower castes had to let
members of the higher castes can harm the lower castes and abuse their
right to liberty.
On top of the vigorously described concepts of hell, a nonbeliever is
then faced with various other things to be afraid of. The Qur’an
mentions and threatens with hell 96 different times. [112] I Corinthians
2:14 of the Bible states, “The unspiritual man does not receive the
gifts of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not
able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.” In John
14:12–14, “Jesus said, ‘...he who believes in me will also do the works
that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I go to the
Father. Whatever you ask in my name, I will do it... if you ask anything
in my name, I will do it.’” Matthew 17:20 says, “... if you have faith
as a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, ‘Move hence
to yonder place,’ and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to
you.” To quote John 3:36, “He who believes in the Son has eternal life;
he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God
rests upon him.” Paul struck a man blind for opposing Christianity in
Acts 13:8–11. Paul wrote that “he who has doubts is condemned” in Romans
14:23. In Hebrews 10:28–31, “A man who has violated the law of Moses
dies without mercy at the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much
worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has
spurned the Son of God... and outraged the Spirit of Grace?... It is a
fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.” Jesus Christ
threatens us, in Luke 6:25, “Woe to you that laugh now, for you shall
mourn and weep.” In Amos 3:6, “Does evil befall a city unless the Lord
has done it.” In the entire book of The Cow of the Qur’an of Islam,
nonbelievers are heavily described as villains and they are
discriminated against; they are sinners and worthy of no kindness. In
the Qur’an 3:12, it says, “Say to those who disbelieve: You shall be
vanquished, and driven together to hell; and evil is the resting-
place.” In regards to the infidels, in the Qur’an 3:197, it says, “A
brief enjoyment! then their abode is hell, and evil is the
resting-place.” In the Qur’an 17:39, it says, “This is of what your Lord
has revealed to you of wisdom, and do not associate any other god with
Allah lest you should be thrown into hell, blamed, cast away.” The
Qur’an 36:63 puts it quite bluntly when it says, “This is the hell with
which you were threatened.” It goes on in the Qur’an 63:64 (the very
next verse) to say, “Enter into it [hell] this day because you
disbelieved.” The Four Noble Truths of Buddhism threaten you; believe
and practice Buddhism to escape suffering. In these verses, believers
are rewarded and non-believers are punished either in the physical world
or in a life hereafter.
The fact of the matter is that religion founded on deprivation. It
deprives the body of food through religious fasting and other dogmatic
policies. Furthermore, it limits the amount of entertainment as well as
happiness that anyone can have. The highest joy — sex — is also
significantly limited on many levels. On top of this limit of joys, the
followers of these religions are told that they are sinners, when sin is
defined as something considerably horrible and vile; they are told that
they are horrible and vile. They are told not to be proud and to be
completely humble. On top of these concepts, the religionists are then
threatened with a hell that they shall suffer eternally if they do not
do as their religion wishes and they will suffer greatly on earth also
if they do not believe. A person with a low self-esteem who believes
that they are worth little and follows all these pleasure-depriving
mandates from heaven will unarguably find security and joy in a
slave-master relationship, easily provided for by any of the world’s
major religions. [113]
The actual Pascal’s Wager is actually three components, but what is
actually referred to as Pascal’s Wager today is a “bet” on god. It was a
theological device invented by Blaise Pascal (1623–1662), who was also a
mathematician. The reasoning he provides is that if god exists and we
believe, we gain heaven. However, if god exists and we disbelieve, we
lose and go to hell. If god doesn’t exist, then it doesn’t matter what
we believe as we all return back to dust. To quote Pascal himself...
Let us weight the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us
estimate the two choices. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose you
lose nothing. Wager then without hesitation that He is. [114]
Pascal’s Wager can be simplified, however...
If You Believe...
If God Exists — Go To Heaven
If God Doesn’t Exist — Go To Hell
If You Do Not Believe...
If God Exists — Go To Hell
If God Doesn’t Exist — Lose Nothing
It may seem somewhat reasonable at first, however, it must be noted that
it does not even prove the existence of god. Even if it is logical, it
only proves that we ought to believe in a god. The error with Pascal’s
Wager should be seemingly obvious. How do we know which god to believe
in? After all, if someone is a Christian and Islam happens to be the
correct religion, then the Christian and Materialists both will burn
together in the hell of Islam. What of Buddhism, Hinduism,
Zoroastrianism, Judaism, and the other mythological religions that
threaten suffering? We ought to take those into consideration as well.
In fact, I may even devise my own religion of an invisible, pink unicorn
that threatens you to believe in it and just because it could exist, we
ought to believe in it.
One may argue that there is only one god who would allow all believers
in to heaven while sending all Atheists, Agnostics, and Freethinkers to
hell. However, even this assumes too much. Just like there could be a
god who would send all believers to heaven, there could be a god who
would send all believers to hell and would send all nonbelievers to
heaven as a sick joke. God may punish believers and reward
non-believers; it is simply a possibility, just as a god could punish
non-believers and reward believers. I am not saying it is true, nor am I
outrightly saying that it is false; I am simply stating that it is
possible. One may argue then that it does not make sense that a god
would punish believers or reward non-believers. However, in the realm of
the argument of Pascal’s Wager, making sense is not the highest issue.
We are simply dealing with possibilities. If someone’s intellect is so
insecure that it may be scared to believe in god, simply because of the
possibility of a god who rewards in heaven to his followers, then
someone of an equally insecure intellect can be frightened into not
believing in god, simply because of the possibility of a god who rewards
in hell to his followers. Both scenarios, being equally possible, end up
using the same reasoning, but concluding to completely different
conclusions, thus making the reasoning invalid. Even so, I will not
worry about a god who would punish believers or nonbelievers based on
beliefs. If god was so tyrannical that he would punish someone because
of what they believed, then I may believe in him if proof is brought to
light, but surely, I shall never serve such a god.
Also, simply consider what is lost in the wager. After all, if you spend
your entire life preparing for the afterlife, only to find out that
there is no afterlife, then your life that exists here and now is
forever lost. That is not to say that one’s entire life is wasted
because they had some sort of supernatural religion, but certainly, if
god does not exist and time is used to prepare for the afterlife — such
as church, prayer, fasting, and other religious oddities — then every
ounce of effort and every second of time used is lost completely. With a
more liberal outlook on religion, every second is not based on thinking
of a god. However, every second with praise or fear of god in your mind,
every penny used to erect a church or temple, and every ounce of
compassion and love delivered to a god could have been used by us
animals in love, affection, and compassionate treatment of each other.
Not only is some of your life wasted when in preparation for the after
life, but consider the large amount of self abuse, self deprivation,
restrictions, and limits put upon pleasures and joys by religion.
Consider the overwhelmingly large amount of guilt that is required to
believe any religion in particular, as well as the tremendous amount of
humility required. On top of that, we are bombarded with the constant
threats of hell and eternal torment by theologians and priests. I, for
one, certainly cannot believe one word of any religion.
In regards to a benefit from belief, we are first threatened with hell.
This concept of hell is vividly described by the Bible, the Qur’an, and
the other religious texts of the various religions. Hell certainly is a
painful experience; torturous, unrelenting, painful, full of anguish,
and absolutely horrid. The image of these hells of the various religions
is reinforced by the numerous theologians and priests, including Father
Furniss who wrote children’s books about hell, Charles Spurgeon who
described hell as every organ in your body on fire, and Father Arnall
who spoke so lengthily on the torments and duration of hell. The concept
of hell does not go by without being attacked by humanitarians. It was
the life purpose of Ingersoll to remove that foul doctrine from the
minds of men. And even thousands of years earlier in Ancient Greece, it
was the purpose of Epicurus to help men lead happy and healthy lives
through not fearing god, hell, or an afterlife. With the doctrine of
hell, men and women are told much religious dogma in regards to
morality. Sex, food, and entertainment are largely restricted among the
world religions; this is all a supposed type of “morality.” Furthermore,
men and women are told not to be proud, to be humble, and that they are
sinners; sin, being defined as a horrible and vile trait, destroys the
self esteem of those who are condemned as sinners. The conjoinment of
deprivation of happiness from earthly joys and lack of self esteem mold
a perfect follower of the generic religion: an unhappy and miserable
individual. In a last attempt to prove that we ought to believe in a god
despite lack of proof, we are presented with the morbid Pascal’s Wager.
It claims that we ought to believe in a god because of the mere
possibility of god and that we will be rewarded if we do so if a god
does exist. However, Pascal ruled out the possibility of the other
religions’ gods and he also ruled out the possibility of a god who would
punish believers, all things equally possible. From my conclusions and
rigorous research in regards to the benefits of religion, I am
unsatisfied in religion and can only conclude that it has does a massive
amount of harm and nothing at all from religion is a benefit.
“When a man is freed of religion, he has a better chance to live a
normal and wholesome life.” — Sigmund Freud (1856–1939) [115]
Through the length of this work, I have only examined the evidences for
a god or a form of supernaturality. I criticized the claim that we may
know a god or a form of supernaturality — or anything, for that matter —
through the concept of Faith. Some claimed that the Universe is itself
proof of a creator, and I criticized that claim. Other refutations
include the argument from religious experience; however, the argument
from religious experience failed in that religious experiences can be
reproduced without supernaturality through drugs, hypnosis, and other
methods. The argument from miracles, prophecy, and revelation was much
in error just as the argument of design and creation: they are based on
the ignorance of the workings of the natural world. I have only refuted
these evidences for a god or a form of supernaturality. If someone
claimed that they believed in the existence of a god or a form of
supernaturality through a particular reason, and I answered why such a
particular reason was insufficient, then it would be reasonable to drop
belief in said form of supernaturality. However, even so, I have not yet
answered the possibility of the existence of a god or supernaturality; I
have only discredited the most commonly used reasons for the existence
of a form of supernaturality. The only reason that we rely on proof and
evidence is that proof and evidence have consistently been the best
method for accurately finding the truth. It is certainly possible that a
person could murder the a person without any evidence being left behind
at all and a jury could find them innocent, even though they did kill
that person. The same is with our situation: even though there is no
valid evidence for a form of supernaturality, just what is the
possibility of the existence of a form of supernaturality? Some will
claim that this is the difference between an Atheist and an Agnostic,
one completely ruling out the possibility of a god whereas the other
accepts some sort of possibility of a god; however, already examined
both terms of Atheist and Agnostic and find no intrinsic difference. It
is this idea — the possibility of existence — that I shall now examine.
Epistemology, the study of how we know what we know, is absolutely
important to the question of knowing whether a god could exist or not.
Well, if we are not allowed to use Faith as a form of Epistemology — in
that Faith can justify Santa Claus equally to justifying a god, as well
as inconsistencies by using Faith compared to the natural Universe —
then what would be a good method for attaining knowledge? I think that
using the concept of reason, instead of Faith, to gain knowledge is much
more accurate. To gain knowledge, we must base a belief on evidence,
make sure that the belief is not contradictory, and make sure that it
does not contradict previously confirmed beliefs. Beliefs that do not
meet any or all of these specifications cannot sincerely be labeled as
adequate knowledge.
If knowledge and reason can justify a belief in degrees through these
three points (evidence, consistency, and not contradicting previous
facts), then is there any possibility to know if it is impossible for a
being to exist? Impossible, in the sense that I use it, means that there
is absolutely no way that something could exist or could have happened.
There certainly is a way for determining if something is impossible. The
laws of Logic dictate what form truth may take. If something does not
abide by these laws of Logic, then it cannot exist. The first of the
three laws of Logic is the Law of Identity. The law states...
1. The Law of Identity: For things, the law asserts that “A is A,” or
“anything is itself.” For propositions: “If a proposition is true, then
it is true.” [116]
The Law of Identity states that something is itself and nothing else. It
may appear to be common sense to most, but it is imperative that the
laws of Logic be identified, as they are important to our understanding
of the natural Universe. An example of this law in usage would be to
state, “A car is a car; a car is not a dog.” The second law of the
threes laws of Logic is the Law of Excluded Middle. The law states...
2. The Law of Excluded Middle: For Things: “Anything is either A or
not-A.” For propositions: “A proposition, such as P, is either true or
false.” [117]
The Law of Excluded Middle states that there is no middle ground between
possibilities. Someone either exists or they do not exist. Someone is
either running or they are not running. A house is either green or it is
not green. These are things that the Law of Excluded Middle is
imperative on. The third and last law of the three laws of Logic is the
Law of Contradiction...
3. The Law of Contradiction: For things: “Nothing can be both A and
not-A.” For propositions: “A proposition, P, cannot be both true and
false.” [118]
The Law of Contradiction is sometimes referred to as the Law of
Non-Contradiction. An example of a contradiction would be a live corpse.
The contradiction is that a corpse is not live and something that is
live is not a corpse. One may argue quickly that this is a form of
semantics, or arguing words, but it is not so. Instead of saying “live
corpse,” I could say “something that is alive, but is not alive.” I am
arguing concept, not words. These things — these contradictions — are
simply impossible. Other examples of contradictions may be a married
bachelor, a square circle, or a false truth. The Law of Identity, the
Law of Excluded Middle, and the Law of Contradiction or the three laws
of Logic and can be used to rule out or rule in possibilities.
In regards to the existence of a god or any other form of
supernaturality, it all depends on definitions. In chapter one, I
defined god as a supernatural being of immense power who is responsible
for creating this Universe. However, there are other definitions. This
leads us to one of the most highly debated part of the god-question:
linguistics. Many people will argue what words mean and others will
argue for particular attributes of god. The Pantheists believe that god
is all and the Christians believe that god is Jesus Christ as prophesied
by the Old Testament. The Muslims believe that god is Allah as revealed
through the Qur’an and the Jainists do not believe in a god at all; the
Jainists believe in various forms of supernaturality. It is all based on
what we define a god as and it is necessary for us to accurately examine
these definitions. The primary religions in the West, Christianity,
Islam, and Judaism, are all based on lengthy works. Christianity is
based on the Old Testament and the New Testament. Judaism is based on
the Old Testament. And Islam is based on the Old Testament and the
Qur’an. All volumes being exceedingly large, I would assume that to find
contradictions between the obscure and profane verses would not be at
all a difficult job. However, there are Open Theists who do not believe
any religious scripture but only believe in a type of a god.
Many of the liberal theologians define god as love, affection, or
compassion, not as any physical being. Although this makes any Atheist
frustrated by trying to debate a Theist, it is not necessarily a flaw.
If one defines god as love or affection, then it may suffer from the Law
of Identity. Love is love and god is god; love being associated as an
animal emotion and god being associated as a supernatural being. “Love”
is usually attributed with characteristics of compassion and affection
whereas a “god” is usually attributed to some sort of mystical,
supernatural being. The argument from there on delves into definitions
of words to fit whatever religion. It is good, though, in my opinion
that many liberal theologians have a loving deity rather than the cruel
one portrayed in the Bible. To quote Thomas Paine...
Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the
cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with
which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent
that we called it the word of a demon, than the Word of God. It is a
history of wickedness, that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind;
and, for my own part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest everything that
is cruel. [119]
Lev Nik Tolstoy (1828–1910) is known as perhaps the most notable author
of the 1800’s. Although he was an author, he also did much political and
philosophical work. He wrote My Confession and Critique of Dogmatic
Theology; in both works he criticized currently standing religious
dogmas. He criticized the priests and aristocracy, as well as their
inaction to the current problems plaguing Russia. He is also held as the
father of Christian Anarchism, a concept based on acting like Christ and
resisting oppressive government. In his book Where Love Is God Is, there
is a story of “Martin the Cobbler;” it is about a cobbler who encounters
various persons as well as dilemmas within his village and discovers
that god is within all of them. Although not anything important in the
context of today, it was significantly different from the other
theologians’ depictions of the cruel, brutal, and damning god of the
Bible. In fact, it was his opinion of religion and what god is that was
the cause of him for getting excommunicated. The decree that they
excommunicated him with stated...
... He [Tolstoy] denies the living and personal God glorified in the
Holy Trinity, Creator and Providence of the universe; he refutes Our
Lord Jesus Christ, God made Man, Redeemer and Savior of the world, who
suffered for us and for our salvation, and who has been raised from the
dead; he refutes the Immaculate Conception of the human manifestation of
Christ the Lord, and the virginity, before and after the Nativity, of
Mary, Mother of God, most pure and eternally virgin; he does not believe
in the life hereafter or in judgment after death; he refutes all the
Mysteries of the Church and their beneficial effect; and, flaunting the
most sacred articles of faith of the Orthodox community, he has not
feared to mock the greatest of all mysteries: the Holy Eucharist....
[120]
Tolstoy, however, was a compassionate and warm being. In a book by Henry
Stephens Salt, Salt notes on some recent news about Tolstoy..
The representative of an English paper lately had a drive with Count
Tolstoy On his remarking that he had no whip, the Count gave him a
glance “almost of scorn,” and said, “I talk to my horses; I do not beat
them.” That this story should have gone round of the press, as a sort of
marvelous legend of a second St. Francis, is a striking comment on the
existing state of affairs. [121]
Robert Green Ingersoll, the Great Agnostic that was around at the same
time as Tolstoy, also noted on the character of Tolstoy To quote him...
COUNT TOLSTOY is a man of genius. He is acquainted with Russian life
from the highest to the lowest — that is to say, from the worst to the
best. He knows the vices of the rich and the virtues of the poor. He is
a Christian, a real believer in the Old and New Testaments, an honest
follower of the Peasant of Palestine. He denounces luxury and ease, art
and music; he regards a flower with suspicion, believing that beneath
every blossom lies a coiled serpent. He agrees with Lazarus and
denounces Dives and the tax- gatherers. He is opposed, not only to
doctors of divinity, but of medicine.
From the Mount of Olives he surveys the world.
He is not a Christian like the Pope in the Vatican, or a cardinal in a
palace, or a bishop with revenues and retainers, or a millionaire who
hires preachers to point out the wickedness of the poor, or the director
of a museum who closes the doors on Sunday. He is a Christian something
like Christ. [122]
The words of Lev Tolstoy tell his story better than those who talk of
him. To quote Tolstoy..
Freethinkers are those who are willing to use their minds without
prejudice and without fearing to understand things that clash with their
own customs, privileges, or beliefs. This state of mind is not common,
but it is essential for right thinking; where it is absent, discussion
is apt to become worse than useless. [123]
And...
The Christian churches and Christianity have nothing in common save in
name: they are utterly hostile opposites. The churches are arrogance,
violence, usurpation, rigidity, death; Christianity is humility,
penitence, submissiveness, progress, life. [124]
Lev Tolstoy was not bent on instilling the fear of hell onto people and
his compassion for animals was endless, as he did not eat them. I am
simply giving a bit of history on a particular manifestation of the
concept that “god is love.” There are certainly many other depictions of
what exactly god is, some ranging from a cruel and vindictive being as
Paine stated and some loving and warm and many liberal theologians
believe. If god is simply defined as love and nothing else, then I
certainly believe in the existence of it.
Some define god as omnipotent or capable of doing anything. This
definition is flawed right from the beginning. If god may be able to do
anything, can he make a rock so heavy that he cannot pick it up? If he
can, then he is limited in some way. If he can’t, then he is still
limited in some way. This question can also be rephrased. Can god make a
picture so small that he cannot see it? Can god make a whisper so soft
that even he cannot hear it? These are all things that if god cannot do,
then he is not omnipotent, and if god can do them, then he cannot exist,
as he breaks the laws of Logic. There are arguments that defend the
omnipotence of this god. One argument claims that while god is
omnipotent, he may switch from the position of being able to pick up the
rock and then not being able to pick up the rock, thus fulfilling the
question “Can god make a rock so heavy that he cannot pick it up and
still be omnipotent?” However, if someone can pick up a rock, then they
can. If they cannot, then they cannot. That is the Law of Excluded
Middle. You either are, or you are not. There is not “switching,” and
even if “switching” was a justifiable method for excusing god from the
question, may god make a rock so heavy that he cannot pick it up and
still be omnipotent without “switching?” Even beyond that, can god make
a married bachelor, a live corpse, a false truth? In fact, I could
simply ask if god could break one of the laws of Logic and if he could
not, then he is not omnipotent, and if he could, then he’s not real.
This is the reason why I did not define god as omnipotent. The obvious
contradictions flowing from that one description are countless. There
are those who may argue that the god does not want to break the laws of
Logic, but this is not a question of desire, but of capability. It would
work wonders for the modern theological movement if they did not define
god as omnipotent, but simply as immensely powerful.
Another thing to contemplate in regards to the possibility of a god, is
whether or not this god is defined is a benevolent or kind being. If
this god is benevolent or loving, then certain things must be taken into
account, such as the condition of the world being full of many evils and
the blatant failure of this god to answer prayers. One could claim that
there is a god and a devil of equal power that are fighting against each
other, thus the result of lacking prevention of evil and the lack of
answering prayers. Or, perhaps, there is a god who cares not at all
about the workings of us animals on this planet and will not interfere
for any reason. These are all things that we must take into
consideration when we are defining this god and then weighing whether or
not it is possible for it to exist. Surely, there is no evidence for a
supernatural being or any particular form of supernaturality. However,
in regards to the laws of Logic, if a concept — supernatural or not —
breaks any of the laws of Logic, it cannot possibly exist in the realm
of reality. To argue that anything could exist that breaks the laws of
Logic is to leave the question of “Does a god exist?” and to argue
epistemology, or how we can know knowledge. The only way that an
omnipotent god could exist is by someone legitimately arguing against
the laws of Logic as a proper and accurate form of epistemology.
Now that the foundation for the prospects of the possibility
impossibility of a god have been laid down, just how possible is it for
a god to exist? Considering that the concept of a god or a form of
supernaturality follow all the laws of Logic required, it is possible
that this god could exist. How probable exactly is the possibility of a
god existing?
God, considering he follows the three laws of Logic, could exist. He
could exist just as much as a planet in space that reads “GOD.” This is
possible, as planets are cut and formed by asteroids and meteors in
space that creates line on the surface of the planet. The lines much of
the time may be nonsensical and will just appear to be lines. However,
possibly the lines may be formed randomly and create a letter or a word.
It is possible, however unlikely; it is to be noted that it is possible.
It is simply possible that these things could exist. That is the guiding
rule. Possible, yet unlikely. It is certainly possible that there may be
advanced extraterrestrial races outside of our galaxy that could appear
as gods, if we defined “god” as an immensely powerful being, but in no
way would they be supernatural, or beyond nature. There is certainly no
proof of a god as of yet, if the traditional religious description of a
god is how we define god, so it would be reasonable not to believe in
this god until proof is brought. Surely, we would not believe anything
until there was a reason to believe in it. In regards to the
supernatural, I see no reason at all to believe in it, and all the
evidences brought forward for supernaturality are invalid. Yet, even
though we do not hold belief in the existence of a logically consistent
god, it does not mean that it is impossible for this god not to exist
(as long is the concept of this god follows all the laws of Logic as
they stand).
Similarly, in regards to immortality, there is no reason to assume that
we will live forever. When we drop a book and it falls to the ground, do
we — our ought we — assume that it slips into and out of another
dimension? Certainly not, although it is simply possible for it to do so
without notice. Furthermore, when someone dies and falls to the ground,
should we assume that this person has left the physical world and has
entered eternal heaven or eternal damnation? It would not be reasonable
to assume as such. It is possible that a book could slip into and out of
another dimension when dropped, just as an animal’s “soul” could slip
into heaven or hell at the moment of its death. However, it is unlikely
and certainly unproven. There is also the dilemma that neuro-science has
identified consciousness being processed by the brain. When an animal
dies, its bodily functions of consciousness, respiration, digestion, and
other functions of the body will cease. The consciousness, the true part
of who we as animals are, ends. Until a religion can explain how the
consciousness is truly dead at the death of the body and how there may
be an afterlife, I can be rest assured that there is no such thing as an
afterlife. I believe in life before death and life after birth, and
nothing else.
It is certainly important to note on the only existence of god. God
exists, yes, but only as an idea. Some may argue that by talking about a
god, I therefore confirm the existence of a god. However, this is not
so. I could talk and discuss the concepts of Santa Claus perfectly well
without confirming his existence. This argument stems from the
philosophy of Ontology, or the belief that to define something is to
prove something. This, however, is certainly not so, and well
demonstrated by the Santa Claus example. However, it is good to note
that god exists and no more than an idea. He exists just as Communism,
Nationalism, and Democracy exist, as they are simply ideas.
In regards to the possibility of the existence of a god, it is based
primarily on the definition that we apply to this god. The definition of
this god must not be inconsistent with the laws of Logic or reality. A
benevolent god, for example, would not allow evil to exist and therefore
cannot possibly exist. The definition of a god must not break any of the
laws of Logic discussed. The Law of Identity, the Law of Excluded
Middle, and the Law of Contradiction make up the laws of Logic. Some
redefine god to entirely unconventional standards, such as Pantheism
which claims that god is everything and such as the religion of liberal
theologians, which is based on god being a loving being. Some even take
it even further to claim that god is simply love, and to believe in the
mental emotion of love is to believe in god. The possibility of the
existence of a god is based primarily on the definition that we apply to
this god. The definition of omnipotence creates contradiction, and
therefore no being can be omnipotent. To argue that a god — or that any
being, supernatural or natural — can be in contradiction of terms is to
argue a point of Epistemology. The guiding rule to the possibility of
god is clear — it is certainly possible for a sort of traditional god to
exist, but it is possible for anything obscure exist, as long as it
coincides with the laws of Logic. There could be a planet that reads
“GOD” on its surface just like there could be a god. However, through
this work I have analyzed and criticized all of the evidences for this
god, rendering the concept of supernaturality as undeserving of belief,
although in this chapter concluding that this god may possibly exist.
Immortality through consciousness is flawed, as consciousness is
produced through the brain and when the brain is dead, there is no
consciousness. Unless science is flawed in this area of consciousness
and how it is produced, then we see no reason to believe that there is a
life after death. There is life after birth and life before death;
nothing else. Finally, god does exist as an idea, but no more than the
idea of Socialism, Hinduism, or Monarchy. They are all ideas, similar to
the idea of god, and they are no more proven, tangible objects than god
or supernaturality is.
Through this work I have first debunked the concept of Faith to the best
of my ability, making way for the concept of Reason. Then I
systematically examined the most commonly purported evidences of god and
supernaturality: origins, religious experiences, miracles, and benefit
from belief. Then in the previous chapter I examined the possibility of
the existence of a god or any form of supernaturality. Now, in the last
chapter, I shall write a work synopsis of the previous chapters.
In chapter 1, I made an introduction to the concept of Atheism. Atheism
was defined as the nonbelief, not exactly the confirmation of the
nonexistence, but the nonbelief of a god. I am more than an Atheist,
however; I am also a Materialist, as I believe that in no supernatural
being. Therefore, I lack belief in gods, heaven, hell, ghosts, or other
forms of supernaturality. It was also necessary in this chapter to
identify that the burden of proof for the existence of a god or a
supernatural being lies with the person who claims the existence of this
supernatural being. The evidence given by the religionist was what I
criticized in the following chapters. Also in chapter 1, I discussed the
various philosophies and titles that are associated with Atheism and
nonbelief of supernaturality. A Secularist is one who believes that the
church and the state ought to be separated; a Skeptic is one who
believes in Skepticism, the belief that no knowledge can be absolute; a
Secular Humanist is a fanciful title for Atheist and is synonymous with
Humanist, a person who believes their species is supreme, much like a
White Supremacist believes their race is supreme; a Rationalist is
someone who approaches the question of supernaturality with rational
principles in mind, often coming to the conclusion of Atheism or
Agnosticism; a Realist is one who seeks out the truth of reality; a
Naturalist is one who believes that the natural laws of science are all
that are necessary for explaining the phenomena that happens in the
Universe, as well as the origins of the Universe; a Materialist is
someone who believes in the materialistic Universe and nothing else; and
an Epicurean is one who believes in the philosophy of Epicurus, which
was based on living a simple life to attain happiness, without fear of a
god or afterlife. I am an Atheist, a Secularist, a Rationalist, a
Naturalist, and a Materialist. To me, there is no meaningful difference
between an Atheist, an Agnostic, and a Freethinker. Many will proclaim
that the difference between an Atheist and an Agnostic is how possible
they believe god is. An Atheist will think god is less possible whereas
an Agnostic will think that a god is more possible. However, in the
previous chapter I dealt with the possibility of the existence of a god,
so where I stand should be clear. Whether I deserve the title of Atheist
or Agnostic, I cannot say, as I can clearly see no meaningful difference
between the two.
In chapter 2, I examined the nature of Faith. Faith is the foundation
for most of the religious belief by the masses. Faith, in the sense that
I used it, was not simple devotion to a god as many presume it to be,
but believing something without proof. I rigorously attacked this
principle of Faith. First, I compared god to Santa Claus, two beings
which are accepted on Faith. The similarities go on: they both live far
away, both are indemonstrable, both were learned through the community
and authority figures, both have magical or supernatural powers, and
both reward with heaven or presents and punish with hell or no presents.
The first difference that is claimed to separate Santa Claus and god is
that god reveals himself personally to persons who believe in him
whereas Santa Claus does not, but this argument is tipped over on
account that many people believe in different types of gods who are in
no way the same god. One may argue that the difference between Santa
Claus and god is that Santa Claus is magical whereas god is simply
supernatural, but both words cannot be meaningfully separated, as both
god and Santa Claus do things through unnatural methods which could be
called magical or supernatural. Santa Claus must make 822 visits per
second on Christmas Eve whereas the gods and ghosts of different
religions are responsible for the creation and sometimes the maintenance
of the Universe. Clearly, both beings are supernatural or magical;
choose whichever word you wish as there is no meaningful separation. One
final means for separation of Santa Claus and god is that Santa Claus
evolved from a myth whereas god did not. Although I did not delve into
the Sun religions that contributed to the development of the Western
religions, I simply noted that it did not matter if Santa Claus came
from a myth or not and that it only mattered that he was equaled in
justification for belief as is god, not where the myth of Santa Claus
developed from. To this point, I had not proven that Faith was incorrect
in attaining knowledge; I had only compared Faith in Santa Claus to
Faith in a god or ghost. However, I debunked the concept of Faith by
showing that just as a scientist needs evidence for claims and a jury
needs evidence to convict, reason is a necessity to truth and should not
be expelled from examining the concept of a god or any other
supernatural dogma; for a religion, or anything else, to be true, it
must have evidence and it must be logical and reasonable. All of the
major scientists, as well, such as Charles Darwin, Charles, Babbage,
Albert Einstein, Thomas Henry Huxley, Luther Burbank, Carl Sagan, Isaac
Asimov, and others, were nonbelievers of conventional religion. I also
pointed out how scientific and historical beliefs are different from
religious beliefs in that scientific and historical beliefs are dropped
when the evidence is pulled, yet religious beliefs are still tenaciously
held in spite of lacking evidence. There are, however, two primary
arguments for Faith. The first is simply to attack Reason and knowledge,
by claiming that since certain things may not be empirically
demonstrable, such as the existence of microscopic bacteria, that we
believe in them by Faith. This is incorrect, however, as these things
that are not empirically demonstrable can be demonstrated by someone or
by anyone, and even if not empirically demonstrated, it does not mean
something is absolutely correct. The second argument is based on stating
that we accept authorities on Faith and that we should accept a
theologian’s authority on Faith. However, this is also flawed as an
Atheist can have a thorough knowledge of theology and still qualify as
an authority on theology without believing in it. Through this entire
chapter, I attempted to debunk the concept of Faith to make way for the
rest of the work which would examine the various evidences for a form of
supernaturality.
In chapter 3, I examined the claim that our origins are from some sort
of divine being and that a god created or designed the Universe. First,
I examined the concept of placing supernatural explanations for natural
phenomena. The Muslims explain lightning by stating Allah is trying to
kill whom he wishes, the Christians and Jews explain the origin of woman
by claiming that woman came from the rib bone of man, the Hindus and
Buddhists explain the origin of fire by claiming that the god Agni
creates it, and the Roman Religionists explain the origin of the metals
in the Earth by stating that the god Pluto places them there. These
supernatural explanations for natural phenomenon are based on ignorance
and nothing else; these things claimed by religion to explain the origin
and workings of the natural Universe are false. Then I argued that god
simply cannot explain the origin of the world, as who created this god?
If everything that exists needs an explanation, and god exists, then
what can explain the origin of a god? The concept of a god ends up
creating a larger hole than it was trying to fill by leaving more to be
explained than it explained. There are those who claim that god always
existed, but then that needlessly assumes the existence of god when we
could ascribe the same explanation to the origin of the Universe: it
always existed. Many claim that god created himself, but this falls into
error, as no one may create themselves. Before anyone can do anything,
they must exist, and if you do not exist you cannot create, and then you
certainly cannot create yourself. For example, if you wanted to get to
your car, you couldn’t drive your car there. There are those who claim
that this god can break the laws of logic, but they fall into error by
the fact that simply because the man who invented the guillotine
invented the guillotine, it does not mean he can survive it, and the
majority of people who understand the workings of logic and the Universe
do not hold belief in Theism. Finally, some claim that god is
supernatural and the Universe is natural, and that is the difference —
and that is why god needs no creator -, but this argument assumes the
existence of the very thing it is trying to prove! The argument of
design falls to the same errors: if everything that has design requires
a designer, then who designed god? Also, the design of life on Earth is
explained by Darwin’s theory of Natural Selection. The Analogical
Argument of Design claims that since the Universe could have taken one
of billions of forms, that it requires a design, but then every rain
drop should then require a designer, as it could have fallen in one of
billions of locations. The First Cause Argument claims that everything
requires a cause, just like a row of dominoes and then claims that god
was the First Cause of everything, but this falls victim to
contradiction: if everything requires a cause, then god himself must
have had a cause as well. In section V I explained the scientific proofs
and evidences for the origins of ourselves as we appear today. Matter
has always existed, as concluded from the First Law of Thermodynamics;
it stated that matter cannot be created or destroyed. The Big Bang
theory states how matter spread across the universe, not how it came
into being. In regards to the origin of organic material, Stanley L.
Miller and Harold C. Urey, in 1952, conducted an experiment that
reproduced the early conditions of Earth and after inserting heat into
the experiment, they had organic matter in a week. Sidney Walter Fox
furthered the findings of Miller and Urey by heating up the organic
matter intensely, thus producing matter that acted much like bacteria:
eating, moving, and reproducing. Charles Darwin introduced the concept
of Natural Selection. Through the existence of vestigial organs — or
rudimentary organs — Darwin was able to prove the existence and process
of Natural Selection in the natural world. Through this chapter I
attacked the long-held concept that this Universe was created and worked
by supernatural beings, this old dogma that once was selectively held by
primitive beings and not rational beings.
In chapter 4, I examined claims of religious experience. The argument
from religious experience is plagued with the fact that there are many
different religions experiences due to various regions and religions:
North American or European Christians experience being Born Again,
southern Asian Buddhists experience Nirvana, Asian Hindus experience
Enlightenment, Asian Zen Buddhists experience Satori, eastern Asian
Taoists experience Wu Wei, and global Yogis experience Nirvakalpa
Samadhi. However, if someone is born in China, they are likely to
experience no religious experience because China is officially an
Atheist nation. These are all religious experiences for different gods
and different religions. The fact that some religionists are happy and
they purport that god is responsible for the happiness proves nothing;
Atheists world wide are happy and whole without a god. The Near-Death
Experience (NDE) or Out-of-Body Experience (OBE) can be reproduced with
Ketamine as shown in a study by Dr. Karl Jansen. Also in The Washington
Post, an article titled “Tracing the Synapses of Our Spirituality”
discussed the recent advances in neurology. It traced work by many
scientists who were capable of creating an NDE or OBE through magnetized
helmets, hallucinogenic drugs, epilepsy, and meditation. One may argue
that this is proof that a god designed us because it is a religious
experience within us, but this is flawed because it only proves that we
get religious experiences through chemicals and hormones. One may argue
that a conscience is felt just as much as a religious experience, but
the conscience is proof of itself, whereas someone experiencing a
religious experience goes further to claim that because it exists, so
does a god; it purports more than one who feels their conscience. One
may also claim that they spoke with a god in a dream, but they cannot
know if they spoke with god in a dream or that they dreampt that they
spoke with a god.
In chapter 5, I examined the claims of miracles, prophecy, and
revelation. In chapter 3, I examined the proclaimed divine origins,
finding them based on arrogance. A Christian or Jew may believe that
woman came from the rib bone of man, but this is based on ignorance of
how life evolved. Similarly, when someone proclaims a miracle that has
happened in reality and nature, it is based on ignorance of the natural
workings of reality and nature. Praying for a miracle is flawed, as
things happen naturally. To pray for the Sun come up — and the Sun comes
up — does not prove that the Sun comes up because of prayer, but it came
up because of the natural workings of the Universe. To pray for the Sun
not to come up — and the Sun comes up anyway — proves that prayers are
not fulfilled. If a prayer appears to be have been fulfilled, it is
based on the natural workings of the Universe. To say that something odd
that appears to be a miracle is caused, it is no proof of a god, just as
someone could say that rain is caused by invisible, pink unicorns, but
it does not prove their existence. Certainly not! One may argue that god
physically causes miracles, but god is not a natural or measurable
being; he is a supernatural being, and therefore cannot be held
responsible in any way in the physical, natural Universe. One may argue
that god does not answer all prayers, but this may be so, but then this
god is not benevolent and attempts to prove the existence of a god that
doesn’t make miracles through miracles is absurd. A prophecy proves
nothing. To say that a war will happen within a century — wars being
something common in Western civilization — does not prove that it was a
prophecy, any more than to say that in a month it will rain. The
difference between a prophet and a meteorologist is that the
meteorologist is at least more accurate. Miracles cannot be interpreted
properly, as well. If someone may say that a miraculous event is proof
of god simply because it happened, what of another person saying that a
river flowing is proof of an invisible, pink unicorn? A river flowing is
a naturally explainable event, just as any purported miracle is.
However, it is based on ignorance that people accept particular events
as miracles. It is the ignorance of the natural laws of science.
Finally, the concept of a god certainly does not solve the unexplained
events that happen on earth by making up miracles; after all, what can
explain the existence of a god, except that this god was too a miracle?
If that is so, then we run into the same problems as we did when we say
that god created the Universe: who created god? Who miracled into
existence god? The concept of miracles certainly cannot prove the
existence of a god or any form of supernaturality.
In chapter 6, I examined claims that it was simply better to believe in
the existence of god rather than not believe in the existence of god.
First, I thoroughly examined the history of the doctrine of hell.
Charles H. Spurgeon, Father Furniss, Father Arnall, and Jack T. Chick
are preachers and writers who have recreated the concepts of hell in
their own words to instill fear in their fellow men. The Bible, the
Qur’an, the Roman religion myths, the Buddhist writings, and the other
various religious authorities usually believe in a hell of a sort, as
demonstrated in their scripture. Fighters for Freethought have always
fought the intolerable doctrine of eternal punishment. Thomas Paine,
Epictetus, Democritus, Diogenes of Oenoanda, Lucretius, David Hume, and
Henry Louis Mencken were some of the nonbelievers who have mocked the
doctrine of hell. It was the sole purpose, however, of Ingersoll and
Epicurus to remove the doctrine of eternal punishment from the minds of
men. Some argue that god sends bad souls to hell just like a good police
officer sends criminals to jail, but the sole purpose of a jail is to
protect the public, whereas the sole purpose of hell is to torture
beings. Some claim that man sends himself to hell, which is just
ludicrous, considering that god is responsible for creating man and
therefore is entirely responsible for all the actions of man. Some
claimed that hell exists but god is cruel and others claim that hell
doesn’t exist while a benevolent god does — these views are acceptable
as they are logically consistent. Furthermore, we are told that it is to
secure mental happiness if one believes in a religion, but I find this
highly doubtful. Although I did conclude that immortality may be the
only joyful concept of religion, the rest appeared to be sadistic and
unkind. In regards to immortality, I stated that I understood I would
die one day and cease to be conscious, and I also stated that I was not
afraid of this nor depressed by it. Religion limits sex in many cases in
all religions. Also, all religions seem to limit food intake and
pleasure in general. Ingersoll noted many, many times on how religions
always end up being vindictive methods of self-abuse. John Calvin was a
theologian and a mayor of Geneva, a Swiss town. In the town, he banned
drunkenness, songs, dances, and games, as well as my most favored form
of entertainment: blasphemy. Self esteem is the next thing religion
attacks, by claiming that you should not be proud, that you should be
humble, and that you are a sinner. Religions also end up practicing
self-abuse physically: Buddhists train themselves to keep perfectly
still under the threat of being struck by a master and Christianity
preaches self-castration and to take abuse or turn the other cheek.
Also, in all religions universally, it is obviously apparent that
scripture backs up the doctrine that believers are rewarded and
non-believers are punished. All this concludes out to the fact that a
believer with a low self esteem will enjoy the slave-master relationship
provided by all the major religions. The next ploy of the benefit of
belief is Pascal’s Wager, which states it is better to believe simply
because of the chance of a god who rewards with heaven. However, this is
in error, as a god could exist that would reward Atheists with heaven,
as this is purely based on what could be and not what is. Also, Pascal’s
Wager seems not to consider the amount that is lost — the emotional
abuse of religion — and the life that is wasted by basing your life on
an unfounded lie. If your whole life is based on preparing for a lie,
then your whole life is wasted.
In chapter 7, I examined the possibility of the existence of god rather
than arguing against some sort of proof for the existence of god. If a
god exists, it is based purely on how we decide to define god. A god
could exist, as long as this god is defined in such a way that it does
not conflict with the three laws of Logic: the Law of Identity, the law
of Excluded Middle, and the Law of Contradiction. Some define god as
love, such as those who developed their concept of a god from the roots
of Tolstoi’s god of love (although Tolstoy did believe in an external
being rather than just love as god). It is imperative to take note as to
why god does not answer prayers or why the world is in a bad condition
if one chooses to define god as a benevolent being. Furthermore, a god
could exist, but it is simply possible, but not definitive. This is just
how it may be likely that god is impossible, however, it is good to note
that a god could exist, just like a planet could say “GOD” in its
surface, a god could exist. Finally, it is imperative to note that god
does exist, but purely as an idea.
Atheism and nonbelief of the gods is everywhere. It has been in the mind
of Giordano Bruno who was burned for his refusal to worship
Christianity. It was in the heart of Ingersoll as he fought to remove
the foul doctrine of eternal punishment from the minds of men. It has
existed in the character of Joseph McCabe who has written over 250 books
on Atheism. It has echoed in the caves of time, bouncing off the walls
indefinitely and held in the minds of the infinite Freethinkers; and it
shall continue to exist and to prosper as long as someone continues to
question what they are told of the indemonstrable. The winds of Atheism
carry with it the incomparable view of truth and the absolute bliss of
knowledge. Atheism may not confirm love or justice, unless it is the
love of the natural and the justice of truth. The lack of belief in gods
guarantees the most immortal truth: we are not immortal; this life is
our only life, all that we can make of it is the highest of our possible
accomplishments, and all that we may dream in this life is all that we
may dream at all. This knowledge of Atheism — a confirmation of truth
and value — is priceless.
[1] Merriam-Webster Dictionary. By Permission. From Merriam-Webster’s
Collegiate, Dictionary, 10^(th) Edition, 2001 by Merriam-Webster,
Incorporated.
[2] The Ethics, first line of proposition XV of Part I of, by Baruch
Spinoza.
[3] A Few Words on Pantheism, by Arthur Schopenhauer, 1851.
[4] Quoted in Encylopaedia of Religion and Ethics, 1908, edited by James
Hastings MA DD
[5] Agnosticism, by Thomas Henry Huxley, 1889.
[6] Agnosticism and Christianity, by Thomas Henry Huxley, 1889.
[7] The Bible And A Future Life, interview with Robert Green Ingersoll,
The Post, Washington, D.C., 1878.
[8] Agnostics, by Madalyn Murray O’Hair.
[9] The Rationalist’s Manual, by M. D. Aletheia (WATTS & CO., 17,
JOHNSON’S COURT, FLEET ST., 1897).
[10] Who’s Who In Hell, under “Humanism,” compiled by Warren Allen Smith
(Barricade Books, 2000).
[11] Animals’ Rights, by Henry S. Salt, Chapter 8, 1894.
[12] Who’s Who In Hell, under “Humanist Manifesto III? Humanist
Manifesto 2000?”, compiled by Warren Allen Smith (Barricade Books,
2000). Permission obtained from Warren Allen Smith to quote his book.
[13] The Age Of Reason, by Thomas Paine, Chapter 1, The Author’s
Profession of Faith.
[14] The Principal Doctrines of Epicurus, by Epicurus, second statement.
[15] The Principal Doctrines of Epicurus, by Epicurus, fourteenth
statement.
[16] Letter to Menoeceus, by Epicurus.
[17] “Am I An Atheist Or An Agnostic?: A Plea For Tolerance In The Face
Of New Dogmas”, by Bertrand Russel, 1947.
[18] Atheism, by Joseph Lewis, section “Ingersoll’s High Ideal.”
[19] What Great Men Think Of Religion, by Ira D. Cardiff, (Christopher
Publishing House, 1945; reprint New York: Arno Press, 1972).
[20] Encyclopeaia Britannica, Inc., Chicago, Ill., Britannica Book of
the Year.
[21] Encyclopeaia Britannica, Inc., Chicago, Ill., Britannica Book of
the Year.
[22] A Letter to Lord Ellenborough, by Percival Bysshe Shelley, 1812.
[23] Who’s Who In Hell, under “SANTA CLAUS,” compiled by Warren Allen
Smith (Barricade Books, 2000). Permission obtained from Warren Allen
Smith to quote his book. Also see The Physics of Christmas: From the
Aerodynamics of Reindeer to the Thermodynamics of Turkey by Roger
Highfield (November, 1999). Also see works by Tom W. Flynn, known as the
Anti-Santa Claus.
[24] The Age Of Reason, by Thomas Paine, Chapter 1, The Author’s
Profession of Faith.
[25] The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, by Edward Gibbon.
[26] The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, by Charles Darwin, Edited by
Nora Barlow, page 87, Section: “Religious Belief” (Norton & Company: New
York and London, 1959).
[27] The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, by Charles Darwin, Edited by
Nora Barlow, pages 93–94, Section: “Religious Belief” (Norton & Company:
New York and London, 1959).
[28] The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, by Charles Darwin, Edited by
Nora Barlow, page 108, Section: “Religious Belief” (Norton & Company:
New York and London, 1959).
[29] The Great Quotations, by George Seldes, ed., (New York: Lyle
Stuart, 1960).
[30] Ibidem
[31] What Great Men Think Of Religion, by Ira D. Cardiff (Christopher
Publishing House, 1945; reprint New York: Arno Press, 1972).
[32] Address to members of the First Congregational Church, San
Francisco, January 31, 1926.
[33] Einstein as quoted in a memoir by Life editor William Miller, Life,
May 2, 1955.
[34] The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, by Carl
Sagan, page 204 (New York: Random House, 1996).
[35]
I. Asimov: A Memoir, (New York: Doubleday, 1994), page 13.
[36] Views of Religion, by Rufus K. Noyes (Boston, L. K. Washburn,
1906).
[37] Conversation with Joseph Lewis on December 3, 1929, reported in
Joseph Lewis, Atheism and Other Addresses (reprint New York: Arno Press,
1972).
[38] Summa Theologiae, by Saint Thomas Aquinas, Chapter 8.
[39] The Age Of Reason, by Thomas Paine, Part II, Chapter II.
[40] The scripture I received these Vedic answers in is the Rig Veda,
translated by Michael Myers. However, I am sure that there are many who
will disagree with my interpretation of the Rig Veda. The error is that
the contradictions and the discrepancies of this religious book are
overflowing. It states clearly that Agni creates fire, but then it later
says that Indra creates the fire between two stones. It also states that
from the sacrifice of Purusa came air, but then later states that Purusa
created air from his nostrils. I interpreted it as best as I could.
[41] The System of Nature, by Baron D’Holbach, page 49.
[42] “Religion — A Dialogue,” reprinted in The Works of Schopenhauer,
edited by Will Durant (New York: Frederick Ungar Publishing, 1955), page
485.
[43] The Ghosts, by Robert Green Ingersoll, 1877
[44] Ibidem
[45] Reason: The Only Oracle Of Man, Chapter 1, Section 2, by Ethan
Allen, 1852.
[46] Percy Bysshe Shelley, Shelley’s Notes to Queen Mab.
[47] Scientific American, “Scientists and Religion in America,” by
Edward J Larson and Larry Witham, September 1999 edition, page 89.
[48] The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, by Charles Darwin, Edited by
Nora Barlow, page 87, Section: “Religious Belief” (Norton & Company: New
York and London, 1959).
[49] Argument from: Atheism: The Case Against God, chapter 10, section
III, page 271, by George H. Smith (Prometheus Books, New York: 1989).
[50] Summa Theologica, by Saint Thomas Aquinas, First Part, Q. 2, A. 3.
[51] The Big Bang: It sure was BIG!!, by Chris LaRocco and Blair
Rothstein. Original Resources: Galaxies and Quasars, by William Kaufmann
J. III. San Fransisco: W.H. Freeman and Company, 1979. A Short History
of the Universe, by Joseph Silk. New York: Scientific American Library,
1994. When the Clock Struck Zero, by John Taylor. New York: St. Martins
Press, 1993. The Birth of the Universe: The Big Bang and After, by Xuan
Thuan Trinh. New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 1993. Also, NASA online.
[52] The History of Science, 17. (“Biology and the Origin of Life”),
section: “Chemical Evolution,” by Professor Fred L. Wilson at the
Rochester Institute of Technology.
[53] The History of Science, 17. (“Biology and the Origin of Life”),
section: “The First Cells,” by Professor Fred L. Wilson at the Rochester
Institute of Technology.
[54] The Origin of the Species through Natural Selection, chapter 4,
first paragraph, by Charles Robert Darwin.
[55] The Origin of the Species through Natural Selection, chapter 14,
section: “Rudimentary, Atrophied, and Aborted Organs”, first paragraph,
by Charles Robert Darwin.
[56] Ibidem
[57] The Origin of the Species through Natural Selection, chapter 14,
section: “Rudimentary, Atrophied, and Aborted Organs”, second paragraph,
by Charles Robert Darwin.
[58] The Light of Day, by John Burroughs, 1900.
[59] Ibidem
[60] The Brooklyn Divines, by Robert Green Ingersoll, 1883.
[61] The Gods, by Robert Green Ingersoll, 1872.
[62] Percy Bysshe Shelley, Shelley’s Notes to Queen Mab.
[63] The Dispatch, Pittsburgh, article: “Miracles and Immortality;” an
interview with Robert Green Ingersoll, Pa. December 11, 1880.
[64] Reason: The Only Oracle of Man, chapter VI, section III, by Ethan
Allen, 1854.
[65] The Bible, both the Old and New Testament fully permit the usage of
slavery. In the Old Testament, Exodus 21:20–21 “If a man beats his male
or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he
must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up
after a day or two, since the slave is his property.” In the New
Testament, Ephesians 6:5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect
and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.
[66] Leviathan, by Thomas Hobbes, the First Part (“Of Man”), chapter 2
(“Of Imagination”), 1651.
[67] Jansen, K. L. R. (1996) Using ketamine to induce the near -death
experience: mechanism of action and therapeutic potential. Yearbook for
Ethnomedicine and the Study of Consciousness (Jahrbuch furr Ethnomedizin
und Bewubtseinsforschung) Issue 4, 1995 (Ed.s C. Ratsch; J. R. Baker);
VWB, Berlin, pp55-81. Karl Jansen has a book out available at maps.org
or:
. It’s entitled Ketamine: Dreams and Realities. Permission obtained to
quote Jansen’s research.
[68] “Tracing the Synapses of Our Spirituality,” by Shankar Vedantam, in
The Washington Post, Sunday, June 17, 2001.
[69] The Ghosts, by Robert Green Ingersoll, 1877.
[70] The Great Quotations, by George Seldes, ed. (New York: Lyle Stuart,
1960).
[71] Charles H. Spurgeon quoted in The Esoteric Tradition by G. de
Purucker, chapter 17 (“Heavens and Hells”), in the footnote.
[72] Charles H. Spurgeon quoted in The Esoteric Tradition by G. de
Purucker, chapter seventeen (“Heavens and Hells”), in the footnote.
[73] Charles H. Spurgeon quoted in The Esoteric Tradition by G. de
Purucker, chapter seventeen (“Heavens and Hells”), in the footnote. Also
as quoted in Atheism: The Case Against God, by George H. Smith, 1979
Prometheus Books, chapter 12, section I, page 300. Original Resource:
The Sight of Hell, by Reverend J. Furniss.
[74] As quoted in Atheism: The Case Against God, by George H. Smith,
1979 Prometheus Books, chapter 12, section I, pages 299–300. Original
Resource: The Sight of Hell, by Reverend J. Furniss.
[75] The Sight of Hell, by Reverend J. Furniss.
[76] A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, by James Joyce, Chapter 3.
[77] Ibidem
[78] No Fear?, by Jack T. Chick, page 14.
[79] Who’s Who In Hell, pages 497–498, compiled by Warren Allen Smith
(Barricade Books, 2000). Permission obtained from Warren Allen Smith to
quote his book.
[80] Views of Religion, by Rufus K. Noyes (Boston, L. K. Washburn,
1906).
[81] The Best of Humanism, by Rev. Roger E. Greeley, ed. (Amherst, N.Y.:
Prometheus Books, 1988).
[82] Principal Doctrines, by Epicurus, statement #2, translated in
Contemporary Renderings by Ken Mylott, Epicurean guru.
[83] Principal Doctrines, by Epicurus, statement #10, translated in
Contemporary Renderings by Ken Mylott, Epicurean guru.
[84] Principal Doctrines, by Epicurus, statement #20, translated in
Contemporary Renderings by Ken Mylott, Epicurean guru.
[85] Ethical Maxims by Democritus and Diogenes, statement #30 of
Democritus, translated in Contemporary Renderings by Ken Mylott,
Epicurean guru.
[86] Ethical Maxims by Democritus and Diogenes, statement #3 of
Diogenes, translated in Contemporary Renderings by Ken Mylott, Epicurean
guru.
[87] The Best of Humanism, by Rev. Roger E. Greeley, ed. (Amherst, N.Y.:
Prometheus Books, 1988).
[88] De Rerum Natura, by Lucretius, book III, section “The Soul Is
Mortal,” first paragraph.
[89] Views of Religion, by Rufus K. Noyes (Boston, L. K. Washburn,
1906).
[90] Heretics and Heresies, by Robert Green Ingersoll.
[91] Origin of God and the Devil, by Robert Green Ingersoll.
[92] Ibidem
[93] Crumbling Creeds, by Robert Green Ingersoll.
[94] The Note Book, by Elbert Hubbard, 1927.
[95] New York Times Magazine, September 11, 1955.
[96] Thus raises the question: what of a vivisectionist, or practitioner
of vivisection? Vivisection is an experiment on an animal, causing
distress and suffering. Does a man learn anything — except how to be
inhumane — by being inhumane to animals? Does society become anything
less than revoltingly brutal when it consents to gross inhumanities? Do
politicians and leaders become anything that is noble and virtuous by
completely disregarding the interests of lower animals, when lower
animals can feel as much suffering as any human?
[97] Who’s Who In Hell, page 70, compiled by Warren Allen Smith
(Barricade Books, 2000). Permission obtained from Warren Allen Smith to
quote his book. The phrase can also be heard in the KMFDM song, “Stray
Bullet” (3^(rd) minute, 12^(th) second) which appeared on the CD
“Symbols.” Original Resource: God and State, by Mikhail Bakunin.
[98] Principal Doctrines, by Epicurus, statement #19, translated in
Contemporary Renderings by Ken Mylott, Epicurean guru.
[99] Why I Am An Agnostic And Other Essays, by Clarence Seward Darrow,
page 24.
[100] The Great Quotations, by George Seldes, ed., (New York: Lyle
Stuart, 1960).
[101] Who’s Who In Hell, page 566, compiled by Warren Allen Smith
(Barricade Books, 2000). I have also found the phrase by Susan Ertz to
be very popular and repeated often without reference. Permission
obtained from Warren Allen Smith to quote his book.
[102] Interview in the New York Times, October 2, 1910, section 5, page
1.
[103] Quoted by Julian Hukley in Religion without Revelation (New York:
Mentor Books, 1958), page 12.
[104] Criticism of Robert Elsmere, by Robert Green Ingersoll.
[105] God In The Constitution, by Robert Green Ingersoll, 1890.
[106] Ordinances For The Regulation of the Churches Dependent Upon the
Seigniory of Geneva (1547), by John Calvin, in Translations and Reprints
from the Original Sources of European History George L. Burns, ed., 6
vols., (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania History Department,
1898–1912) vol. 1, no., pp. 2–5.
[107] Heretics And Heresies, by Robert Green Ingersoll, 1874.
[108] ...
Matthew (15): 1:21, 3:6, 9:2, 9:5, 9:6, 9:10, 9:11, 9:13, 11:19, 12:31
,18:15, 18:21, 26:28, 26:45, 27:4.
Mark (13): 1:4, 1:5, 2:5, 2:7, 2:9, 2:10, 2:15, 2:16 (twice), 2:17,
3:28, 3:29, 8:38, 14:41.
Luke (33): 1:77, 3:3, 5:8, 5:20, 5:21, 5:23, 5:24, 5:30, 5:32, 6:32,
6:33, 6:34 (twice), 7:34, 7:37, 7:39, 7:47, 7:48, 7:49, 11:4, 13:2,
15:1, 15:2, 15:7, 15:10, 15:18, 15:21, 17:3, 17:4, 18:13, 19:7, 24:7,
24:47.
John (28): 1:29, 5:14, 8:7, 8:11, 8:21, 8:24 (twice), 8:34 (twice),
8:46, 9:2, 9:3, 9:16, 9:24, 9:25, 9:31, 9:34, 9:41 (twice), 15:22
(twice), 15:24, 16:8, 16:9, 19:11, 20:23 (thrice).
Acts (8): 2:38, 3:9, 5:31, 7:60, 10:43, 13:38, 22:16, 26:18.
Romans (59): 2:12 (twice), 3:7, 3:9, 3:20, 3:23, 3:25, 4:7, 4:8, 5:8,
5:12 (twice), 5:13 (twice), 5:14, 5:16, 5:19, 5:20, 5:21, 6:1, 6:2, 6:6
(twice), 6:7, 6:10, 6:11, 6:12, 6:13, 6:14, 6:15, 6:16, 6:17, 6:18,
6:20, 6:22, 6:23, 7:5, 7:7 (twice), 7:8 (twice), 7:9, 7:11, 7:13 (4x),
7:14, 7:16, 7:17, 7:20, 7:23, 7:25, 8:2, 8:3 (thrice), 8:10, 11:27,
14:23.
1 Corinthians (12): 6:18 (twice), 7:28 (twice), 7:36, 8:12 (twice),
15:3, 15:17, 15:34, 15:56 (twice).
2 Corinthians (6): 5:21 (twice), 11:7, 11:29, 12:21, 13:2.
Galatians (5): 1:4, 2:15, 2:17 (twice), 3:22.
Ephesians (2): 2:1, 4:26.
Colossians (1): 1:14.
1 Thessalonian (1): 2:16.
1 Timothy (8): 1:9, 1:15, 5:20 (twice), 5:22 (twice), 5:24 (twice).
2 Timothy (1): 3:6.
Titus (1): 3:11.
Hebrews (31): 1:3, 2:17, 3:13, 3:17, 4:15, 5:1, 5:3, 7:26, 7:27 (twice),
8:12, 9:7, 9:26, 9:28 (twice), 10:2, 10:3, 10:4, 10:6, 10:8, 10:11,
10:12, 10:17, 10:18, 10:26 (twice), 11:25, 12:1, 12:3, 12:4, 13:11.
James (9): 1:15 (twice), 2:9, 4:8, 4:17, 5:15, 5:16, 5:20 (twice).
1 Peter (8): 2:20, 2:22, 2:24 (twice), 3:18, 4:1, 4:8, 4:18.
2 Peter (3): 1:9, 2:4, 2:14.
1 John (27): 1:7, 1:8, 1:9 (twice), 1:10, 2:1 (twice), 2:2, 2:12, 3:4
(twice), 3:5 (twice), 3:6 (twice), 3:8 (twice), 3:9 (twice), 4:10, 5:16
(thrice), 5:17 (twice), 5:18. Jude (1): 1:15.
The Revelation (3): 1:5, 18:4, 18:5.
Matthew (15) + Mark (13) + Luke (33) + John (28) + Acts (8) + Romans
(59) + 1 Corinthians (12) + 2 Corinthians (6) + Galatians (5) +
Ephesians (2) + Colossians (1) + 1 Thessalonian (1) + 1 Timothy (8) + 2
Timothy (1) + Titus (1) + Hebrews (31) + James (9) + 1 Peter (8) + 2
Peter (3) + 1 John (27) + Jude (1) + The Revelation (3) = 275
15 + 13 + 33 + 28 + 8 + 59 + 12 + 6 + 5 + 2 + 1 + 1 + 8 + 1 + 1 + 31 +
9 + 8 + 3 + 27 + 1 + 3 = 275
[109] ...
Genesis (10): 4:7, 13:13, 15:16, 18:20, 20:6, 31:36, 39:9, 42:22, 50:17
(twice).
Exodus (22): 9:27, 9:34, 10:16, 10:17, 16:1, 17:1, 20:5, 20:20, 23:33,
29:14, 29:36, 30:10, 32:21, 32:30 (twice), 32:31, 32:32, 32:33, 32:34,
34:7 (twice), 34:9.
Leviticus (100): 4:2, 4:3 (thrice), 4:8, 4:13, 4:14 (twice), 4:20, 4:21,
4:22, 4:23, 4:24, 4:25, 4:26, 4:27, 4:28 (twice), 4:29, 4:31, 4:32,
4:33, 4:34, 4:35, 5:1, 5:6 (thrice), 5:7 (twice), 5:8, 5:9 (twice),
5:10, 5:11 (thrice), 5:12, 5:13, 5:15, 5:17, 6:2, 6:3, 6:4, 6:17, 6:25,
6:30, 7:7, 7:37, 8:2, 8:14, 9:2, 9:3, 9:7, 9:8, 9:10, 9:15 (twice),
9:22, 10:16, 10:17, 10:19 (twice), 12:6, 12:8, 14:13 (twice), 14:19,
14:22, 14:31, 15:15, 15:30, 16:3, 16:5, 16:6, 16:9, 16:11 (twice),
16:15, 16:16, 16:21, 16:22, 16:25, 16:27, 16:30, 16:34, 18:25, 19:22
(twice), 23:19, 26:18, 26:21, 26:24, 26:28, 26:39 (twice), 26:40
(twice), 26:41, 26:43.
Numbers (60): 5:7, 5:31, 6:11 (twice), 6:14, 6:16, 7:16, 7:22, 7:28,
7:34, 7:40, 7:46, 7:52, 7:58, 7:64, 7:70, 7:76, 7:82, 7:87, 8:8, 8:12,
9:13, 12:11, 14:18 (twice), 14:19, 14:34, 14:40, 15:24, 15:25, 15:27
(twice), 15:28, 15:29, 15:30, 16:22, 16:26, 16:38, 18:9, 18:22, 19:9,
21:7, 22:34, 27:3, 28:15, 28:22, 29:5, 29:11 (twice), 29:16, 29:19,
29:22, 29:25, 29:28, 29:31, 29:34, 29:38, 32:14, 32:23 (twice).
Deuteronomy (13): 1:41, 5:9, 9:16, 9:18, 9:21, 9:27, 15:9, 20:18, 22:26,
23:21, 24:4, 24:15, 24:16.
Joshua (6): 7:11, 7:20, 22:17 (twice), 22:20, 24:19.
Judges (2) 10:10, 10:15.
1 Samuel (16): 2:17, 2:25 (twice), 3:13, 7:6, 12:10, 12:19, 12:23,
14:33, 14:34, 14:38, 15:23, 15:24, 15:25, 15:30, 26:21.
2 Samuel (6): 12:13 (twice), 19:20, 22:24, 24:10, 24:17.
1 Kings (28): 8:33, 8:34, 8:35 (twice), 8:36, 8:46 (twice), 8:47, 8:50,
12:30, 13:34, 14:16, 14:22, 15:3, 15:26, 15:30, 15:34, 16:2 (twice),
16:13, 16:19 (twice), 16:25, 16:26, 16:31, 17:18, 21:22, 22:52.
2 Kings (23): 3:3, 10:19, 10:29, 10:31, 12:16, 13:2, 13:6, 13:11, 14:6,
14:24, 15:9, 15:18, 15:24, 15:28, 17:7, 17:21, 17:22, 21:11 (twice),
21:16, 21:17, 23:15, 24:3.
1 Chronicles (2): 21:8, 21:17.
2 Chronicles (20): 6:24, 6:25, 6:26 (twice), 6:27, 6:36 (twice), 6:37,
6:39, 7:14, 19:10 (twice), 25:4, 28:10, 28:13, 29:21, 29:23, 29:24
(twice), 33:19.
Ezra (6): 6:17, 8:35, 9:6, 9:7, 9:13, 10:13.
Nehemiah (9): 1:6, 4:5, 6:13, 9:2, 9:29, 9:37, 10:33, 13:26 (twice).
Job (30): 1:5, 1:22, 2:10, 7:20, 7:21, 8:4 (twice), 10:6, 10:14, 11:6,
11:14, 13:23 (twice), 13:26, 14:16, 14:17, 15:5, 22:5, 24:19, 31:11,
31:28, 31:30, 31:33, 33:9, 33:27, 34:37, 35:3, 35:6 (twice), 36:9.
Psalms (58): 1:1, 1:5, 4:4, 5:10, 17:3, 18:23, 19:13, 25:7, 25:8, 25:18,
26:9, 32:1, 32:2, 32:5 (twice), 36:1, 36:2, 36:4, 37:38, 38:3, 38:5,
38:18, 39:1, 39:11, 40:6, 40:12, 41:4, 51:2, 51:3, 51:4, 51:5 (twice),
51:9, 51:13, 59:3, 59:12, 65:3, 66:18, 68:21, 78:17, 78:32, 79:8, 79:9,
85:2, 89:32, 90:8, 94:23, 103:3, 103:10, 104:35, 106:6, 106:43, 109:14,
109:15, 119:11, 119:113, 130:3, 130:8.
Proverbs (22): 1:10, 1:16, 5:22, 10:19, 11:31, 12:13, 13:6, 13:21,
13:22, 14:9, 14:21, 14:34, 16:6, 17:19, 20:9, 21:4, 23:17, 24:9, 28:13,
29:6, 29:16, 29:22.
Ecclesiastes (6): 2:26, 5:6, 7:20, 7:26, 9:2, 9:18.
Isaiah (40): 1:4, 1:18, 1:28, 3:9, 5:18, 6:7, 13:9, 13:11, 14:21, 22:14,
26:21, 27:9, 30:1 (twice), 30:13, 31:7, 33:14, 33:24, 38:17, 40:2
(twice), 42:24, 43:24, 43:25, 43:27, 44:22, 50:1, 53:12, 57:17, 58:1,
59:2, 59:7, 59:12, 59:20, 64:5, 64:6, 64:7, 64:9, 65:7 (twice).
Jeremiah (36): 2:13, 2:35, 3:25, 5:25, 8:14, 9:3, 9:5, 9:7, 11:10,
13:22, 14:7 (twice), 14:10, 14:20, 15:13, 16:10, 16:17, 16:18, 17:1,
17:3, 18:23, 30:14, 30:15, 31:30, 31:34, 32:18, 32:35, 33:8 (twice),
36:3, 40:3, 44:23, 50:7, 50:14, 50:20, 51:6.
Lamentations (11): 1:5, 1:8, 1:14, 1:22, 2:14, 3:39, 3:42, 4:13, 4:22,
5:7, 5:16.
Ezekiel (68): 3:18, 3:19, 3:20, 3:21 (twice), 4:4 (twice), 4:5 (twice),
4:6, 4:17, 7:13, 7:16, 7:19, 9:9, 14:11, 14:13, 16:49, 16:51, 16:52,
18:4, 18:14, 18:17 (twice), 18:18, 18:20, 18:21, 18:24 (twice), 18:26,
18:30, 21:24, 23:49, 24:23, 28:16, 28:18, 29:16, 32:27, 33:6, 33:8,
33:9, 33:10, 33:12, 33:14, 33:16, 36:31, 36:33, 37:23, 39:23, 40:39,
42:13, 43:10, 43:19, 43:21, 43:22, 43:25, 44:10, 44:12 (twice), 44:27,
44:29, 45:17, 45:19, 45:20, 45:22, 45:23, 45:25, 46:20.
Daniel (10): 4:27, 9:5, 9:8, 9:11, 9:13, 9:15, 9:16, 9:20 (twice), 9:24.
Hosea (19): 4:7, 4:8, 5:5, 7:1, 7:2, 8:11 (twice), 8:13, 9:7, 9:9, 9:15,
10:8, 10:9, 10:10, 12:8, 13:2, 13:12, 14:1, 14:2.
Amos (15): 1:3, 1:6, 1:9, 1:11, 1:13, 2:1, 2:4, 2:6, 3:2, 3:14, 4:4
(twice), 5:12, 9:8, 9:10.
Micah (8): 1:5, 1:13, 3:8, 6:7, 6:13, 7:9, 7:18, 7:19.
Zephaniah (1): 1:17.
Zechariah (3): 3:4, 3:9, 13:1.
Malachi (1): 2:6.
Genesis (10) + Exodus (22) + Leviticus (100)+ Numbers (60) + Deuteronomy
(13) + Joshua (6) + 1 Samuel (16) + 2 Samuel (6) + 2 Kings (23) + 1
Chronicles (2) + 2 Chronicles (20) + Ezra (6) + Nehemiah (9) + Job
(30) + Psalms (58) + Proverbs (22) + Ecclesiastes (6) + Isaiah (40) +
Jeremiah (36) + Lamentations (11) + Ezekiel (68) + Daniel (10) + Hosea
(19) + Amos (15) + Micah (8) + Zephaniah (1) + Zechariah (3) + Malachi
(1) = 716
10 + 22 + 100 + 60 + 13 + 6 + 16 + 6 + 23 + 2 + 20 + 6 + 9 + 30 + 58 +
22 + 6 + 9 + 58 + 22 + 6 + 40 + 36 + 11 + 68 + 10 + 19 + 15 + 8 + 1 +
3 + 1 = 716
[110] ...
Qur’an — 2:81, 2:173, 2:181, 2:206, 2:219 (twice), 2:276, 2:283, 3:178,
4:31 (twice), 4:48, 4:50, 4:107, 4:111, 4:112 twice, 5:2, 5;3, 5:29
twice, 5:62, 5:63, 5:106, 5:107, 6:120 twice, 7:33, 12:91, 12:97, 20:73,
24:11, 24:29, 24:58, 24:60, 24:61, 25:31, 25:68, 26:222, 29:40, 33:58,
40:21, 42:37, 44:44, 45:7, 49:12, 52:23, 53:32, 55:39, 56:25, 58:8,
67:11, 68:12, 69:9, 76:24, 81:9, 83:12, 91:14, and 96:16.
[111] Essays and Aphorisms, by Aurthur Schopenhauer (Baltimore: Pungein
Classics, 1970), page 177.
[112] ...
Qur’an — 2:206, 3:12, 3:162, 3:197, 4:55, 4:93, 4:97, 4:115, 4:121,
4:140, 4:169, 7:18, 7:14, 7:179, 8:16, 8:36, 8:37, 9:35, 9:49, 9:63,
9:68, 9:73, 9:81, 9:95, 9:109, 11:119, 13:18, 14:16, 14:29, 15:43,
16:29, 17:8, 17:18, 17:39, 17:63, 17:97, 18:100, 18:102, 18:106, 19:68,
19:86, 20:74, 21:29, 21:98, 23:103, 25:65, 26:91, 29:54, 29:68, 32:13,
35:34, 36:63, 37:23, 37:64, 37:68, 37:163, 38:56, 38:85, 39:32, 39:60,
39:71, 39:72, 40:7, 40:49, 40:60, 40:76, 43:74, 44:47, 44:56, 45:10,
48:6, 50:24, 50:30, 52:13, 54:48, 55:43, 56:94, 57:19, 58:8, 66:9, 67:6,
72:15, 72:23, 74:26, 74:27, 74:35, 74:42, 78:21, 79:36, 79:39, 81:12,
85:10, 89:23, 98:6, and 102:6.
[113] A similar, albeit somewhat different, observation is also made
here: Atheism: The Case Against God, chapter 12, section II, page 308,
by George H. Smith (Prometheus Books, New York: 1989).
[114] Blaise Pascal, “The Wager,” Philosophy of Religion, ed. Louis P.
Pojman (Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth, 1987), page 383.
[115] Quoted by Carole Gray, designer of the 1992 Atheist Desk Calendar
and the 1993 and 1994 Women of Freethought Calendars, Columbus Ohio.
[116] Logic: An Introduction, by Lionel Ruby (Chicago: J. B. Lippincott
Co., 1950), page 262.
[117] Ibidem.
[118] Ibidem.
[119] The Age of Reason, by Thomas Paine, chapter VII, part 1.
[120] As quoted in 2000 Years of Disbelief, by James A. Haught.
Originally from the decree of anathema from the patriarchs of the Holy
Synod.
[121] Animals’ Rights, by Henry Stephens Salt, chapter II, in the
footnote.
[122] Tolstoy And “The Kruetzer Sonata,” by Robert Green Ingersoll,
1890.
[123] War and Peace, by Lev Tolstoy, 1862.
[124] The Kingdom of God Is within You, by Lev Tolstoy, 1893.