Well, first of all, god doesn't "take" anything, because god doesn't exist.
It's the people who assign to him the credit.
But why do they do that?
In
the past, when polytheism was prevalent, people used to assign the bad
things to the gods as well, not just the good things. Gods were often
seen as capricious, erratic, and even irrational in their "behavior".
And while it better matched the reality of how nature "behaved",
it would instill a strong sense of inconvenience in the hearts of
people. Imagine having your life governed by a bunch of capricious,
erratic and irrational powerful beings. Doesn't seem very nice, does it?
Quite depressing, even. It can make you feel powerless and helpless in the face of such odds.
Greek gods and goddesses influencing human affairs from above the clouds
Enter
Christianity: Here we have these new 'preachers' who go around talking
about an "all-loving" and "perfect" god. Such that always has our best
interest in his heart. Such that even 'sacrificed' his own life for our
benefit.
After years living under the tyranny of capricious and
sadistic beings, now all of a sudden it appears that it wasn't these
powerful beings who were at fault at all... Because they didn't even
exist. But it was us the humans who were at fault.
Now,
all of a sudden the "power" to "fix" the world lays in our hands. And
all we have to do? All we have to do is to "fix" our belief system. Just
believe in a different god who is "the one true god". Suddenly
the people don't feel powerless anymore. Suddenly the good fortunes and
benefits are right behind the corner, and it's super easy to get there!
All you have to do is say "I accept Jesus Christ as my lord and savior"
and ABRACADABRA you are now without illness or sadness and you are
"saved", if not in this life then in the next.
The 'one true God' loves you and wants to help you. But there is something you must do in return.
From the movie "Agora" (2009)
It's almost like voting in political elections:
You vote for the candidate who promises you the best things.
If
people had not assigned the good things to their god, then their god is
redundant and unnecessary. Such a belief system would simply not
survive as a religion.
If people had assigned the bad things to
their god, then it makes their god capricious and undesirable. You
wouldn't want to "vote" for such a "candidate". It also makes the people
feel powerless to fix the bad things that happen in their life.
Bottom line is:
People assign the good things to god, and the bad things to themselves, due to wishful thinking.
They wish to have the power to change things for the better (using minimum effort as possible), and they wish that the god they worship would be a good god - and therefore worthy of worship.
To this effect, Christianity is the result of "religious evolution" where the religion that sounds better to the people (i.e. tells them what they want to hear) is the religion that survives better than the rest (and not because it's more "true" than other religions).
Throughout all of known human religious history, mankind has always "put" gods in the places that seemed most unreachable to mankind:
In the depth of a cave. In the bottom of the sea. At the top of the mountain. Inside a volcano. In the sky above the clouds. Somewhere out in space. In a parallel dimension. In a parallel reality.
But all this proves one thing and one thing only:
Mankind has always known, deep down, that gods are undetectable.
But if these gods are "undetectable", then how could they reach conclusions about them in the first place?
And most importantly, how could these conclusions be so vastly different between different cultures (religions) and even between different individuals within the same culture (religion)?
Using Occam's Razor, the simple answers become very apparent:
Gods are "undetectable", because that's how non-existing things tend to be.
Gods are differently represented by different people, because gods are manifested within the imagination of individuals.
Mankind has always known, deep down, that gods are undetectable.
That's why whenever a person imagines a god, the first thing they need to do... is to put this god in a place which would be unreachable by humans...
For the sole purpose of justifying their apparent non-existence.
There is only one place where gods were ever proven to exist: IN HUMAN IMAGINATION.
The God's Creed (based on the Rifleman's Creed from Full Metal Jacket):
"This is my god, there are many like it but this one is
mine.
My god is my best friend. He is my life. I must know Him as I know myself.
My god without me, is nothing. Without my god, I am nothing.
I will believe my god be true, I must believe better than my
enemy who has a different god,
I must believe in my god better than he believes
in his…. I will.
My god and I know what counts in religion is not the evidence we
have,
the soundness of our logic, nor the voice of reason.
We know that it is faith
that counts. We will have faith…
My god is human, just as I, it’s how I can relate to Him.
Thus
I will never learn about Him more than I’m told at church,
never learn of His weaknesses,
His strengths, His character, His history,
His origins and His followers.
I
will ever guard Him against the ravages of atheists and heathens.
I will keep
my god clean and moral, even as I am clean and moral.
We will become part of
each other. We will…
Before god I swear this creed, my god and I are the
defenders of my religion,
we are the masters of other religions, we are the
saviors of my life.
So be it, until there is no other denomination but my own."
God on Trial is a 2008 BBC/WGBH Boston television play written by Frank Cottrell Boyce, starring Antony Sher, Rupert Graves and Jack Shepherd. The play takes place in Auschwitz during World War II. The Jewish prisoners put God on trial in absentia for abandoning the Jewish people. The question is if God has broken his covenant with the Jewish people by allowing the Nazis to commit genocide.[1]
The movie contains extremely powerful dialogue and thought-provoking notions. It brings up the question of God's very existence, as well as God's nature as either good or bad (and that we simply were lucky to "have him on our side" for a while). And who are in a better position to make this judgement than the poor Jews in Auschwitz waiting for their death?
YouTube removes these videos due to copyright, but some scenes are available in the below Facebook group page (belonging to the Israeli Atheist group "Brotherhood Without God"):
The fear of death is most probably the biggest trigger out there for religion and faith.
Humans fear death, mostly because of the unknown element attached to it:
Without religion, we don't know what happens to us after death.
What do we feel? Where do we "go"? Do we keep our memories? Are we accountable for our deeds in life? So on and so forth.
The fear of death is also the most common "last stand" fallback position that theists go to when the foundations of their faith are rattled.
I can't even count the number of times theists brought this issue up when they seem to have run out of arguments and counter-arguments:
"So what happens after you die?", "You just stop existing and that's it?", "What's the point of living if it's all for nothing?", etc.
Well, there are several ways to approach this issue.
The most common answer that I've seen used by atheists is that after you die, you don't necessarily "disappear" into non-existence. You still exist in the memories of your loved ones and next of kin. And if you were truly a remarkable person, then you might even gain "immortality" by being remembered for untold generations to come.
Some "immortal" men for example: Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton, William Shakespeare, Ludwig Van Beethoven and so on, you get the idea. These people, although long dead, still "exist" in our everyday lives by the very fact of us remembering them and their achievements and lives.
Obviously, it's not a very 'satisfying' type of "immortality", because you're not there to enjoy it in person. So naturally, theists, selfish as they are, usually don't accept this kind of answer.
Another common answer atheists give is that the very fact that we are bound to die and stop existing at some point, only makes this life we have ever more precious and priceless.
It's an invitation to enjoy this one life we have and make the best you can out of it, because we have absolutely no other chance.
Theists usually don't seem to accept this answer either, although from my experience they don't really give a reason why. They just can't seem to wrap their heads around the notion of "one chance only". It's like automatically a reason for them to commit suicide and end the one life they have. It really boggles my mind why would anyone want to do that.
Personally, I agree with both of those common answers described above.
Yes, this life is precious because there's no other, and yes, we can achieve "immortality" by living in the memories of future generations (although it's an impersonal kind of "immortality"). Both of these notions together can push us to make the absolute best we can out of this life, as well as positively influence the world to make it better for future generations.
But there is another type of answer which is not so common. And here, although already more than halfway through this post, we reach the actual crux of the matter and the whole reason why I'm writing this.
We need to wrap our heads around an amazing fact. A mind-boggling, mind-blowing and yet a staggeringly simple fact:
We shouldn't be afraid of non-existence. Because we already passed it: WE DID NOT ALWAYS EXIST.
What? You forgot? Where do you think you were before you were born, sugar? You did not exist.
Do you remember this "non-existence"? You have memories of your experiences? Your feelings? Your ambitions? Obviously not. Because you did not exist.
And yet, the world existed all the same without you.
People lived. People died. People did this and that. Built things. Destroyed things. Killed each other. Saved each other. The rain was dropping. The sun was rising. The birds were singing. The dogs were humping. Life just... Went on.
So... Do you care about that, dear believer? Are you not upset about the fact that before you were born you did not exist? No? Why not? Isn't this fact just as disturbing as the fact that one day you'll be going back to that kind of state of non-existence?
Consider the following:
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that before you were born you existed in some other form. Perhaps in some other dimension, perhaps as a completely different person. You had thoughts, memories, ambitions, and so on. But you don't remember any of that now, of course. All you remember is what you learned since after you were born into this life. Think for a second what that means. All those thoughts and memories of the person you were before... Everything that person went through... All of that was gone the moment you were born and started from scratch as a new person. How is that different from that other person... Stopping to exist? They stopped existing, and then you started existing as a whole other person with new memories and experiences.
This is, of course, a hypothetical scenario assuming there's such a thing as reincarnation or whatever.
But, as we already established, you don't really remember who or what you were before you were born, right? So... How is it different from the FACT that after you die, somewhere out there in the world, a new person is going to be born... A whole new person from scratch... Without any memories of what they were before they were born, but with new memories to gain in their new life? Who can say for sure that that new person will not be you? But since that "new" person won't have your memories anyway, does it really matter if it really is you or not?
How is it different?
So if you fear of nonexistence, get over yourself, champ.
You've already been there, done that.
Make the best of what you have.
Just remember one important thing:
After you're gone, the world will keep on living.
Humans will keep on being born.
So why not do what you can to make this world a better place for them?
For all you know, those "future" humans are...
Many of us have heard about the classical "Ontological Argument" conceived by Saint Anselm. The argument goes like this: If G-D is that, than which, no greater can be conceived and/or realized, Anselm argues, then nothing can be imagined that is greater than G-D.
If G-D does not exist, though, then something can be imagined, that is greater than G-D, namely a G-D that does exist.
The hypothesis that G-D does not exist thus seems to give rise to a logical absurdity: that there both is and is not something that can be imagined that is greater than G-D.
There is, because it’s possible to imagine a G-D that does exist. There isn‘t, because it’s impossible to imagine something greater than the greatest thing imaginable.
A hypothesis that gives rise to a logical absurdity, though, must be false.
The hypothesis that G-D does not exist, therefore, is false; thus G-D must exist.
There are many obvious problems with this argument, largely available on the internet. Here's one of my favorites, for your viewing pleasure:
But you know, after giving it some thought, I came to this conclusion: The Ontological Argument is actually completely ass-backwards!
The argument bases its nearlyentire house of cards on the premise that perfect things are those that exist. But if you think about it, it's actually the complete opposite!
Perfection - by definition - DOES NOT EXIST.
What do I mean: First, we need to define "perfection". What is "perfection"? Perfection is that which we cannot imagine something better/greater than. This is the same definition as used in the original argument. Notice specifically that the word "imagine" is the one being used. The reason for this is that there's already a different word for the following definition: "X is that which nothing better than it exists." That word is: "Best".
However, even if something is "the Best there is", doesn't necessarily mean that it's "perfect". For example: Let's say that I have the best computer processor in existence. It's the fastest, most efficient etc.. Is it "perfect"? Well, since speed and efficiency are relativistic terms, that means I can always imagine something better. So let's say the processor's speed is X, I can just imagine the same processor with a speed of X+10 for example, and presto: I have imagined a processor which is better than the best processor in existence. Therefore, the best computer processor in existence is NOT perfect (I can imagine something better). Does it mean that this "better" computer processor that I just imagined exist? Of course not, because I started with the premise of "the best computer processor in existence". It's an infinite induction.
As humans, our collective imagination is quite limitless. This means that whatever object we are presented with, we can always imagine something better if we put our minds to it. You can demonstrate it with every conceivable thing and if you think you found a thing which you can't imagine something better than, just present it to someone else until you find someone that thinks of something better.
YES, that includes the Abrahamic God as well. In fact, it's extremely easy to imagine something better, given that the Abrahamic God is arguably one of the worst gods in mythology. For example: The Abrahamic God created Hell in order to punish the sinners. A better God would somehow turn all sinners into good people, thus not requiring anything as horrible as a Hell. Which is better? Lots of sinners and the existence of eternal torture? Or only good people in existence and no such thing as eternal torture? Obviously it's the latter. I have successfully imagined something which is better than the Abrahamic God, therefore the Abrahamic God is NOT perfect. The Abrahamic God is actually so bad that I can spend all day long thinking about flaws that could be fixed.
We can follow this reasoning to reach the inevitable conclusion: Perfection, by definition, DOES NOT EXIST. If you think you found something "perfect" - we can imagine something which is better, hence the "perfect" thing is no longer "perfect". It's now obsolete because there's this other more "perfect" thing which we imagined. And if that other perfect thing somehow comes into existence, we'd be able to imagine something even better. So on and so forth ad nauseum.
So, if in fact you define your God as that which is the most perfect being we can imagine, that would actually lead to the conclusion that God is the complete opposite of existence - which is non-existence. Therefore, a perfect God, by definition - DOES NOT EXIST.
The Reverse Ontological Argument - Reductio Ad Absurdum Formulation
(1) A perfect being is that which no greater can be conceived.
(2) For every single being in existence, it is possible to imagine a greater being that does not exist.
(3) Let God be a perfect being that exists.
(4) From (2) it follows that we can imagine a greater being which is "more perfect" than God. We reach a contradiction with (3).
(5) Since we can imagine a being which is greater than God, it follows that either the being God is not perfect, or it doesn't exist.
This topic has been discussed millions of times before... on various forums, blogs, youtube channels and whatnot.
I don't have much to add to it, but I feel obligated to include it in my blog due to its importance.
The topic I talk about is of course how The Abrahamic God Refutes his own Existence by Definition.
Important note here:
This is NOT a refutation for every possible God there is. Some kind of a God might exist, and it may also be that NO gods exist whatsoever.
I don't know and we'll probably never ever know. That's why I consider myself an "agnostic".
But what I can know for certain is that the Abrahamic god in particular (the monotheistic God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam), is by his own definition, either evil, nonexistent, or incorrectly defined.
The argument goes like this:
The Definition of the Abrahamic Monotheistic God
The Abrahamic God is defined by the scriptures of all three monotheistic religions as having the following main properties:
All-Powerful (omnipotent)
All-Knowing (omniscient)
All-Loving (omnibenevolent)
The Existence of Evil and Suffering
Now we introduce into the argument the fact that Evil and Suffering exist.
This is a fact that we KNOW for certain. There is no going around that and we don't need to strive hard to find evidence for it.
People around the world are suffering... Badly... and A LOT.
One only needs to take a look at what's happening now in Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Israel (no matter which side you're on).
One could also make mention of horrible atrocities of the past such as the holocaust, the multitude of world wars and any kind of wars, slavery, genocide and good ol' fashioned plunder.
One could even mention all kinds of massive natural disasters such as tsunamis, floods, huge fires, tornadoes, hurricanes, famine and plague.
In every instance of these events we see innocent people suffering and dying for no good reason.
That is the fact of the existence of evil and suffering.
If you're a monotheist, you may also replace the words "Evil and Suffering" with the word "Satan". It will have the same effect in this argument.
So what does the existence of evil and suffering has to do with the Abrahamic God? Everything.
God vs Evil and Suffering
If indeed God is All-Powerful, that means he has the power and means to end evil and suffering.
If indeed God is All-Knowing, that means he knows how to end evil and suffering in the best way possible.
If indeed God is All-Loving, that means he would want to end evil and suffering because he loves his creation and would want the best for them.
If all of the 3 properties of the Abrahamic God were true (and that he existed of course), then obviously evil and suffering would not exist.
But, obviously, as we established a moment ago, evil and suffering do in fact exist.
So, at least one of the three properties of the Abrahamic God must be false.
Either that, or, he simply doesn't exist.
In my opinion, accepting that the Abrahamic God simply doesn't exist makes it much easier to cope with the existence of evil and suffering (as I mentioned in my first blog posts).
But let's give him the benefit of the doubt for a moment, and assume that he exists.
So, as I said, at least one of the 3 properties must be false.
Let's see what that would mean:
If God is NOT All-Powerful... That would mean that you can't trust him with everything because he would not have the power to deal with it. How can you trust him to answer your prayers? How can you trust him with your salvation in the afterlife? How can you trust that he's even the one who created the universe? Aren't theists the ones who keep claiming that creating the universe would require an all-powerful being? So what kind of a monotheistic God is that anyway, one who is not all-powerful?
If God is NOT All-Knowing... How can you trust him to HEAR your prayers? How can you trust him to know what to do in every situation? How can you trust him with prophecies? How can you trust him that he'd know who is a true believer and who is not, who is a good soul and who is not? How can you trust him to give good judgement? And if God is not All-Knowing, does that mean you can trick him? outsmart him? That's not very Godly, is it?
If God is NOT All-Loving... Well that would actually explain quite a lot. But the big question here is... would you really want to worship a God like that? Wouldn't it be almost like worshiping Satan? In fact, it would also imply that Satan might actually be the good guy in this story because he's the one who supposedly rebelled against this God, and offered humanity knowledge of good and evil (based on the genesis story). So on whose side would you prefer to be? Are you sure you're on the right side? The righteous, good, and just side? If you're morally superior to your God... What does that say about your God? And what does that say about you for worshiping such a God?
Free Will
Ah, "freewill", the trusty 'trump-card' that monotheists love to use so much.
Unfortunately, your belief in Heaven and Hell pretty much causes this argument to self-destruct.
For you see, punishing someone for using their free will IS NOT FREE WILL.
It could be called "theocracy", or even "dictatorship". But "freewill"? No.
It's not "freewill" by any contemporary definition of the word.
You see, in a normal system of reward-punishment, it's imperative that all adherents of the system are witnessing the reward-punishment actually being implemented.
If you can never witness a criminal being sent to jail, or visit a prisoner in jail, how can you possibly know jails even exist?
If you can never witness a criminal being executed, and not being able to see the dead body of an executed criminal, how can you possibly know that criminal was even executed at all?
Maybe this criminal was spirited away somewhere to a foreign country? Living under a false identity and sipping mai-tais in some luxurious beach?
So yeah, if you could actually witness heaven and hell, THEN it would be a reasonable reward-punishment system. THEN it would make sense, and THEN society could actually improve so much more.
But you can't, can you? Not unless it's already too late.
But that doesn't make for a very effective system, does it?
Here's another huge problem with the concept of Hell:
An infinite punishment for a finite crime.. is infinitely EVIL.
If you look at it mathematically, it'll be like dividing any kind of number by infinity.
Let's assume theft is represented by a number. Let's say... 5.
Let's assume that rape is represented by a higher number. Let's say 100.
And let's say genocide is represented by a really huge number such as 1,000,000,000.
And let's say that innocence is represented by 0.
Mathematically, it doesn't matter which of these numbers you divide by infinity, it's just the same as dividing zero by infinity, and they all asymtote equally.
They asymptote to ZERO.
Which is how much morality your God has for using infinite punishment for finite crimes.
The Joker Card - The Fourth Property
This is what I like to call "the Joker card" of monotheists. It's another property of the Abrahamic God. Number 4, if you will... And that is:
4. God is Unknowable.
Well, isn't that convenient? God is unknowable... hmm. Yes that could mean that God has some ulterior motive... Some "grand plan", if you will... Which for whatever reason requires the death and suffering of billions of innocents and there's absolutely no other possible way to make it work even though your God is omnipotent. Or it could also mean that we as mere mortals are incapable of understanding God... Of understanding the meaning of his properties.
Well I'm sorry but I find that hard to swallow.
If God is unknowable, isn't it possible his properties are unknowable too? And maybe one or more of the 3 properties we mentioned earlier are even wrong?
If God is unknowable, isn't it even possible that he's deceptive? What if you got fooled and you're actually worshiping an evil God? Maybe it's Satan in disguise?
If God is unknowable, how can you know the worth of his "plan"? Maybe it's a really bad plan? Or an evil one?
All in all, this is a very convenient argument which rids the monotheist from any further explanation.
"You just have to take it by faith", they would say.
Well I'm sorry, buddy. But that's simply not good enough for me.
Conclusion
Due to all of the above, we inadvertently reach one of the following conclusions:
One or more of the 3 Abrahamic God's properties is wrongly defined.
God is unknowable (and not very trustworthy).
The Abrahamic God doesn't exist.
Any one of the 3 conclusions above makes the Abrahamic God not much worthy of worship or belief.
A couple of weeks ago I visited the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem as part of a trip from work.
Even though I don't believe in God, I prepared a note to put in the wall, and this is what I wrote in it:
Dear God,
I truly hope you exist...
And that you have a really damn good excuse for all of this.
