The purpose of this blog is to speak openly and honestly about the undeniable truth of the lack of truth in life after death. First, it is necessary to explore the common misconceptions about life, its purpose and the truth of its end by people of faith. It is also important to find truth in both the unmoved convictions of those people of faith concerning the lives and thoughts of those who do not share the opinion that a creator exists.
We can all be in agreement that the human experience is individually unique while at the same time uniquely similar. We can all conclude that whatever one thinks about life and death, life is undesirably short. For some, death comes faster and earlier than others. Death comes in many forms. It could be caused by some natural pre-existing disease that increasingly eats one’s body alive, or by a self -induced disease brought on by ingesting certain ingredients in one’s body that speeds up the process. Death can be unexpected and cause pain for the family and friends of the deceased. Death can be caused by another human being selfishly taking another’s life, or by an unfortunate accident that inflicts so much damage to one’s body, that the person can no longer be supported by it. Death is not inescapable, even if one prolongs its inevitability by growing old. Even in old age, by which point one has escaped death, death can be unbearably cruel. Death in old age can make one so weak and produces pain in every inch of one’s body to the point that the person seeks relief of that pain on a regular basis by those who have learned to ease it. It seems the older one gets, the more knowledge one seeks about the condition of one’s body. It could be that the person ultimately chooses life over death. Death, no matter what you think about it, is always a last option for most people. It is only when one can no longer bear the pain that they wish death upon themselves.
It has so often been thought and spoken by people of faith for thousands of years that those who live a life driven by their own inclinations and pleasures cannot responsibly make proper decisions and are incapable of considering how their behaviors might result in negative consequences. It has been the thinking that a person behaving without a fear of judgment from a personal God is misguided and has a morality base spinning out of control. Perhaps those people who thought that or presently think that should reflect upon the actions of their God, who by very definition fits the profile of a being that has no one to judge him. Could this be why the actions of the God of the Bible and Koran, the two most prolific religious texts today, seem to reflect a morality base that spins out of control? A being whose ego cannot survive without demanding constant love, attention and worship and who is the very source of morality we claim is bestowed upon man today. A being whose very morality had to be called into question by Abraham by way of begging the ultimate moral being not to murder the people of Sodom . Is it considered moral to deceive Abraham and murder the whole city anyway? How does this not motivate people of faith to call into question a being whose own actions cannot be considered moral and rationally remove themselves for a moment to think of the logic of this dilemma? The dilemma of how they can accept a being that seems to be driven by his own selfish inclinations and lacks the moral fortitude to reprieve the very imperfect human beings he created.
Can we not find truth in morality through basic sociological survival needs? To what reasons do the faithful fail to rule out the possibility that morality may not exist at the hands of an immoral Creator who does not seem to live by his own rules? Can they not be open to the possibility that morality is a natural process and mass sociological agreement set forth by men driven by natural altruism for the benefit of each individual’s survival in that mass?
In a modern since, it would be unwise for anyone in a small town to murder the town’s only mechanic, if that same person is relying on the mechanic to keep his vehicle running smoothly. For if that vehicle was used as a mode of transportation to get him to work in order for him to make a living to feed and shelter himself and his family, would it not be in his best interest to be kind to the mechanic? What if that vehicle were to breakdown? Having murdered the one person who could fix it, would that not put that individual in quite a precarious predicament? If the man who owns the vehicle drives to a job where at that job he makes products that the mechanic needs to fix the vehicle, then wouldn’t the mechanic have a self interest in being kind in return? Do we not rely on each other for our own survival?
On the subject of death, it can only be stated that we seem to live in a world that is by nature extremely violent and dangerous. As mentioned earlier, it can be said that death can come to anyone at anytime for different reasons. In addition, it is hard to imagine a being that creates life and then requires life to eat each other in order to sustain itself. It would seem logical to think that a creator with the power to create as he sees fit, and who is all knowing and powerful, would think and make a better solution to sustaining life. What do we make of suffering? Suffering is the end result of a God who creates an imperfect being with the natural ability to reason, and then justifies making them suffer because they choose to reason and make foolish decisions in their life. Suffering is said in the religious texts to produce opportunity, to purify, and help persevere. Is this a logical explanation to allow suffering in the world? If a man sees someone suffer, does he not feel the need to help? Or does he pass him by and say “It’s God’s will, persevere”? It seems the very nature of man is to not suffer and to be happy. Isn’t this the ultimate goal of every human being, to live a happy life? If in death, our suffering ends, and we live in eternal happiness, then why in the very face of death do we strive to live? Why do we choose to live? Could it be that naturally, when in the face of death, faith is the weakest? If in the face of death or with the thought of death we would rather live, does that not reveal itself as the true nature of life? To live? To not die?
Could it be that religion or belief is, by itself, a natural defense mechanism made by man to make him feel happy in life by ignoring the reality of death? Protection of death is a natural process of life on every level. It can be said that by the evolution of the thinking ape, we have naturally been able to think about the reality of death and create a defense mechanism to help us accept its reality through a fictitious creator that protects us from it. In this sense, we can also say that the reality of life is that no one is protected by death and life’s cruel nature. We can only deal with the realities of death by holding on and passing on to our children a defense mechanism in the form of the ultimate protector that does not exist. When questioned as to whether its existence is real, a second defense mechanism is created by way of fear of judgment from that same protector which only serves to keep the defense mechanism strong and in place. At what point are we as a society going to recognize this reality? If we cannot get passed the realities of death, we cannot fully understand the meaning of life in its truest nature. We cannot appreciate and submerge ourselves with the ultimate beauty of the universe and man’s place in it.
It seems that with every new scientific discovery that further eats away at the ancient explanations of life, death and the universe, it produces two predictable reactions by people of faith. The first is to deny the inevitable truths revealed by science and produce non-scientific counter arguments and pass it off as reliable evidence in order to confuse and deceive the masses and create doubt about the real science. The second is to accept every new discovery and just insert God as the cause further confirming their claims of an ultimate protector which only continues to deceive the masses and further feed their defense mechanism of death. Do the people of faith enjoy ignoring the sources of rules and stories in their books and refuse to acknowledge its origins were rooted much earlier in civilization before the seed of their faiths were planted? Have they had no knowledge of the Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh, the source of their flood story? Do they deny the Egyptian Book of the Dead that pre-dates their books and details stories of an underworld and the dead being raised? A book that speaks on an afterlife and judgment in it? What do they think about the Hindu religion that details numerous Gods, pre-dating any monotheistic God? How do they respond to the Greeks, whose ideas of the underworld run by a God named Hades were a blueprint for their Hell run by the Devil? Are they unaware of Babylonian law or code of Hammurabi that is the source of laws governing behaviors? Maybe they refuse to acknowledge and admit that the golden rule existed in Babylon, Egypt, Greece and China before their God showed on to the scene? Was not Horus the son of the God of Osiris before Jesus the son of God? Dionysus was also the son of a God, Zeus. How is it that Dionysus, who was around before Jesus, bears a striking resemblance to him? A long haired son of a God who fancies winemaking? How do we hold on to these ancient myths when the obvious source lies with the beginning of civilization as a way to explain the world and it became a way for leaders to have control and power over the masses?
To move forward as a society, as history shows, we must ignore these ancient myths and rely on the progress of science.
For to reject and not to understand the works and findings of Galileo, Newton, Darwin, Hubble, Einstein and Hawking, and so many others, is to reject the revealing beauty of the universe and evolution of life. For all of the previous men, in order to discover the truths of those beauties, had to fight their own ultimate protector defense mechanism in light of each of their findings. All of them had inner struggles to face as their findings revealed the truth about both the universe and life’s realities. In face of those realities, they attempted to alter the meaning of the religious texts to fit in with the contradictory evidence of those very beauties they observed and discovered. Their natural ability to reason and seek knowledge of the universe they existed in ultimately caused an outer struggle with the leaders of those establishments whose sole purpose was to spread those defense mechanisms. Some of them accepted the realities of life and death, some of them remained in struggle until the end. Whatever the case, their works, and works of many others throughout history, have led to a society where one only needs to understand those works and findings to know the evidence of reality is available. One only has to put down the wall of defense and allow the real beauty of life to come in. It is only then when a true and natural revelation occurs and the appreciation for life is brought to view.
We can all be in agreement that the human experience is individually unique while at the same time uniquely similar. We can all conclude that whatever one thinks about life and death, life is undesirably short. For some, death comes faster and earlier than others. Death comes in many forms. It could be caused by some natural pre-existing disease that increasingly eats one’s body alive, or by a self -induced disease brought on by ingesting certain ingredients in one’s body that speeds up the process. Death can be unexpected and cause pain for the family and friends of the deceased. Death can be caused by another human being selfishly taking another’s life, or by an unfortunate accident that inflicts so much damage to one’s body, that the person can no longer be supported by it. Death is not inescapable, even if one prolongs its inevitability by growing old. Even in old age, by which point one has escaped death, death can be unbearably cruel. Death in old age can make one so weak and produces pain in every inch of one’s body to the point that the person seeks relief of that pain on a regular basis by those who have learned to ease it. It seems the older one gets, the more knowledge one seeks about the condition of one’s body. It could be that the person ultimately chooses life over death. Death, no matter what you think about it, is always a last option for most people. It is only when one can no longer bear the pain that they wish death upon themselves.
It has so often been thought and spoken by people of faith for thousands of years that those who live a life driven by their own inclinations and pleasures cannot responsibly make proper decisions and are incapable of considering how their behaviors might result in negative consequences. It has been the thinking that a person behaving without a fear of judgment from a personal God is misguided and has a morality base spinning out of control. Perhaps those people who thought that or presently think that should reflect upon the actions of their God, who by very definition fits the profile of a being that has no one to judge him. Could this be why the actions of the God of the Bible and Koran, the two most prolific religious texts today, seem to reflect a morality base that spins out of control? A being whose ego cannot survive without demanding constant love, attention and worship and who is the very source of morality we claim is bestowed upon man today. A being whose very morality had to be called into question by Abraham by way of begging the ultimate moral being not to murder the people of Sodom . Is it considered moral to deceive Abraham and murder the whole city anyway? How does this not motivate people of faith to call into question a being whose own actions cannot be considered moral and rationally remove themselves for a moment to think of the logic of this dilemma? The dilemma of how they can accept a being that seems to be driven by his own selfish inclinations and lacks the moral fortitude to reprieve the very imperfect human beings he created.
Can we not find truth in morality through basic sociological survival needs? To what reasons do the faithful fail to rule out the possibility that morality may not exist at the hands of an immoral Creator who does not seem to live by his own rules? Can they not be open to the possibility that morality is a natural process and mass sociological agreement set forth by men driven by natural altruism for the benefit of each individual’s survival in that mass?
In a modern since, it would be unwise for anyone in a small town to murder the town’s only mechanic, if that same person is relying on the mechanic to keep his vehicle running smoothly. For if that vehicle was used as a mode of transportation to get him to work in order for him to make a living to feed and shelter himself and his family, would it not be in his best interest to be kind to the mechanic? What if that vehicle were to breakdown? Having murdered the one person who could fix it, would that not put that individual in quite a precarious predicament? If the man who owns the vehicle drives to a job where at that job he makes products that the mechanic needs to fix the vehicle, then wouldn’t the mechanic have a self interest in being kind in return? Do we not rely on each other for our own survival?
On the subject of death, it can only be stated that we seem to live in a world that is by nature extremely violent and dangerous. As mentioned earlier, it can be said that death can come to anyone at anytime for different reasons. In addition, it is hard to imagine a being that creates life and then requires life to eat each other in order to sustain itself. It would seem logical to think that a creator with the power to create as he sees fit, and who is all knowing and powerful, would think and make a better solution to sustaining life. What do we make of suffering? Suffering is the end result of a God who creates an imperfect being with the natural ability to reason, and then justifies making them suffer because they choose to reason and make foolish decisions in their life. Suffering is said in the religious texts to produce opportunity, to purify, and help persevere. Is this a logical explanation to allow suffering in the world? If a man sees someone suffer, does he not feel the need to help? Or does he pass him by and say “It’s God’s will, persevere”? It seems the very nature of man is to not suffer and to be happy. Isn’t this the ultimate goal of every human being, to live a happy life? If in death, our suffering ends, and we live in eternal happiness, then why in the very face of death do we strive to live? Why do we choose to live? Could it be that naturally, when in the face of death, faith is the weakest? If in the face of death or with the thought of death we would rather live, does that not reveal itself as the true nature of life? To live? To not die?
Could it be that religion or belief is, by itself, a natural defense mechanism made by man to make him feel happy in life by ignoring the reality of death? Protection of death is a natural process of life on every level. It can be said that by the evolution of the thinking ape, we have naturally been able to think about the reality of death and create a defense mechanism to help us accept its reality through a fictitious creator that protects us from it. In this sense, we can also say that the reality of life is that no one is protected by death and life’s cruel nature. We can only deal with the realities of death by holding on and passing on to our children a defense mechanism in the form of the ultimate protector that does not exist. When questioned as to whether its existence is real, a second defense mechanism is created by way of fear of judgment from that same protector which only serves to keep the defense mechanism strong and in place. At what point are we as a society going to recognize this reality? If we cannot get passed the realities of death, we cannot fully understand the meaning of life in its truest nature. We cannot appreciate and submerge ourselves with the ultimate beauty of the universe and man’s place in it.
It seems that with every new scientific discovery that further eats away at the ancient explanations of life, death and the universe, it produces two predictable reactions by people of faith. The first is to deny the inevitable truths revealed by science and produce non-scientific counter arguments and pass it off as reliable evidence in order to confuse and deceive the masses and create doubt about the real science. The second is to accept every new discovery and just insert God as the cause further confirming their claims of an ultimate protector which only continues to deceive the masses and further feed their defense mechanism of death. Do the people of faith enjoy ignoring the sources of rules and stories in their books and refuse to acknowledge its origins were rooted much earlier in civilization before the seed of their faiths were planted? Have they had no knowledge of the Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh, the source of their flood story? Do they deny the Egyptian Book of the Dead that pre-dates their books and details stories of an underworld and the dead being raised? A book that speaks on an afterlife and judgment in it? What do they think about the Hindu religion that details numerous Gods, pre-dating any monotheistic God? How do they respond to the Greeks, whose ideas of the underworld run by a God named Hades were a blueprint for their Hell run by the Devil? Are they unaware of Babylonian law or code of Hammurabi that is the source of laws governing behaviors? Maybe they refuse to acknowledge and admit that the golden rule existed in Babylon, Egypt, Greece and China before their God showed on to the scene? Was not Horus the son of the God of Osiris before Jesus the son of God? Dionysus was also the son of a God, Zeus. How is it that Dionysus, who was around before Jesus, bears a striking resemblance to him? A long haired son of a God who fancies winemaking? How do we hold on to these ancient myths when the obvious source lies with the beginning of civilization as a way to explain the world and it became a way for leaders to have control and power over the masses?
To move forward as a society, as history shows, we must ignore these ancient myths and rely on the progress of science.
For to reject and not to understand the works and findings of Galileo, Newton, Darwin, Hubble, Einstein and Hawking, and so many others, is to reject the revealing beauty of the universe and evolution of life. For all of the previous men, in order to discover the truths of those beauties, had to fight their own ultimate protector defense mechanism in light of each of their findings. All of them had inner struggles to face as their findings revealed the truth about both the universe and life’s realities. In face of those realities, they attempted to alter the meaning of the religious texts to fit in with the contradictory evidence of those very beauties they observed and discovered. Their natural ability to reason and seek knowledge of the universe they existed in ultimately caused an outer struggle with the leaders of those establishments whose sole purpose was to spread those defense mechanisms. Some of them accepted the realities of life and death, some of them remained in struggle until the end. Whatever the case, their works, and works of many others throughout history, have led to a society where one only needs to understand those works and findings to know the evidence of reality is available. One only has to put down the wall of defense and allow the real beauty of life to come in. It is only then when a true and natural revelation occurs and the appreciation for life is brought to view.
An Atheist's 10 Commandments
(1) Do not do to others what you would not want them to do to you.
(2) In all things, strive to cause no harm.
(3) Treat your fellow human beings, your fellow living things, and the world in general with love, honesty, faithfulness and respect.
(4) Do not overlook evil or shrink from administering justice, but always be ready to forgive wrongdoing freely admitted and honestly regretted.
(5) Live life with a sense of joy and wonder.
(6) Always seek to be learning something new.
(7) Test all things; always check your ideas against the facts, and be ready to discard even a cherished belief if it does not conform to them.
(8) Never seek to censor or cut yourself off from dissent; always respect the right of others to disagree with you.
(9) Form independent opinions on the basis of your own reason and experience; do not allow yourself to be led blindly by others.
(10) Question everything.