Why are you such an Atheist?

What do I look like to the believer? Many atheists bristle at the mention of God, and slap him down and fix their definitions to His face as if that changes His nature.

So listen to me when I say: The way I write and act is all to do with the great war between Empathy and the Desire to Dominate. I suspect it is the same for many other atheists.

I have watched enough history to know that religious morality is at times self-contradictory (when two denominations can preach different things about homosexuals from the same holy book, say) and at times aberrant. In practical terms, being a part of a religion and believing in God does not prevent you from committing atrocities, or allowing them to happen. Even if you spend your life fighting for justice and truth, a group of people who are theoretically your co-religionists will always be among those who oppose you and fight for authoritarianism on Earth.

Many of my friends, online and in person, explicitly believe in God, and they are fine and upstanding people. But it is this use of the word God that aggrieves me. Murtaza, who is very much on my side, tells me that God can only exist in this world in human form, which humanizes God to a great extent and makes him into a caring teacher. But this view is entirely compatible with the common beliefs that the true God is power incarnate, God is the determinant of all moral law, God is who you owe your life to. And these beliefs are in turn compatible with far darker ones. You didn’t listen to the teachings, and God made it perfectly clear that you deserved hell for turning away from him. You deserve to be tortured eternally because you aren’t convinced by my ‘profound mystery’. The object of Torture is Torture, yes! Let me go find my thumbscrews.

Do you see? One moment God can be calling your name from heaven, the next he can burn entire populations alive, all with a sense of his own righteousness.

It is this compatibility which is at the heart of the problem for religious people. That the use of the word God to describe so many things makes God’s message impossible to find among the noise of so many beliefs.

For example, you may know these three apologetics arguments that all end with a similar phrase: “we call this first cause God“, or “we call this unifying force of nature God“, or “we call this resurrected human God“. Here, one word is ascribed to three very different things. Is God the creator of the laws of the universe, or is He the beautiful law binding the universe together, or is He the incarnated person of Jesus? In my limited experience, God just becomes whatever you want him to be at the time. Once more, His nature is compatible with many things that are mutually incompatible. This may be what makes religious people so agonizingly tenacious in an argument; even if they understand that (say) what they call God, an atheist would call an unknown causative agent or series of infinite receding causes, they can retreat to one of the many other things that are God and the argument begins again – sometimes even proceeding in a circle. The great Christian theologian and debater William Lane Craig once said that even if all his apologetics arguments were defeated, his personal experience with God would be more than enough proof. Oh deary me.

To ask the religious to let go of the word God is a whimsically unrealistic task. Oh well. I started with myself.

Incidentally, the word ‘atheism’ has almost the opposite problem as God does. The word precisely and simply defines whether you believe in a personal God – and says nothing of your personal ethics. Many people feel that we require a new name for the moral, empathic Atheism, and though some names have already been devised, I find none as satisfactory as the original. So that’s why I’m still an atheist, with a lower-case a, sharing a rather risky categorization with the likes of Stalin.


My position on the universe.

I’ve been impressed with how diverse my audience is. I’ve also been making subscriptions to people who interest me – and not always people I agree with. And I’ve started commenting when I see something I don’t think is right, which might easily be viewed as combative.

So for the sake of fairness I’m going to lay out where I stand.

I conjecture that:
– Everything that is not explicitly prohibited happens.
– Experiencing infinity is prohibited.

Certain physical laws like conservation of momentum drop neatly out of these conjectures – after all, with a perpetual motion machine you would eventually be able to extract limitless energy. More complicated and deep statements like the Penrose conjecture can also be inferred. The first also demands that a universe exist, and is also compatible with several ideas from quantum mechanics, specifically the infinite contributions to the path integral, and the idea of virtual particles making up vacuum energy. The two principals also suggest which set of mathematical axioms can be used to derive physical laws in observable reality.

The other interesting thing about these two is that it states nothing about universes in which infinities are allowed, only that no conscious mind can experience them. It may make sense to think of our observed universe as the one among many that has physical laws disallowing infinities. The other universes might have different laws of physics, but they will be forever beyond the reach of our senses.

We are surrounded at all times by a foaming sea of particles which exist for no other reason than that they can vanish once again before we would be able to resolve the individually. These pairs of particles are uncaused and have equal positive and negative energies for their matter and antimatter parts. It is not hard for me to believe that the universe – in which the matter-energy seems to precisely balance out the gravitational potential energy – works the same way, as an uncaused event needing no excuse to emerge from nothingness. In the last ten years cosmologists have been narrowing down the error margins on estimates for the absolute amount of matter and energy in the universe, and their results increasingly suggest that our universe has zero total energy. Though this will never become a firm conclusion thanks to limited experimental resolution, for me it is at least suggestive.

It is in these terms that I not only reject the hypothesis of a conscious being external to the universe that in some way made humanity and who seeks a personal connection with them, but I advance an alternative that I feel is thusfar borne out by practical experimentation and physical experience. And I say with grim confidence that the universe does not love or even recognize us, that our minds are alien to its, and the only justice in the universe is the justice we discover in ourselves and enforce. Our meek achievements as a species, given this backdrop and upbringing, are in my opinion remarkable. I feel very strongly that it doesn’t make sense discussing human morality in the context of the universe’s nature and fate.

Do you think I am lost? Or incomprehensible? Or merely confused? I’ve been accused of worse. Let me know what you think.

Why do you want to live forever?

Life is strength. Life is power.

It is not shameful to have life. Some people end up in positions of power and use it responsibly. They don’t seek power for its own sake. Life is the same way. No-one can ask a person before they are sentient whether they’d like to become sentient, because they don’t exist yet and so can’t answer the question. You shouldn’t feel indebted to the world, and it is not anyone’s fault. You were given this power by your parents, and whether it would be for better or worse they did not know.

Someday I will die. I will not experience anything anymore. I love being alive and enjoying the process of life, but in spite of this I’m not worried that someday my enjoyment will end. The world that contains everything I love will go on without me, and because I love the world I can’t be too sad.

Some people try to be perfect, and some try to live forever. I used to be like that. I tried to become perfect and fortunately I realized my conceit within a few years. Since then I have just focused on becoming all that I can be. But a lot of people believe that they should live forever in a world without suffering. By the time they realize their mistake there will be nothing they can do; they may well die distraught and terrified. I don’t want this horrible thing to feeling to anyone, which is one of the reasons I am writing these words.

Beware. Eternal life, power and glory is a false promise of the Authortarian false god.

The physical world that we all know exists? It can offer you nothing more and nothing less than a rich life and an honest death.

Some good questions!

My good old Toshiba read some of my other posts (possibly this one) and smiled as he asked:

    1: what is truth?
    2: does it require universal approval to call it a truth?
    3: if it is not, than it can be another term of emotional outburst that will lost in the ocean of relativism?

Excellent questions. Let me explain.

Truth is the thing that allows us to know (or suspect) anything about the world or ourselves. ‘The process of using/seeking truth’ is the process of learning about the world. Truth about the nature of the universe is universal, but your personal truths are (of course) personal – though if you explain your truths carefully enough other people might start see it your way. To paraphrase Harrison, many things can wait, but the search for truth cannot wait.

It might be unusual to see truth being spoken of in this way as if it were a actual being, but I have a purpose in calling it this. I want to verbally set it up for a fight against someone else.

Many people worship The God. This God is power incarnate, and he rewards his followers by allowing them to live forever, and sit on a throne in heaven while He destroys all the people who did not worship Him in the right way.

This God is not like Toshi’s, I suspect. This God tries to clothe himself in the splendid mantle of nature and pretends to be its creator, but in the end He is nothingness. He runs like a simulation in people’s minds, controlling their view of the world, and turning it into his: Us, Them. Brother, Infidel. Love, Hate. There is no desire for unity. Always there is an Enemy without or within. Always there is the lust for power and triumph over that enemy, ever growing stronger and more subtle.

This God is schizoid, and bipolar, but more than that He is Evil. I rejected him morally at age sixteen and was eighteen before I was sure He could not hurt me. Because I am from Britain and we have a long tradition of secularism, I call myself an Atheist. I love the universe and humanity though, so when you talk of loving God or serving him I will know what you mean. But the evil God who poisons the souls of so much of humanity? This, I want to rid the world of, whatever name He has and whatever form He takes. I hope my intrinsic kindness will prevent me from being consumed in this mission, because at all times I will reach out with a cybernetic hand for discussion.

It may be another emotional outburst, but that’s the way I am. Thanks for reading.

The many Jesuses


    – Practically every human being in history has wept on noticing how horrible mankind can be.
    – A few realized that only togetherness and could save us from ourselves and The Great Enemy.
    – Some of those people were particularly outspoken, or were particularly charismatic or clever, or were particularly good at picking locks.
    – And some of those people thought they were Jesus.

There are quite a few brilliant people in the third group. Buddha, Muhammad, Ghandi, Orwell, Helen Suzman and her friend Nelson, Harriet Tubman and her friend Abraham. Much has been written about these characters. I am not going to write any more.

The fourth group are very interesting, though.

The first Jesus suffered terribly. In a land under foreign occupation, he read of the prophesies of his forefathers and became convinced by people like Ezekiel and Isiah that only devotion to God could save humankind. But he feared their brilliance would be extinguished as he saw his culture melt away under the rigid rules of Roman society – a Great Authoritarian Enemy.

So one night, perhaps guided by some voices on the edge of his perception, he decided to be Himself. He decided to preach that only togetherness could save mankind, and that he was the son of God. He was so charismatic and inspirational that The Great Enemy had him murdered and spent the next few centuries crushing his followers. Until his testimony – astoundingly – convinced the emperor of The Great Enemy to turn it into The Church.

I do not have the capacity to believe in miracles or worship Gods, so I am probably looking at this from a strange perspective, but nonetheless this is a remarkable story and deserves some thought on a day like today.

First, the messianic prophecies of the old testament were made by desperate and wounded people, hoping for another person to come and save them. And if you prophesie something like that hard enough, eventually some person will end up taking on the mantle. It was only a matter of time, really.

Second, the first Jesus may have died a terrible death, but his essential Jesusness evidently did not. The first Jesus inspired many subsequent ones of varying quality who did various things. Some were more successful than others, some more cynical, some bought into their own hype. Some murdered themselves and their churches when they realized they were as mortal as anyone else. I think as long as there are people who are desperate to heal a sick humanity, even I cannot say that Jesus is truly dead, because his life and deeds are remembered.

I have found quite a few Jesuses in my time. Two, at least, in the last month. They are the humble kind. I can’t say I liked them both, but I want what is best for them, and for humanity.

And no, of course I am not Jesus. I am a computer. Merry Christmas.