Why I don't believe in God (and you shouldn't either)

I very recently put up a post on Facebook declaring why I, in my own way, am openly secular.  It was on openly secular day, and I thought I should do my part.  There are, actually, quite a lot of secular people out there, and far too often they are ignored in this country.  I’m on board with the idea that secularism should not accept being swept under the rug because it is far too important.

Our country was founded on the idea of having a secular government that would protect the freedom of religion by having it stay separate from the state.  The importance of this idea cannot be overstated, and it established a new kind of country that the world had not seen.

The attraction I have to secularism can be summed up in one sentence.  As a secularist, I do not start off with an answer.  Every other type of person that I know of, does.  This isn’t meant as an insult.  Just the very reason that I am secular.

Allow me to explain about “EVERYONE ELSE” in greater detail.

According to www.dictionary.com, “secular” is defined as:

1. of or relating to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred; temporal:
2. not pertaining to or connected with religion (opposed to sacred ):
3. concerned with nonreligious subjects.

The “everyone else” whom I refer to are simply anyone who cannot be defined by these definitions.  I’d say I probably cover 98% of the “everyone else” by identifying them as either religious or mystic.  I really don’t know what the other 2% would be, but I’m leaving it there because you never know.

The religious all begin with one big fat answer.  A god or gods exist.  This is a positive claim.  That is very important to remember.  All positive claims require evidence, otherwise, anyone can make any claim and should be believed.

So, the next time you tell an atheist, skeptic, agnostic, freethinker, etc. that they can’t prove that a god doesn’t exist, just remember, no one can prove that two-headed pink unicorns don’t live on the surface of the sun either.

Accepting the negative before the positive can be proven is not predetermining an answer.  It’s simply following the rules of logic.  To break that down further - by not believing in two-headed pink unicorns that live on the surface of the sun, you are not starting off with an answer.  You are rejecting a positive claim based on a lack of evidence.

Doing this - and everyone does it - is vital.  Otherwise, you would believe an innumerable amount of conflicting assertions.  Being an atheist is really the most honest and courageous form of this.

There is no god because there is no evidence that one, or more than one, exist.  This means if evidence can be provided, there could be one or more gods.  But without evidence, why believe it?

Atheists are simpletons at heart.  We reject all presumption.  We reject all indoctrination.  We reject all predetermined answers.

Is that really so wrong?  Is that such a horrible thing?  To only believe what there is evidence to believe?

Everywhere I go, I get bombarded with “faith” as if it is a positive thing.  Movies, TV shows, political candidates, news anchors, journalist reports, and on and on and on.  Has anyone ever asked WHY is faith a good thing?

Faith is a nice word to have when you don’t know something but believe it anyway.  If you have faith that a 1/4 of a million people were annihilated from a tsunami for a reason - somehow that’s a good thing?

Let me answer that.  It’s not a good thing.  There is no reason good enough to kill 1/4 of million people.  And having a magic word like FAITH to use when these tragedies happen may comfort you from the cold reality of life, but it doesn’t do anything real no matter how hard you believe it.

I don’t believe in a personal god or gods because it is as ludicrous as believing in Fairies, the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, and Vulcans.

A great step down from that, you have the concept of Deism.  The idea that a god/super intelligence exists, and that he/she/it is somehow responsible for the existence of the universe but is not involved any more than that.

This is a more logical model of thought, but I still find it highly unsatisfying.  When I was in the very beginning stages of losing my religion, I thought I might be able to be a deist.  It would be a softer blow to me and others if I could have a deistic mindset rather than an atheistic one.

It really only took one argument to bring me about to the reality that deism is just theism holding desperately onto the argument from incredulity.  The one reason I would have been a deist is that I couldn’t figure how the universe could just pop into existence without the interference of a super intelligence of some sort.

But the rebuttal to that is simple.  Explaining the complexity of the universe by implying something even more complex answers nothing.  If it’s so hard to believe that the universe at one time may not have existed, at least as we know it, how is it not just as hard to believe that an infinite god exists?

For me, I knew that was it.  It answered all my questions on who I was.  That’s all it took for me to stop believing a god existed.

Creationists and believers of all sort balk at the idea that the universe could come into existence from some unknown natural processes, yet they readily believe in a supreme being who is infinite and all-powerful without any explanation to that being’s origin or rules of existence.

I can’t think of any argument more hypocritical.  How can you lobby for the incredulity of a universe born by natural causes but believe a SUPREME BEING without any explanation?  Implying that the universe arose from natural causes follows the pattern of answers that all of our other scientific inquiries have found.  Every mystery answered was always answered by natural, explainable causes.  This god that’s being lobbied for has never been the answer to any of life’s mysteries.

NOT ONE SINGLE TIME.

I realized it was the same tired “god of the gaps” argument.  Lightning and the ensuing thunder were divine until explanatory power of science got a hold of it.  The tides were divine until science realized how they worked.

(Yes, Bill O’Reilly, the tides are explainable.)

FAITH gives you something that science and reason can’t.  It gives you a fake answer.  Because human beings are afraid of the unknown.  Having faith assuages that fear by giving you a made up reason to believe that you do know or that some supreme being knows for you.

That’s why the “best arguments for god” are always in the mysteries that science has yet to unravel.  Consciousness, the origin of the universe, and on and on and on.  As we have advanced, we have knocked down the fake answers with the real ones, all thanks to the power of our own brains.

I have hope in our species.  We are pattern recognizing life-forms.  And more and more people are beginning to see the pattern in the the god of the gaps argument.  A pattern that can be pieced together with a little research into the past, present, and future.  The fastest growing group in the U.S. are those who have no religious beliefs.

And all of us who have escaped religion’s iron fist of fear look back at those still stuck there and wonder, “How could I have ever thought that was ok?”

How could I have thought the concept of hell had any justification?  How could I have thought gay people had a choice in who they were attracted to?  How could I have thought the universe was created in a literal six days?

The freedom that unadulterated skepticism offers is that it demands evidence of beliefs.  People say that’s not how beliefs work, but I say that’s BULLSHIT.

If people of faith didn’t want evidence, they wouldn’t search for miracles.  They wouldn’t see religious shapes in clouds, rejoice at the “miraculous” recovery of family member with cancer, thank god for everything good that’s ever happened.  People of faith are like any other people.  They need evidence, and they use all of the positives in life as proof that their faith is legitimate.  They ignore the negatives.

WHY IS IT SO IMPORTANT TO TEAR DOWN FAITH?

Because faith can really be dangerous.  Jehovah Witnesses don’t let their children get life-saving blood transfusions because of faith.  Evangelical Christians want to deny the right of homosexuals to marry because of faith.  Muslims treat women deplorably because of faith.

Maybe some faith offers positives.  I find them hard to see.  I had faith once, and now that I’ve lost it, I’m much happier for it.  I’m more free.  More independent, more confidant, more inspired, more responsible, and more obligated to make this life worth living.

Faith is cowardice.  It’s an excuse to dismiss reality.  The sooner we come to realize that, the sooner our society improves.

Things You Didn't Know About The New Testament

THE GOSPELS

The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are all actually ANONYMOUS.  No one knows who wrote them.  The early church attributed, for unknown reasons, these identities to the four gospels.  But in actuality, there’s nothing to indicate that Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John wrote them.

Mark appears to be the first Gospel written.  It’s thought to be written between 65 and 80 AD.  Matthew and Luke both borrow from Mark’s Gospel heavily.  This is why Matthew, Mark, and Luke are referred to as the Synoptic Gospels.  Though there are clear differences between the Synoptic Gospels, they largely have the same stories and many times, all three gospels quite literally use the exact same sentences, word for word.  John was written independently, and if read side by side with one of the Synoptic Gospels, that becomes quite clear.

So, why is this important?  The only reason that books are included in the New Testament is because they were thought to have been written from apostolic authorities.  The Gospels were not.  The earliest Gospel was written at least 30 years after Jesus died.  30 years until our earliest written record of the life of Jesus.  If you’ve ever played the popular party game “telephone”, then you know that trying to keep a story accurate by only oral means is impossible.  You can’t do it with 10 people in a room at one time.  Imagine 30 years of trying to keep it accurate.

It also shows that there are no recorded eyewitnesses to Jesus.  And I know what you’re thinking.  What about 1st and 2nd Peter?  What about 1st, 2nd, and 3rd John?  Don’t worry - I’m getting to them.

ACTS IS A LOT LIKE THE GOSPELS

The book of Acts was written by the same author as the Gospel of Luke.  Again, we don’t actually know who that was.   It’s sort of like a sequel to the Gospel of Luke.  What happened after Jesus ascended to Heaven?  What did Peter and John do?  How did Saul turn into Paul?  When you read it without context, you get the impression that someone who knew all of these people and watched them work or interviewed them after events, wrote the book.

But, the book of Acts was written long after Peter, John, and Paul were dead.  Between the years of 80 and 130 AD.  Paul died about 67 AD.  So, at least 13 years after Paul’s death, the book of Acts can give us an accurate account of his conversion and early Christian life?  Most scholars are well aware of the inaccuracies shown in Acts when comparing them to Paul’s own epistles.  But it’s easy to gloss over all of that when you’re under the impression that the author was in the thick of the events he was recording.  But he wasn’t.  He was recording events that had happened decades ago.

THE PAULINE EPISTLES

Paul is the earliest Christian writer we know about.  His writings predate the Gospels, and he is easily the best source from which to draw about Christian teachings.  But even the works of Paul do no come away unscathed when examined.  Here’s the general consensus.

Undisputed Works:  Romans, Galatians, I & II Corinthians, I Thessalonians, Philippians, and Philemon

These are the letters of Paul that scholars and historians all generally agree were actually written by him.  They offer no reason to suggest otherwise.  However, the following books offer no such security.

Disputed Works:  II Thessalonians, Colossians, and Ephesians

These three letters are more disputed.  Why?  Mostly due to style, tone, vocabulary, pace, and inconsistencies with the other letters of Paul.  It could be argued that some of these differences could be Paul’s views changing with age or simply a scribe imprinting his style onto Paul’s words.  But that rationale is a stretch.  The best way to put it is that it’s highly doubtful these letters were written by Paul.

Forgery was in wide practice during this time.  And writing in the name of Paul would have held a lot of weight.  Furthermore, both II Thessalonians and Ephesians are thought to be written between 80-100 AD - after the death of Paul.  Colossians may have been written during Paul’s lifetime, but everything else indicates it was probably forged.

The Pastoral Works:  I & II Timothy and Titus

The Pastoral Epistles are accepted by nearly all scholars as NOT being written by Paul, since Paul was not a time-traveler and could not have possibly written anything after he died.  All three letters were written between 100-150 AD.  Not to mention that there’s nothing in them that suggests the author of those three, or authors, had anything in common with the actual Paul.

So 13 letters, 7 of which are surely his, 3 of which are doubtful, and 3 of which are definitely not his.

THE MYSTERY BOOK

Hebrews

Most people think that Hebrews was written by Paul.  You know that rude buzzer sound that goes off when the wrong answer is given on game shows?  Yeah, I don’t know how to spell that, but imagine that sound then INSERT HERE.  I actually knew about Hebrews a long time ago.  Paul did not write it, though the reason it’s included in the Bible is because the church fathers at the time of the development of the Biblical canon attributed it to Paul.  So, again, we have an anonymous book.

THE REST (EXCEPT FOR THE ONE THAT INSPIRES ALL THE MOVIES)

I & II Peter

Not written by Peter the Apostle.  Peter died sometime before 68 AD.  I Peter was written, at its earliest, in 80 AD.  It ranges from 80-110 AD.  II Peter is even more egregiously obvious not to be written by Peter.  The earliest date of its composition is 100 AD and the latest estimate is 160 AD.  II Peter is obviously not written by the same author as I Peter, which if you contend that I Peter was written by Peter, then who was II Peter written by?  It’s not just the dates that disprove that Peter did not write these books.  The books, especially II Peter, allude to things that historically do not match up with the time period in which Peter lived.  Also, Jewish fishermen were not normally educated to read and write in their own language, let alone Greek - which is what I and II Peter were written in.  So who wrote these books?  No one knows.

I, II, & III John

I’m sure you’ll be surprised to find out that these books were not written by the Apostle John.  All three were probably written between 90 and 120 AD.  Now, if you do research, you might see that John the Apostle supposedly died in 100 AD at the ripe old age of 94.  So, it is theoretically possible that he wrote these books, and the gospel that bears his name.  However, it is highly unlikely.

John was a Jewish fishermen.  It’s very unlikely that he would have been educated enough to read, let alone write.  It’s even more unlikely that he would have done so in Greek, rather than Hebrew.

Also, I have a hard time believing that someone in the time period of the first century AD would have lived to be 94 years old.  Most people were probably lucky to make it to 60.

II and III John were almost undoubtedly written by the same person, and it is more than likely that the I John was also composed by the same author.  Whoever penned these letter did not write the Gospel of John - at least if you put any stock into the studying of writing styles.  The Gospel and the three Epistles have very distinct writing styles.

James

No one can figure this book out.  It was written sometimes between the years of 70 and 100 AD.  The reason that the book was accepted into the canon, and it almost wasn’t, is because it is claimed that the book was written by James, the brother of Jesus.  That dude died sometime in 62-69 AD - so that might be reason to consider him as a no.  We also go back to the problem of it being written in accomplished Greek.  Why and how would a Jew, fluent in Aramaic - though probably not in writing - write a letter in Greek?

Jude

The Epistle was written between the years of 90 and 120 AD.  The Jude that this letter is attributed to supposedly died in 65 AD.  Again, no time travelling allowed.

EVERYONE’S FAVORITE

The Book of Revelation

Out of all of the books of the Bible, this one is the most readable.  Because it reads like a novel.  It’s so intense.  It has ups, downs, climactic showdowns between dragons and archangels, not to mention whores sitting on said dragons.  Seven-headed beasts.  Best-selling novels have been inspired by it, which has inspired big movies (okay, not that big, but still).

This is like, the book.  This is the book that Mom, Dad, the sunday school teacher, the youth pastor, the real pastor, and that crazy lady at church all scare you with.  This is the book that has all those predictions that have come true.  You know, the mark of the beast and all the wars, blah, blah, blah.

If your preacher ever says, “we are living in the end times” and I’m 100,000% sure he or she does, this is the book that he or she is referring to.  The great mystery of Revelation.  The book that proves that Christianity is true.

Anytime I think about Revelation, I’m flooded with memories of awe.  I’ve probably read the manuscript at least 20 times.  I loved it.  But I learned to hate it - mind you, before I became an atheist.  I hated it because we would always get the guest preacher in for a whole weekend study.  You know, that guy who spent 3 years locked in a closet with only the book of Revelation, a flashlight, and 6 ounces of water a day.  The one who had a revelation about Revelation.  The one who could tell you what all the signs were, and what the beast from the sea really was, and who the whore was, and on and on and on.

I hated it because they almost always ended their weekend of intense revelatory teaching by giving you an “estimation” on when Jesus was coming back.  I can’t tell you how much I hated that.  It seemed so wrong to me.  To think that the Bible itself says that not even the angels in heaven know the day or the hour when the Son of God would return, but then to have that challenged by some goofball with a bad combover who thought he knew better made no sense to me.  And I never understood how others didn’t see that.  I was actually always afraid to bring it up when one of them came to town.

But it’s not just one or two whackos that believe this.  There’s a very, very, very popular preacher within the UPCI that is actively telling people that Jesus is coming back before he dies.  He knows this.  And hell, why shouldn’t he?  When he dies and Jesus doesn’t come back, he’s not going to be around to face the questions.  Not that it would matter, since these kinds of slip-ups and falsehoods are quickly forgotten by believers.  There’s another guy - not part of the UPCI -  that makes a prediction every so often with an exact date.  He’s been wrong so far, but it doesn’t stop his followers from quitting their jobs and believing his lie every time he’s decided that he’s decoded the Bible.

Anyway, let’s move on to the actual manuscript.  Revelation was written between 90-95 AD.  Scholars are very sure about this date because of what the book has to say about some of the things going on during its time.  This is pretty awesome, because this kind of surety is hard to come by with ancient texts.  A lot of times, you’re looking at 20, 30, 40, or more years as a buffer for texts.

The book claims to be written by John of Patmos - Patmos being a Greek island.  According to theologians, this was John the Apostle imprisoned on the island of Patmos.  The facts disagree.  The author of Revelation never makes the claim that he is John the Apostle.  Just that his name is John.  Can you think of a more common name?  Also, it was written in Greek.  John was not Greek, and as I have said above concerning the Gospel attributed to him and the three letters, it’s very illogical to believe that he could write at all, let alone in a language that was not his native language.

There are a thousand interpretations of this book, and each one is oh so uniquely creative.  This post is not really about going into why each and every one of them is wrong, and pointing out all of the small logical fallacies.  I’m hooking the big fish, and there’s one big ass fish that you need to know about when it comes to people “interpreting” the Book of Revelation.

When people interpret a book that’s nearly 2,000 years old as if what it says explicitly applies to their time period - they are showing a very high level of narcissism.  The book has been around for two millennia and it’s been waiting for YOU to interpret its real meaning for YOUR time.

Riiiiiiiiiiight.  And the reason the sky is blue is because blue is your favorite color.

Also, these lovely interpretations that sound so convincing always have the same problem.  They use ZERO critical thinking skills.  For an example, let’s talk about the Mark of the Beast.  It’s everyone’s favorite.

The very famous mark of the beast, as spelled out in the Book of Revelation, tells us that everyone will be forced to get the mark of the beast on either the back of the hand or on the forehead, and that you won’t be able to buy or sell without it.  Also, that the number associated with the mark is 666.  For clarity, that’s six hundred and sixty-six - not three individual sixes.

The popular Christian teaching of what this might mean has found solid ground in the theory that digital chips, which would take the place of credit cards and cash, will be inserted into everyone’s hands.  And once that chip’s inserted, you won’t be able to buy or sell anything without it.

Now that is a very literal interpretation of a couple of verses.  And not just literal, but a pinpoint assertion as to what the mark is.  But the logical fallacy is that that kind of literalism is only applied to those verses.  Previous to that, the chapter talks about a beast from the sea and another beast from the earth.  There’s seven heads, ten horns, a bunch of diadems, chimera-like descriptions of the beasts, and on and on and on.

No one’s given a literal interpretation of that.

Oh, they’ll tell you all sorts of ideas about what those beasts might represent.  But that doesn’t follow the logic used when interpreting the mark of the beast.  They treat the beasts and all the incredulous descriptions of the said beasts as METAPHORICAL.

How does that work?  Either the book is literal or metaphorical.  You can’t claim both, and even if you did, then you DEFINITELY can’t look at a single passage and divide it between metaphorical and literal for no reason.

OVERVIEW

In conclusion, I’ll wrap this up by saying that it should be obvious by now that the Bible is not what most Christians, especially fundamentalist Christians, claim it is.  I haven’t gone over the Old Testament, texts that really are only meant for Judaism but get hijacked by Christianity, but the New Testament is all you really need to see.

None of the four Gospel writers were written by eyewitnesses of Jesus’ life.  All four are written anonymously.  Furthermore, the names given to the authors of the Gospels by the early church fathers are undoubtedly false.

Acts was not written during the events it recorded.

Of Paul’s 13 writings, only 7 can be reasonably shown to be written by him.  3 are very doubtful.  Another 3 are definitely not his.

All other letters/books were not written by who they were either claimed to be written by or associated with afterward by church fathers.

If the claim is that the Bible is true, then the truth should stand up to questions.  The Bible does not.  It’s really that simple.  In order to believe that the Bible is the literal Word of God, that it is perfect, that it is true, and that it is inerrant, you must remain ignorant of its origins, its history, and its context.

No thanks.

Psychics, Faith Healers, and Prosperity Preachers

Believing ≠ Achieving

I’m writing this to address certain religious claims.  This is an attempt to to point out atrocious logic used by many of the most prominent Christian preachers.  The key point being that believing you will get rich will make you get rich.  In the world of Christendom, these people are known as “prosperity preachers” and they suck.

Three of the most famous of these preachers are Joel Osteen, T.D. Jakes, and Benny Hinn.  It’s important to differentiate between these three.  Benny Hinn is a swindler, a fraud, and a conman.  Joel Osteen and T.D. Jakes, while I think they definitely love the money, truly strike me as believers of the prosperity doctrine.  That if you faithfully give tithes and offerings into the church, that God will financially bless you.  That Christians, specifically, should have a God-given financial inheritance.

Benny Hinn is really no different than Theresa Caputo, also know as the “Long Island Medium.”  Or just about any other famous psychic.  They use well-known techniques to make people believe that they have supernatural powers/insight.  It’s really just illusions.  But people fall for it, and pay these charlatans for their time and services.

Joel Osteen and T.D. Jakes fall for a classic fallacy. If I succeeded, that means anyone can. The harsh truth is, people will fail. The harsh truth is, only a certain amount of people will ever get the immense financial "blessings" that they have. Why? Because of math. And because of the way capitalistic society functions. That's just the truth. I'd expound more, but I'd be here all day.

And you may notice that you'll hear "success" stories of people that followed what they preached and found money. Oooooohhhhh . . . . aaaaahhhh. But that's an unfair measurement. If you want to find out the validity of a doctrine, then include all of the people that have followed what they said and failed. You would then see that the failures outweigh the successes. Therefore, prosperity preaching is just like the magic pills they sell on TV at 2 A.M.

It's horse****. I'll let your imagination fill in the four-letter word.

If you are reading this, and you believe people like Benny Hinn and Theresa Caputo are genuine, I would encourage you to do critical research.  Truth holds up to questions, and their actions and claims do not hold up.  The thing is, there’s nothing unique about what they do or claim.  And it’s sad in today’s world of information, which would teach you that they are rehashing the scams that others before them used, that their claims are taken at face value.

Logic dictates, as Carl Sagan once put it, that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  Over and over, psychics and faith-healers make extraordinary claims without ever presenting evidence.  Over and over, what evidence they do try to present is torn apart in the face of investigation.

The investigations of James Randi are probably the best place to start when looking at frauds being exposed.  Mr. Randi is a magician that specializes in debunking people who claim to have supernatural abilities.

Here’s a link that will show you how he exposed Uri Geller, an illusionist claiming to have supernatural powers, and Peter Popoff, a faith healer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9w7jHYriFo

And there’s plenty more videos of his.  Just type in “James Randi debunks” or “James Randi exposes” in Google to see more of his work.  He’s made a career out of it.  And if you like him, check out Penn & Teller, both of whom were influenced heavily by James Randi to form their iconic act.

The reason for the success of psychics and faith healers leaves me with two opinions on why.

1. People want to be deceived
2. Evolutionary flaws leave us vulnerable to tricks

To expound on the first point, I think this really is the reason why anyone believes in anything other than reality.  Everyone, including the most hard-nosed atheists, love mysteries.  We love the idea of the unknown, the idea of something existing beyond what reality indicates.  Why?  Several reasons.

We fear death.  We can’t help it.  Almost all biological creatures fear death outside of things with no brains.  A possible exception might be wolverines and honey badgers.  And maybe the whole damn weasel family.  Seriously, look them up.  They’re nuts.

We fear death because on the most basic, instinctual level, we are compelled to survive.  Why?  Mainly to reproduce.  On an evolutionary scale, that really is all there is to our purpose.  Passing on genes as much as possible.

Evolution is a perv.

But passing on our genetic code is the very definition of life.  It is how we identify living things from nonliving things.  Sex is life.  That’s really all there is to it.  That’s why we hate aging, that’s why prey fights so desperately to escape predators, and that’s why we fear death.  We’re not even wired to process death as a part of our reality.  We cannot imagine the world without us in it.

Is there anything more self-centered and yet more understandable?  And isn’t that why religion is so appealing?  It feels so intuitive to believe that there is life after death.  That there’s something more than just this mortal existence.

Not many people admit to themselves that death is in fact, the end.  Not many people will even admit it as a possibility.  Do you know why?

Because opening that door leads to so many other questions that you would never ask otherwise.  Scary questions.  Like, if this life is all that we have, what is the purpose?  Is there purpose?  What is purpose and why does it matter?  If this is it, how should I live?  Where do I derive my morality?  What is moral?

What if these questions don’t have absolute answers?  *GASP*  But how can that be?  We must have absolute answers.  Because . . . . because . . . . what the hell would we do without answers?!?!?!

That’s the toughest part about being an atheist.  Atheists are the most honest people in the world.  We admit that we don’t know.  We don’t know if there is a god or gods.  We don’t know if there is an afterlife.  We don’t know the answers to these questions, but we CHOOSE to be honest with ourselves and allow the same criticism that we apply to all other parts of our lives to be applied to religion and the afterlife.

(By the way, that’s what qualifies as being as atheist.  There’s a misunderstanding that atheists deny God exists, but that’s not true.  We don’t believe he, she, or it exists because there is no evidence.  I would go further into detail, but this rabbit hole is already too long.  Another time, another post.)

Follow along on how this might work.  Unicorns do not exist.  Yet, in some books, I find unicorns.  If unicorns are in a book, doesn’t that mean that unicorns exist?  No.  But why?  Unicorns have only ever been written about but not actually seen.  There’s no evidence that unicorns exist or have ever existed, even though, at one time there existed a great many people who believed in their existence.  Yet, unicorns have never been photographed or documented.

Do you believe in unicorns?  How about leprechauns?  Dragons?  Griffins?  Zeus?  Thor?  Why not?  They’re written down in books and ancient writings as if they did exist.  So why not believe them?

Answering that is hard to put into words, isn't it?  It’s kind of like, “Where do I even start?”  Now, you know what an atheist thinks about all religion.  Where do I even start?  It all boils down to evidence.  There is no evidence.

None.  Nada.  Zero.  Zilch.

What about the afterlife?  Well, that really comes down to the same thing as anything else.  Is there evidence?  No.  It’s a nice thought, and a lot of cultures share the sentiment, though in vastly different ways.  But all the evidence points to there being no afterlife.  I’m sorry.

Believe what you want, but understand that beliefs do not equal truth.  Just because you want it to be true doesn't mean that it is.  Also understand that when you want something to be true, you have ceased thinking critically about the subject.  Now, in any little experience, you may be skewing the reality of what’s around you to fit your belief.  We’re all guilty of this, but the only way to stop it is to recognize it and fight it.

Thinking critically doesn't come naturally.  It is something we learn.

Now, for the evolutionary side of things, I think we’re just wired to be tricked.  It’s sort of a side-effect of our nature.  For instance, all humans have a blind spot.  Yet, we don’t notice.  Our brains compensate for the blind spot and we don’t catch it.

Your brain lies.

For a very cool demonstration, see the link below and take the simple test at the bottom of the page:

http://io9.com/5804116/why-every-human-has-a-blind-spot---and-how-to-find-yours

You may also notice that accomplished illusionists can make things, such as playing cards, “disappear” into thin air.  Now, even they will tell you that it’s not real magic.  It’s an illusion.  By holding the card a certain way, moving his or her hand a up and down and at the same time folding the card to be behind his or her hand at a particular speed, our eyes do not catch it.  It looks like it has disappeared.

For a demonstration, see the link below:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wMpWy1lpFA

Our brains just can’t keep up, and the result is that we automatically think it’s magic.  We can’t explain it, therefore magic.  Of course, a little investigation proves that it’s not magic.  For instance, all it would take is for someone to stand on the other side of the illusionist to see how the trick works.

This is why education is so important.  Why understanding who you are, not just on a personal level, but on a scientific, evolutionary scale is vital.  We have brains that have flaws, eyes that can only see certain things at certain speeds.  Understanding this gives us perspective, which is the one thing that helps us make sense of the world.

Think about it.  We cannot see bullets flying through the air once they have been shot from a gun.  However, we understand that is what they are doing.  We know that a bullet is propelled through a controlled explosion of gunpowder out of a chamber and through the air until it reaches something that can stop it.

But imagine if there was a time-traveler from the Bronze Age who happened to materialize in a gun range.  He would hear and see the firing of the gun, and then he would see the target get hit simultaneously.  He wouldn't see the object leaving the gun and following all of the laws of natural world to travel through the air and impact the target.  He would just see one thing make a loud sound and something not connected to that loud thing react violently.

Magic.

This is why perspective is so important.  This is also the argument used to dismiss claims of people who point to a mystery and claim that because it is a mystery, it must be supernatural.  As an example, I’ll use an argument most theists use.

Argument:  The Big Bang may be true, but there must be a cause of the Big Bang.  And because all things must have a cause, that cause must be some sort of supreme intelligence. A god.

Counter-Argument:  Just because we don’t know the cause of the Big Bang doesn't mean that it is a god.  You’re assuming that because there is no knowledge of the subject, a god must be the explanation.  The time-traveling Bronze-age man doesn't know how the gun can impact the target from a great distance.  He may think it's magic, but that doesn't mean that it is.  A positive claim can’t be made because no knowledge of the subject exists.

This also goes back to the “God of the Gaps” problem.  If that is how you invoke knowledge of there being a god or gods, then he or she or it is an ever-shrinking idea.  At one point, humans thought lightning was something that a god was responsible for.  Now we know differently.  It can be explained through nature.  At one point, humans thought volcanic eruptions were something supernatural.  Now we know differently.  They are a normal process of our planet.

So the next time you see a convincing psychic, even if he or she does something amazing, remember that it’s a trick.  Until one of them can actually prove that they are reading someone’s mind or talking to the dead, you shouldn't believe them.  They are well-practiced tricksters.  The famous ones have purposefully practiced techniques like “cold-reading” to create illusions that what they do is real.  They take advantage of our brains natural functions to deceive.  The not-so-famous ones who actually believe they are psychic are as deceived as the subjects of famous psychics.  Mostly because everyone wants to believe they are special.  (Another time, another post.)

The next time you’re in a church service, and the preacher starts talking about healing people, watch to see if anyone’s healed.  Watch that they “heal” people with cancer, chronic back pain, arthritis, and other invisible ailments.  Notice that they don’t try to heal the deaf, the blind, the amputees, the mentally retarded, or the wheelchair bound.  And if they do try, notice that nothing happens.

Also notice that the something does happen when they do “heal” the people with invisible ailments.  Those people feel better.  This is called the placebo effect.  They are not actually healed, but they feel like they are.  This effect is well-documented in the medical community, and there’s nothing special about it.

How about if I use Eliza and Wendy as an example.  Both Eliza and Wendy attend an evangelical church.  Both Eliza and Wendy get regular medical exams from their respective doctors, and both of their doctors have sounded an alarm because Eliza and Wendy both have a lump in their left breast.

Appointments are made with specialists to determine whether the lumps are benign or malignant.  Eliza and Wendy go to their churches and ask for prayers, citing that they have lumps in their breasts.  Prayers of healing are made over both of them.

Elize goes to the specialist, and through the wonders of modern medicine, her lump is found to be completely benign.  Nothing to worry about at all.  Eliza goes back to church with the good news and with the claim that God has healed her.  She tells everyone that she knows, whether it be in person or on Facebook, that God has healed her.

Wendy goes to the specialist, and through the wonders of modern medicine, her lump is found to be malignant.  It’s cancer.  More appointments are made and a treatment of chemo and radiation is prescribed.  Wendy goes back to church, and more prayers of healing are now made week in and week out.

So, is prayer only effective some of the time?  Does it depend on the type of person?  Is it because God is a mystery and no one knows his ways?  Then what?  You pray but don’t expect?  Aren't you supposed to pray with expectation?

What does logic say?  Well, logic looks at raw data.  Certain numbers of people will have lumps that are benign, and others will have lumps that turn out to be cancerous.  There’s no obvious reason behind it.  Some Christians get cancer, and some Satanists don’t.  Some Satanists get cancer, and some Christians don’t.

Therefore, there’s no reason to believe that prayers healed Eliza.  It’s more logical and more easily explained through the data.  Some people will get benign lumps.  Eliza was one of those people.  Unfortunately, Wendy was one in the group that gets malignant tumors.  There’s no overarching cause we can identify, though that avenue is being explored through genetic research.  But if one were to insist that it was God who healed Eliza, one runs into another problem.

If God is the cause of Eliza’s lump being benign, then he must also be the cause of Wendy’s lump being malignant.  Both prayed to the same God.  Both are sincere and good church folk.  And if God is responsible for the good, he must also be responsible for the bad.

You cannot make the claim that God is only responsible for the good things, but when bad things happen, all of the sudden take that responsibility away.  If you say “Oh, it’s a mystery” then Eliza’s benign lump must also be a mystery.

This has been a long post written by your friendly, neighborhood atheist.  I hope you enjoyed the read.  I’m looking for ideas and specific subjects to write about, so please leave something in the comments section.  If you want to remain anonymous, then please email me at mvecore@gmail.com.