Over 100 arguments for atheism – free ebook

Introduction

My life started growing up in an irreligious background. I basically remained an atheist for most of my childhood despite some religious episodes, praying and so on. When deciding what religions are correct and whether there are some spiritual powers, I tried to read as many books as possible and be as objective as I could when selecting arguments. My heart had gone to science, a scientific approach and critical thinking.

I definitely wasn’t trying to underestimate Christianity and other spiritual ways. Can you move objects just by thinking about them? Is there a soul? An afterlife? Does a prayer work? These are questions I think I had found answers for. And they are mentioned in this book. Please try to read this book even if you are standing on the other side of a barricade. Being stranded in a bubble isn’t always right. And yes, I read religious argumentation – theology, philosophical theology and continental philosophy. I even meet with a priest.

Now why is this book out? I was trying to find a people-friendly expanded list of arguments for atheism and I completely failed to do so. So, I have created my own. This book is definitely not exhaustive, and I am definitely wrong about some things and not right about everything (in so many arguments, you must literally be wrong about something). I guess the free will and morality questions will be the most controversial parts. However, this list is intended for someone who doesn’t want to read a long book about atheism.

I have tried to accumulate as many arguments as I could. At some point, I got sick and tired of making this book because you could have made an infinite number of arguments and could improve everything to infinity, so I decided to finish the work and publish it.

This book is intended both for theists (the believers in a personal God) and deists (those believing in an impersonal God).

How difficult it is for a religious person to change his or her thinking

When starting to read this book, you may be completely convinced that God not only exists but all of the Christian teachings are right. You were born and raised a Christian and every aspect of your life is derived from Christianity. You live in the truth, and you barely think something can convince you otherwise.

We have a God-given loving family, morality, free will, and the protective hand of God. You are a living example that prayer works. You are connected to God and only the Devil is trying to take you to the other side. He, therefore, invented disciplines trying to subvert God.

We appreciate the beauty of this world and think that something couldn’t have come from nothing (either in this universe or nature).

These patterns are so deeply seated that it may be impossible to change your thinking even a bit. The emotions attributed to your life may be unchangeable.

This short book can, however, turn your life upside-down (if you let it, of course). It will teach you not only how keep an open mind and think properly (yes, the vast majority of people are biased). But you must give it a try. Please kindly contemplate it at least.

We have cognitive biases, make fallacies, lack critical thinking and mix emotions into the thinking process

Given the fact evolution is true, we are basically plagued with cognitive biases. People are great at convincing themselves (it is much easier than to pretend something in a hunter-gathering community). Logical mistakes are also prevalent and little critical thinking was needed in the African savanna where modern people originate from. If you are not cognitively biased, make no fallacies and possess critical thinking, there is no chance of being a believer (theist or deist) after reading some of these arguments. Even though you were raised in a religious background.

Using the above mentioned, you can justify the Holocaust, Pol Pot, witch hunts, crusades, Stalin, and basically everything. But being devoid of these, your thinking comes to the right conclusions.

You can also see that you are not reasoning rationally but with emotions. Those emotions can be a strong player in your thinking process and, of course, to its detriment. Imagine scientists thinking emotionally – we would live in the Stone Age. Or let’s make it simple. Imagine the most simple rational act. Tying your shoe laces. Babies cannot do it because they are not smart enough. But you must raise your hand, put fingers to the right place and then move. And now imagine emotions would disturb the whole process. You wouldn’t be able to do anything.

Here are some examples of cognitive biases, fallacies and formal fallacies:

Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms or supports one’s prior beliefs or values.

Wishful thinking is the formation of beliefs based on what might be pleasing to imagine, rather than on evidence, rationality, or reality. It is a product of resolving conflicts between belief and desire.

Magical thinking – fallacious attribution of causal relationships between actions and events.

Argument from fallacy (also known as the fallacy fallacy) – the assumption that, if a particular argument for a “conclusion” is fallacious, then the conclusion itself is false.

Conservatism bias – the tendency to insufficiently revise one’s belief when presented with new evidence.

Anecdotal evidence – information derived from personal experience or observation. Anecdotal evidence is used to learn about experiences, products, and to help prove a point. It is not scientific evidence, which can be verified objectively.

Dysrationalia – defined as the inability to think and behave rationally despite adequate intelligence. It is a concept in educational psychology and is not a clinical disorder such as a thought disorder. Dysrationalia can be a resource to help explain why smart people fall for Ponzi schemes and other fraudulent encounters.

Fallacy of composition – assuming that something true as part of a whole must also be true of the whole.

False attribution – appealing to an irrelevant, unqualified, unidentified, biased or fabricated source in support of an argument.

Cherry picking – suppressed evidence, incomplete evidence, argument by half-truth, fallacy of exclusion, card stacking, slanting – using individual cases or data that confirm a particular position, while ignoring related cases or data that may contradict that position.

Inductive fallacy – a more general name for a class of fallacies, including hasty generalization and its relatives. A fallacy of induction happens when a conclusion is drawn from premises that only lightly support it.

Appeal to the stone – dismissing a claim as absurd without demonstrating proof for its absurdity.

Argument from incredulity (appeal to common sense) – “I cannot imagine how this could be true; therefore, it must be false.”¹

The fact of the matter is, there are basically hundreds of them.

Religious indoctrination

This is the main transmissible way to make people religious. And it starts from the cradle. The little babies have no choice, and religion then becomes deeply ingrained in them. When confronted with a different world-view they use every bias and every fallacy that exists just to defend their blind faith.

Why is evolution true?

When Charles Darwin published his book “The Origin of Species” there were only fossils, and their similarity to other fossils and current animals (and mutual geographic proximity). And the similarity of living animals, of course.

He described natural selection, which is defined as the process through which populations of living organisms adapt and change. Individuals in a population are naturally variable, meaning that they are all different in some way. This variation means that some individuals have traits better suited to the environment than others. Note that the vast majority of mutations are either harmless or harmful.

With precise dating of fossils, we now know the T-Rex fossils were found in some phase. Let’s say some million years before our times. The evolution of fossils was discovered and the dating of fossils correspond with evolution as proposed. That means one evolutionary stage was similar to other, and dating (the age of evolution) matched. The problem would appear when some dinosaur fossils were dated billion years ago, or if the skeletons looked completely different (or if they were found in a completely different geographical area). It would easily disprove the evolution theory.

And with the huge discovery of DNA, no one could imagine a bigger test that evolutionary theory was facing. It could have easily proved or disproved it all.

Imagine T-Rex fossils (and its evolution) would be followed up with a similar form, and the dating would be consistent. And now the DNA wouldn’t match. There has been no evolution.

But guess what? The DNA matched perfectly, and not just in dinosaurs. We have the huge evolution tree of known species.

Evolution is also mathematicised, and the current prevailing theory is the theory of the selfish gene. Evolution theory is completely safe and proven.

We are evolutionarily programmed to be religious

Evolutionary biology is a robust exact science that has its own branches: taxonomy, paleontology, ethology, population genetics, and ecology. Evolutionary psychology is a pseudoscience (though based on a rational core) that possesses many truths, even though we don’t know which are true. And we are evolutionary programmed to be religious, but we don’t know if religion served as a purpose for our ancestors or whether it is just a byproduct (we may bet on it, yet we have no certainty). Evolution is something extremely proved, so religion consequentially must be part of evolution.

You then have a personal relationship with the deity, feel its presence, it answers your wishes and so on, but this is nothing but evolutionary purpose or a by-product of it.

The overwhelming presence of God

If you are religious, you may feel the presence of God, have a personal relationship with him. You can feel how he works with you, communicates via prayer and so on. You may receive his love, gratitude, peace and kindness. God can communicate via the Bible (every emotion you get when reading the Bible may be God-given). The truth is you can feel the presence of Buddha, Krishna, Allah and so on. And you may claim: “My one is the only one!” But people forming other religions claim this as well. If you are in larger groups of people, the presence can be felt more (therefore in church gatherings).

The Bible is the best book

It is true that the Bible will give you an answer to everything. The Bible is written in riddles so you can interpret it in a billion ways. Grossly incoherent, likely written by semi-literate men wrapped in fur, it is full of completely untrustworthy fairy tales that are a vast majority of lies; dubious claims, superstitions, extraordinary stupid observations that absolutely defy science. It has nothing to offer in terms of science and explanations of this world.

It provides us with things that science has successfully debunked. And since religious people use cognitive biases, fallacies and formal fallacies there is no problem for the Bible to advocate Hitler, suicide, crusades, Stalin, slavery, brutality, stoning, the killing of infidels and so on. It can tell you everything and nothing.

Reliability of the New Testament

Even Christian scholars agree there is no evidence for the claims in the New Testament. Not only are there stories that are false (the majority of them are made-up) but the teaching likely became corrupt after it was written down.

We act just like animals, God’s creatures would act differently and why create an imperfect society?

People (higher primates) are extremely selfish and help their family but not strangers (you don’t care (to do something) if someone is dying on the other side of the planet or if someone is in a really bad situation. The reason you help your family is that you share an extremely significant level of DNA with them and the selfish genes compete with who will program the robots they will continue to reproduce. Now you know why family exists.

r = the genetic relatedness of the recipient to the actor, often defined as the probability that a gene picked randomly from each at the same locus is identical by descent.

B = the additional reproductive benefit gained by the recipient of the altruistic act,

C = the reproductive cost to the individual performing the act.

You share 50 % of genes with you parents, siblings; 25 % with stepsiblings, grandparents, nieces, nephews, uncles, aunts; 12,5 % with your cousins, grandaunts, granduncles; 3,13 % with your second cousins. These numbers explain why you help your family members less or more.

In the society created by God, you would not only help complete strangers with scarce resources (for example, give him or her your house or all of your money) but you would also compete with who will be more altruistic (“No, sir, don’t give him more money, I will give him more money). People also provide help to strangers in a hunter-gathering group, but this can be explained by rising their chance to reproduce by boosting their social status (there are several forms of altruism but none of them can be labeled as really altruistic).

Not only do people not help each other, they actually compete for everything: sexual partners, food, tools, social reputation, properties, jobs, stocks, money, and so on). In human society, nearly everything is about mating. Girls flaunt their make-up, luring males to invest scarce resources into them and their babies, males are bigger in order to compete for females. Males will mate with nearly every female because they don’t have to care for the offspring, while females are picky and chose carefully whom to allow to mate (females ensure their partner will take responsibility for their offspring).

We are evolutionarily set in some ways: people eat, sleep, defecate, relax (because you would waste limited energy), cheat on their partners, observe other people to gain knowledge about the hunter-gathering group to increase their evolutionary fitness (who is a strong man, who possesses resources, who is unfaithful, who is a good hunter, who is untrustworthy, who has influence over the group), likes to hunt, has children and cares about them, practices sex, reciprocal altruism, infanticide, homicide, genocide, wars, we enjoy being part of a family and having personal relationships (which are not God-given but serve as an evolutionary purpose).

People like fatty and sugary meals because food was a scarce resource in the African savanna; when scared, you first get startled, then you identify the source and decide whether it was a false alarm. People fear darkness, snakes, spiders, predators and so on. Homo sapiens are also extremely territorial, aggressive and wage wars.

Since few males attracted the majority of females (to bond with them), people invented monogamy as a form of socialism, so every male gets his own wife.

Love is also an evolutionary adaptation to increase your evolutionary fitness. Since bonds tend to be short, love obligates both parents to care of their offspring for the critical time.

Rape can be included into evolutionary biology’s repertoire because it helps the males impregnate a woman without having to care for the offspring.

People might be racist or xenophobic because it lets their selfish genes to be spread more (unlike the others’).

We have intelligence to solve complex relations in the hunter-gathering group. We live in hierarchical societies where submissive-dominant relationships prevail. We tend to be egalitarian, understand the value of things. Nowadays we watch movies because we love storytelling, which provided us with information about the hunter-gathering group back in the African savanna.

Evolutionarily given animalistic personality and sets of behaviors

No matter what culture are you from, we are slaves of the evolutionarily given animalistic personality and sets of behaviors we cannot change. Imagine you have decided to do just one activity of your choice for a really long time; you simply cannot, the brain doesn’t allow you to do so. The same goes for your robust cognitive apparatus, it slides from one thing to another, try to focus on one thing continuously for two years. You cannot. We know we live in the universe but don’t concentrate on it all the time. The same goes for sciences (notably physics).

How would the ideal society look?

Since I wrote how imperfect and animalistic our society is, I would also like to pinpoint how the ideal society would look. Actually, it wouldn’t be a classic society as we now know. There would be infinite robots with consciousness and with infinite happiness. No hunter-gathering and ape-like behavior with lousy morality. Just a perfect society.

There are also possibilities for one robot to possess multiple consciousnesses, or there may be completely different mathematical models.

World consisting only of Gods

There is another theory: God – as our father – has created this universe with people. But why people? Creating a world with an infinite number of Gods would make much better sense. The Gods would be equal, and they would share the same Godly attributes. We are animals, there is no afterlife

Since we are just animals (robots with consciousness and personality), we are destined to die. Evolution programmed us to reproduce (there was evolutionary pressure on it), and not to live long lives. Therefore, we have to die pretty early (compared to the age of evolution). So, is there heaven for reproducing animals? I don’t think so. Note that nobody has returned from heaven or hell to tell us about their existence.

Since people have an evolutionarily-given love for their closest-ones and their backward age didn’t have any knowledge of the brain, people dreamed about heaven.

Living eternally? Why not?

Not only is God not eternal in time, but we are born and then we are supposed to go either to heaven or hell. But why not live an eternal life (living infinitely both in the past and the future)? This rather indicates we are born because we are replicating animals.

People fear for their life but why, when there is heaven?

If heaven exists, there is no need to worry about dying if you act morally. Heaven is definitely better than an earthly life. But no! People are scared to die and use the threat of killing someone as an evolutionary advantage. The truth is Homo sapiens have a strong self-preserving reflex (to be alive at all costs) which enables them to mate, have offspring and continue to spread their selfish genes.

Were we Godly creations we would not be biological robots

Imagine you were God and you wanted to create a society with infinite beings with infinite happiness, without any interactions between the beings, so morality would be obsolete. The robots (with consciousness, but the same personality) would be functional in the way that technological inventions are (some God’s super-duper energy), not as animals ingesting and chewing food, with lungs, livers, hearts, kidneys, stomach, and intestines. And now take a look at how imperfect the organisms are, with all of their flaws: cancer, stomach ulcers, myocardial infarction, kidneys failure, Crohn’s disease, chronic kidneys and so on and so on. This is something else we have common with animals (organs, DNA and thousands of diseases).

There were tens of thousands of religions

Humankind has produced literally tens of thousands of religions (you can count the nonreligious cultures on one hand). Most of them incompatible with other religions, a minority of them compatible. Each religion has its own explanation for things such as the afterlife, karma, soul, prayer, creation, Gods, cycle of life, death, and rebirth, or a single, finite earthly life followed by a single, unending afterlife? Do they retain individual consciousness and distinctness? Incarnation of the divine: never? Once only? Many times? What is the diagnosis of the human condition: Sin? Ignorance? Something else? The vast majority of them (except for those ones created now) are in deep contrast with modern science because they stem from illiteracy, ignorance, superstition, no real available knowledge. Sam Harris put it greatly when he marked religions as failed sciences. And a great bunch of them believe they are just right themselves. If religion doesn’t destroy the other religions, it is determined to fail (note Christianity, Judaism and Islam are very aggressive religions). Do you believe in a single God? Therefore, you are atheist regarding the other religions (this is basically a quote by Richard Dawkins). So, which one do you choose?

It doesn’t matter that religions are incompatible

Some folks claim it doesn’t matter that religions are incompatible. They say all religions advocate the same thing. And of course, this is absolutely wrong. This is the view that the various religions are culturally conditioned interpretations and conceptualizations of a single underlying divine reality. Each is equally valid as a means of contact with the divine, and as a vehicle of salvation, transformation, and/or liberation.

There is a distinction between the Real-as-it-is-in-itself, and the Real-as-it-is-experienced-by-us. The Real as it is in itself = the divine as it really is. The Real as it is experienced by us = the experiences of the divine + the interpretive frameworks that are the various religious traditions in which they occur.

Strictly speaking, the religions of the world are all false, in the sense that they are not accurate representations of the Real as it is in itself.

None of our concepts of the divine apply to Real as it is in itself. But if not, then how can we even claim that the Real is divine? It claims that the Real as it is in itself is neither personal nor impersonal, neither one being nor many beings, etc. But on the face of it, this seems to be logically impossible – necessarily, the Real as it is in itself is either a person or it isn’t; necessarily, the Real as it is in itself is either one being or it isn’t, etc.

If literally nothing at all can be known of the Real as it is in itself, then contrary to what Hick says, it seems that it can’t function as an explanation of religious diversity – since it can do no explanatory work at all.²

Religion stems from primitive superstitions when no science was known

Imagine not being able to count, read or write. Then welcome to the age when most religions were created. There was no physics, mathematics (not on the level we have nowadays), evolutionary biology, evolutionary psychology, or statistics. No peer-reviewed articles, basically no widely available means of how to transmit human knowledge and no professional knowledge makers (compared to our current knowledge, when it is absolutely impossible to learn everything during one lifetime; actually current new knowledge is appearing at a faster and faster pace). We should also note the average IQ was drastically lower compared to now.

What are God’s achievements

People often catastrophically fail to understand how brutal the world was before the Scientific and Industrial revolution with capitalism came – which is basically all the time humans have existed.

Life expectancy at birth averaged 10 years for most of human history. 105 billion people have lived on earth with such a low expectancy. Where has God been?

Life was short, brutish, full of hunger, thirst, fear of danger, violent death, mental and physical pain. Nearly all illnesses were incurable. Wars, genocide, infanticides. One group had nothing to eat or drink, they went and raped, or murdered another clan members. Of course, people had also experienced positive things but compared to this?

God cannot be proven but not disproved

Well, things usually need to be proved rather than disproved. God cannot be disproved but his alleged existence is so absurd so we may be sure he doesn’t exist. Or we may take it inversely – try to disprove that every man has an invisible small world of dwarves planning a revolution in the whole universe on the top of his penis. You can’t disprove it. Isn’t it absurd? The same goes for God.

Why did theistic belief come after a really long time?

Yes, starting from the most primitive belief to the most sophisticated beliefs, when theological philosophers or theologians advocate a theistic God ad hoc. But why?

Various folk beliefs with Gods of nature and other quasi-like Gods existed before monotheism.

God has created us or led our evolution. But a monotheistic God as himself emerged really late: Quasi-monotheistic claims of universal deity’s existence date to the Late Bronze Age, with Akhenaten’s Great Hymn to the Aten from the 14th century BCE. In the Iron-Age South Asian Vedic period, a possible inclination towards monotheism emerged. The Rigveda exhibits notions of Brahman monism, particularly in the comparatively late tenth book, which is dated to the early Iron Age, e.g. in the Nasadiya Sukta.³

World complexity couldn’t have been created by itself

Look at the stunning complexity of the world. It couldn’t have happened by itself. While this argument may sound right, it is completely rubbish. People evolved to understand complex human interactions and benefit from it. And when something complex emerges, they see it as product of someone. What about the mountain? Someone had to have put it there. Nowadays geology can, however, debunk it. Look at the tree’s structure, someone must have made it. Look at the complexity of chemistry, physics. This goes same with everything. But it’s one extremely huge bias.

Our extremely high intelligence gives us the chance to be extremely wrong

Imagine being a duck. It cannot imagine God. Humans, however, can imagine nearly anything given their extremely high intelligence compared to the other animals. But that can also doom them to be completely wrong. Your thinking process tree may differ in billions of possibilities. I will give you an example: you have scientific theory – there may be 10 000 ways, but only one of them, however, is correct. The same goes for God: millions of cognitive biases, fallacies, and logical mistakes lead to a completely false conclusion. Being free of the above-mentioned, stressing the importance of scientific evidence and rationality lead to the correct outcome.

There is no evidence for religion

There is no evidence for God – given how powerful he is and how strong his presence should be, science nowadays would have uncovered him. We have sophisticated tools to detect and measure things and religions seem to be completely elusive. Physical laws that would necessarily include processes connected to God, but there are none.

God’s ways of communicating

Yes, the most probable way for God to communicate with us is a really old book. Not some hologram, audio, or video but a strange book. Sometimes a prophet appears which also makes no sense. It is very egregious that virtually all human Gods are invisible.

The Bible is supposed to be a product of God, yet it miserably describes this universe and nature

Imagine the age when the Bible was created as a work of God. And what kind of God? God so impotent and stupid that he had to have the exact knowledge their era had provided him with. Imagine putting the reference of Newtonian physics, the Theory of relativity, quantum mechanics, evolution, schizophrenia, antibiotics, elements of chemistry, or cardiopulmonary bypass. How could someone have had such knowledge at this backward age? No, the Bible knows exactly the same things that people knew in the age it was created in.

Nowadays physics can exclude theism

Today’s physics is an extremely robust and exact science that can exclude theism. And while there might be unknown matter we have very little clue of, there is no reason to connect it with something spiritual when we have learned spiritual things are something animalistic and stem from primitive superstition. We have superb observational devices that we have developed, and modern science can offer, yet they completely fail to reproduce any positive findings about God, the Devil, karma, prayer and so on.

There is no immaterial world

Religious people like to claim that there is not only the material world but also the immaterial one. The one we cannot prove. Sometimes they connect it with black matter we are not very familiar with. So love is not chemistry in the brain but cosmic power. But you can think of a billion ways the immaterial world can look like. Full of dwarves, witches and devil. And we cannot prove it either. But since we know religions are nothing but man-made evolutionarily-given phenomenons there is no reason there should be something like an invisible magical world. It is extremely improbable that the proven physical world would not interact with the immaterial world (like the power of prayer, Godly interventions and so on). Something that physics would have uncovered. It is just another made up thing to defend religions. We should stay with physicalism and scientists uncovering the real world.

Theodicy

If God is omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient, there should be no evil. Therefore, is he evil? Is he impotent? Or is he not knowing? Some people say evil must exist in order to know what it looks like. But no, this is written in the Bible and the suffering is really astounding.

Why to pray?

When God is omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient, there is no reason to pray. It makes no sense.

The power of prayer

Imagine if prayer worked. You would turn a sociopath pupil with low intelligence into a bright and moral individual. People would pray during the presidential election and turn millions of people to their side. Prayers would make the world into a complete and unpredictable mess. Opposite prayers would null each other. Not only can physics now exclude the power of prayer, but there is no known way for prayer to work in our physical world. Even if physics were non-existential, we have robust statistical tools to prove things. And guess what? According to them, prayer doesn’t work. By the way, particular religions think prayer only works only in their system. You pray and sometimes it seems to function, but in reality, that particular natural phenomenon would have happened anyways. You only emphasize when it “works”, not counting when it doesn’t.

Two conflicting powers

The same goes for the power of good and evil. God would do something with the Devil doing the opposite things. The world would be a very chaotic and unpredictable place.

There is no Devil

Back in the days when there was no modern Western medicine and no science, people explained every bad phenomenon by the Devil. Fox example: cancer, coronary heart disease, myocardial infarction, lower respiratory infections, poor harvest, bad weather, loss of a child; all of them were ascribed to the Devil. We know that these phenomena can be either explained by science or be considered natural phenomena, not defying science. There is absolutely no evidence of the Devil causing suffering, influencing your brain processes or his functionality as a moving power. There is no plausible theory how the Devil should work and no evidence whatsoever. The Devil does not manipulate our mental processes

Every scientist that has ever made a natural observation through sophisticated devices was influenced by the Devil, so the devices pointed out no supernatural powers were present even if they were. Tens of thousands of scientists reading peer-reviewed articles were influenced by the Devil to try to lure people to be atheists (they made evolutionary biology, physics, evolutionary psychology). Imagine an astounding amount of scientific knowledge was amassed and the Devil knew when to manipulate the thinking when it was correct (in order to think out the particular thing) and when to fool with them to join the side of evil. No matter what, you have thinking that can reason, induce, deduce, be critical. Two nuclear bombs were dropped on Japan, but the Devil created physics in the mind of the physicists that just doesn’t work. How ironic! As a matter of fact, when some spiritual forces were working on our minds you couldn’t trust anything – even religion. You couldn’t know whether lines in the Bible were not being manipulated by, for example, the Devil of Islam in order not to believe in Allah. Note also that a God could be a manipulating force. People (excluding those mentally retarded) are able to know they put a cup into a sink. Then they know how to lace their shoes. And as the logical complexity rises, they are able to make rational claims about religion. And since thinking devoid of fallacies, cognitive biases, and critical thinking provides us with futile claims about the reality of this world, we know that religions are not true. So you can trust your thinking and science.

And by the way, scientific findings were able to be reproduced by Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus etc. So, one religion must be true, but it couldn’t reproduce any evidence of God’s (or spiritual powers) existence.

There is no soul

Since we are animals with an animalistic brain, there is no need to claim there is something like a soul. Not even when is something unproven but it makes no sense. You have a personality, and consciousness so how could this transfer into a soul?

How would the transmission of a soul or brain to heaven or hell look?

Since we know there is no soul, this question may be unnecessary. But even if the soul existed, I cannot imagine any logical way to transmit it to heaven. The same goes for the brain. There is no theory, there is no evidence.

It is all about faith

Yes, God is not visible and works in mysterious ways. But it is all about faith; the power is in faith, that you believe in something that may be difficult to believe. What about non-believers? Why does God not interact in a direct way (leave evidence of his existence)? Why isn’t his presence overwhelming? The notion that you have to believe in every single God or power is all-telling. This it-is-all-about-faith argument seems very improbable.

Why we are not equal and moral obligations for the creator

We are not just equal with God but our omnibenevolent should have a moral obligation to us to promote our welfare and well-being. Therefore, he would lead us in our moral decisions.

God is omnipotent, yet there is still hell

Yes, God didn’t make hell, the Devil did. However, our God is still omnipotent. So now what?

Morality is different across the cultures and changes over time

What was legal back then isn’t now and vice versa. Different cultures hold different moral values. And even every single individual may have a specific moral system.

The problem of evil before creation

Evil is derived from God’s faith-based criterion. But what about evil before creation? Has there ever been accidental evil, or has God purposely let it happen.

Are we all going to hell? Who is going to hell? Heaven and hell overlap

People are sinful to the degree that everyone has sinned. And God seems to be really arbitrary in this question. Taking his words literally, we should all end up in hell. There is no sharp distinction. Purgatory makes only a little sense in this dichotomy.

And even if we don’t all go to hell, there is the question who is actually going? What kind of morality would God be judging you by? The Bronze age one (which was extremely cruel), an-eye-for-an-eye morality, Roman, Middle Ages or modern? Such a mystery. By the way, during the Thirty Years’ War, the Catholics were convinced the Protestants were going to hell. And the Protestants claimed the Catholics were going to hell. Well, tough choice.

The third problem is that heaven and hell overlap. Imagine them as an overlapping spectrum. A loving father supported charity, helped his neighbor with his car, takes care of his elderly mom, but also murdered someone and stole something. Heaven or hell, or something in between? Tough question.

Heaven and hell as a binary construct

In hell, you will encounter the worst suffering you can ever imagine. The scale seems to be infinite.

Imagine our current penitentiary system (notably in third world countries). You have jails that you can leave, work outside and you are trusted that you will come back. And another jail with a filthy, extremely cold, mini cell with no food intake where you are being tortured (denailing, brutal beating, boiling in hot water, live burial, roasted over fire, stress positions).

But no! No scaled levels of punishment. Hell is the worst of the worst. Taking it inversely, heaven is by far the best drug that has ever been made. The highest possible levels of given ecstasy.

If the constructs of religion made sense, there would have been thousands of post-mortal worlds based on sinner’s behavior. Not only just something between hell and heaven but a whole different set of attributes the worlds would possess.

Tough life choices, full of limits, yet you still have free will and are supposed to act morally

You are put into a situation you have not caused, yet you must act morally. The system won’t let you out. It is so complex; decision-making is really tough and life limits are everywhere. For example, a moral agent must make a choice, but all available choices will ruin a good person.

Current and past human morality makes little sense compared to ideal morality

There are many theories why morality evolved in the African savanna. But we can be satisfied by the fact human morality makes only a little sense.

I am not saying morality makes no sense. Yes, we have economic rules, stocks, the law, traffic rules and so on. But every step in the perfect moral system should lead to creating infinite individuals with infinite happiness (with no pain), something this moral system absolutely fails to do. Imagine people stopping all their activities only to bring the most happiness to an infinite number of consciousnesses. The world would turn to complete chaos. Not only doesn’t morality do this but its multi-steps lead to outcomes where unimaginable suffering is present – extremely poorly funded medicine development cannot treat a lot of illnesses (causing unimaginable pain), giving someone a sentence makes him get tortured in jail, poor education systems cause socio-pathological phenomena (murders, unemployment, criminality, politics full of front-parading shadow eminences), capitalism encourages prey-like competing; reckless behavior can cause divorce and short-lasting marriages (with kids already born), bad upbringing can cause a car accident (where “innocent” (but not innocent in reality, because everyone has some power in society) people die; poor foreign aid causes billions of people to suffer. Just because of animalistic laws we live by.

People are programmed not to doubt morality and accept it as reality since they have to be integrated into a hunter-gathering group. And they are so convinced that the morality they live in is good that they fail to see the bigger picture.

Morality is set by those ruling at a particular time because it is for their benefit. Human morality is also based on selfishness (you have your own house, wife, children, cottage, car, stocks, field, real estate – the law protects you). Despite people being grossly immoral by the standards of the perfect morality, people can at least slightly recognize what is good for everyone. Let’s say a medical emergency. But the taxes for it must be forcibly collected and then forcibly redistributed (because otherwise people would steal it on the way). We also tolerate atrocities happening in nature. Morality is also about power-brokering: music labels had been making obscene profits from selling CDs or cassettes but the internet and YouTube pushed them back (there are no higher rules, only who will benefit from it more). Software developers also want to make money despite their profits being unimaginable and people obtain their programs illegally (now you see the conflict).

Now let’s imagine the age when eye for an eye was something extremely progressive, since retributions back then were extremely cruel. Something happened and the whole family was murdered. They did something to your family you went and murdered their whole family.

You break an old lady’s or baby’s arm and they show you how to treat them in the jail. Meanwhile, when somebody is lying in bed with severe depression (not knowing what condition he is suffering from), it is completely legal. A cruel divorce has occurred (children are deeply affected) and it definitely has its wrongdoers, yet they are not punishable by law. Self-driving cars could have been developed since John von Neumann came up with his computational science. Can you imagine how many people would have been alive (including my own father)? No need for that, however.

Someone is run over by a car and dies. The crosswalk’s fault. Bad driver upbringing. The car’s fault. A lot of moral causes yet not a single one of them is enforceable.

I visited a blog about law once and their credo went something like this: “The law is not justice, not serving a good cause, it has no higher meaning. It serves as an asset keeper (to be able to own something) and – finally – as tool so as not to kill each other”. And I am saying: “What about all the wars and genocides?”

Imagine you killing 30 millions of people. You would be among mass killers like Mao or Hitler. Yet 30 million (it is just an estimate) of unborn shadows will never see the daylight because of: The Great Depression, The Long Depression or the financial crisis of 2007–2008 and Covid-19 when natality was lower. And these depressions or pandemics have their culprits. Any law enforcement? I don’t think so. (Or imagine Wall Street sitting on hundreds of billions of dollars and not taking any action.)

People, like animals, are programmed to like sex. And even without it they like to have children. And since the means of contraception didn’t exist for the vast majority of mankind’s history, nothing happened when people were not having children. But when you kill a child, well, that’s a great problem (I am not saying killing children is good) because it degraded your evolutionary fitness.

So evolution has put pressure on people with low IQ since they have many more offspring than smarter ones. And now it should put pressure on people not using contraception. By the way, if we exaggerate then the inventors of contraception are the biggest murderers in history. Tens of billions of people would have lived among us if contraception didn’t exist and people had unprotected sex.

One of the main questions on morality is who will be born (from the genome) and how happy a life he or she will live. And there is absolutely no justice in it. If morality were perfect, total chaos would ensue. Everything would lead to more people being born with infinite happiness. Governments and the legal system would stop working because everyone would be moral.

You would try to prevent two people from marrying because less children would be born, so you arrange a marriage between the bride and a rich man, so more people will be born. You (even with the super-rich) would also pay money to families to have more offspring. The driver that killed my father would be made to pay money to my mother so I could have siblings.

People would start to compete who will give more money for those in need. The not-haves would be provided money by the haves.

A man would be joined with a widow because she wants a man or she commits suicide. After a breakup, the government would match your future partner. Friendless people would get friends. 50 % of GDP would be invested to boost infinite happiness for infinite people. A scientific revolution would take place. Most illnesses would be preventable or curable. There would be no unemployment. Drug abuse would be completely curable with new medicine. There would be no modern slaves satisfying the ruling economical elite. Actually, there would be no politics and shadow eminences in it. Everyone would like every person he or she met. There would be no problems in any human interactions. All people would lead a happy life and if not, a governmental expert would come up and start solving it with infinite resources. You would start paying money for healthcare to people in third world countries and build them up.

Scientists would develop a scan whether one’s brain is sociopathic and what the likelihood is if he or she will commit a serious crime or murder. Technological companies would lend their brightest brains to governments so that they could really improve society, not being employed by for-profit companies that makes only little research, and society would thrive in a new scientific revolution that would enlighten society. We would have knowledge how to compute steps that lead to perfect morality. Sensible eugenics (perhaps changing the happiness gene when somebody doesn’t have it) would also take place in order to improve society. AI would be on level where nobody would work, and the same AI would be making scientific progress.

Once again, every possible move would lead to perfect morality, there would be infinite effort for happiness and a better society. Capitalism would stop working because people would be altruistic.

This was quite an excursion, now let’s go back to morality where people are aggressive, territorial, vindictive, careless, selfish, competing for everything, support their government to wage war, economically unequal, with a high murder rate, incurable disease because of a lack of scientific funding.

Society can exist steadily in abundance but when harsher times come, people come closer killing other people just for food or other resources (for example, the Siege of Leningrad). People do things because of resources or direct orders (the concentration camps’ commanders or the very nice vendor (in non-war times) shoots you in the head in war just to execute you).

Not only there is there ideal morality, but moral systems can be set in a billion different ways and it’s utterly foolish to conclude that our morality is the best and the only kind possible. Since real human morality is evolving, there have been a million ways to conduct it. We should note our current morality is far closer to moral nihilism (“everything goes”) than the perfect scientifically-made morality. In an absolutely perfect society, there is no need for morality, however. Also note that if God (since he is omnipotent) wanted a real moral system, it would definitely be far more mathematically complex than our current one.

Here are examples of morality systems set in different ways:

A future divorce would be settled so both of the parents would stop making problems; government would buy you more expensive car that is safer; school would work only on rote memorizing; the world would have no submissive-dominant relationships, there would be a happiness tax that would enrich the less happy; you wouldn’t reciprocate a gift; the right and not in patron-client style would choose people for particular job positions; you would be completely responsible for the well-being of a given circle of people (notably your neighbors); the key decisions in a child’s life would be made by competent clerks rather than amateurish parents; the world would be devoid of any currency and people would interact without exchanging things; you would have an obligation to give your new car to other people after a year of using it; punishment could be draconic for nearly infinite different types of things and punishment could be humanistic for nearly an infinite number of things; high IQ people would be put into positions to enlighten society rather than making obscene profits; judges and police would stop working, all the relationships would be brokered by mafia (notably early Sicily or Afghanistan); judges, policemen, attorneys would be made-up from only the 98^th percentile of the most moral; changing your interpersonal relationship that would cause a detriment would mean you being punishable by the law; all of the children’s IQ along with their talents and creativity would be measured and the children would be directed in a particular way; the schools would teach not only theories but also practical know-how of a job position; it would be an obligation to give expensive gifts to some people (selected by clerks or AI); the cars would stop pedestrians if they didn’t have a common route; there would be social credit, you would be rewarded by your behavior and money would be taken from you or given to you according to your social credit (how you perform in relationships, work and so on); the AI would evaluate how the relationships would work; the super-rich would pay your mortgages; a system where there were no money and AI would evaluate what to do; money would go to research infinite happiness; people would spend and lend money and factories would produce goods according to one central bank; there would be a centrally managed economy – centrally managed morality – centrally managed relationships; an obligation to have as many kids as your financial situation can support otherwise you would be jailed; people would have a stable income that would rise only if they helped other people; a system where all rewards would be derived by numbers of your children, every single penny in the financial system would go on to have more children; society gives up and no children would be born; moral nihilism. These are not recommendations or discouragements, just examples. There are billions of ways to set it up.

They also say morality stems from “Treat others as you want them to treat you”. This is great; however, you don’t care (in terms of doing something) whether there is no research for the schizophrenia I suffer from, and the medicine is crucial for me and there are a thousand other diseases. You don’t care whether most of the population is living in countries where widespread prison torture occurs. You don’t care whether your neighbor is poor. You don’t care whether traffic politics is so bad that millions of drivers die every year. You don’t care whether poor socioeconomic conditions influence the murder rate in Latin America. And so on and so on.

People are good and evil. The most untrustworthy and arguably the worst fairy-tale for children. All people are evil as I wrote above. Even from the “normal” morality standpoint there are few good folks: people wish death to soldiers on the opposite side of the war or the whole hostile nation involved in the war, to criminals, wish death to other religion’s adherents; nationalism makes war, they accept their establishment orders, perpetrate genocides, wish hard prisons on prisoners (with torture), are having fun when a migrant boat sinks; they want to shoot a soldier without taking him as a POW and so on.

Why does not God act morally behind us?

Even if morality makes greater sense, God lets us do what we want to do with free will and then be immoral.

God knows the past, present and future, yet there is free will

How can God know the future since there is the God-given free will? Some say God exists beyond time therefore he can know the past, present and future (I will explain this below).

Foreknowledge requires determinism

If God is all-knowing, his foreknowledge requires determinism, which means that God cannot intervene in this world because everything is given. This also leaves free will out.

There is no free will

Nearly every person on this planet has a firm belief his or her will is free. However, our universe is either deterministic or inter-deterministic and our brains are a product of the physical world, and they succumb to it, so it leaves no place for it. We are basically biological robots (including our brains).

Imagine a baby being born, it has innate intelligence, personality traits, moral traits and there are also environmental factors. It is different when you are born in the ghetto or an affluent family with both parents having steady jobs. The societal outcome is very different and all of the aforementioned features predestine you somewhere.

A brain has 86 billion neurons. And every neuron impulse is based on a previous state. And you don’t exert influence over your neurons, they exert influence over you. Every single choice of yours is based on their previous state. Tastes (food, fashion, opposite sex, cars), hobbies, political views, world-view, personality, IQ, talent, psychomotorics). Imagine telling neuron B65T to send an impulse to neuron D72JR, which would also stimulate other neurons. No, it is you who is absolutely under their control.

The human brain arguably has a multi-leveled system of decision-making. However, the choice isn’t free.

Not only do we not have free will but the whole concept is deeply-flawed. How can something as complex as our brain be based on randomness. A bright student would turn out to be a less-intelligent person, personality would change suddenly (excluding Dissociative identity disorder), someone you expect to view some way would act completely differently, your choices would change completely. Instead of a car you would buy a bicycle, an avid swimmer would start hating water, a beer-loving person would be disgusted even hearing about beer, a deeply-religious person would suddenly become atheist without any stimulus. And the world with free will would bring complete chaos

The feeling of our will being free is because of evolution. We pretend to be somebody and interact with other hunter-gathering members. So we must make decision by ourselves.

You may have caught yourself: ”Why did I formulate this argument that way?” or “Why did I do that?” Or you may ask why you didn’t say something in a billion different ways but just the only one.

Philosophy is, however, a very dishonest discipline. It didn’t bring the definition of itself in two thousand years. The philosophers came up with the definition that free will means being free to do any action you can do. And as science started dissolving this argument, they turned the definition that free will is only about decision-making, even though it is not free.

God cannot just test us since there is no free will. Or can he? Or what would be the point of testing his own reproducing robots in their completely predictable behavior (or nearly entirely predictable, since there may be a chance our world is inter-deterministic and that the human brain may also be inter-deterministic, but it still excludes any free will).

Our law system, however, deeply relies on the notion that we do have free will. But lawmakers can pass a bill that water is flowing up the hill. Anything goes.

Morality is firmly set, God testing senseless

Morality (as our culture understands it) should be statistically distributed as random if we have free will. But no! It is distributed by the Gaussian curve. On the one side, there are angels, and on the other side, there are sociopaths. Around one sixth of people is actually truly immoral. So, there is an underlying natural explanation (genes, environment etc.) indicating there is no free will and being tested by God makes no sense because everything is firmly set.

Do things happen out of necessity?

In a deterministic or inter-deterministic world, definitely yes. According to necessitarianism, everything that exists or occurs does so out of absolute necessity, and nothing at all could’ve been other than it actually is. But according to traditional theism, contingentarianism is true and necessitarianism is false. Therefore, if necessitarianism is true, traditional theism is false.⁴

The demographics of theism

The number of adherents is not evenly distributed on the earth. Logical patterns are found within the distribution in countries or their parts. But people have free will, so just randomness should be shown. But no, statistics (as a science) can find patterns in it so then we have a natural explanation.

There is no human identity, self

Human identity is something evolution equipped us to be able to cooperate and co-exist within a community. There has to be some “me” in order to cooperate with other persons that also have their “me”. There is also no self since we are just neuron networks (don’t confuse this with consciousness and personality).

God, aesthetic and ugliness

Since God created the universe to his perfection, there shouldn’t be such things as ugliness, disgust, abhorrence, detestation. So did he purposely create this ugly world?

God as a person

Since people possess the theory of mind (theory of mind refers to the capacity to understand other people by ascribing mental states to them (that is, surmising what is happening in their mind)), God is automatically considered as a person you have some relationship with. But why? There is no need for it. He is male and dominating in a submissive-dominating relationship we inherited from the simians. (Note that the Bible says that God exists as a person but nobody has seen him, but this disputes another Biblical tale below in this book.)

God as a father-figure and everything around it

All right, the world had somewhat happened. But why do you need the male dominating all-caring, all-knowing, all-powerful, omnibenevolent parental figure you have an extremely unequal relationship with. One that has such a controlling power. Praying, subservient behavior, no privacy. Why must a person (theory of mind) have created the universe? It makes absolutely no sense. Evolution (searching a primate culprit everywhere) and evolutionary-given religiosity have interconnected this to result in God overseeing everything.

You don’t need the human-like creator, a specific person to explain why the world is the way it is.

God as a bully

The Old Testament God is an inevitable bully. I will add a famous quote by Richard Dawkins: “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

God is immoral

If God is ultimately responsible for bringing sentient beings into existence, then God cannot be morally perfect.

God is constrained with everything and isn’t free at all. Does he have free will?

Since he is omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent, his apparatus (which is more complicated than numbers of Quarks in this universe) and his processes are necessarily conducted in some deterministic way. And – they happen to be – mechanical. When a good think ought to happen, he must act accordingly. When he wants to prevent something, he must act some way. And there are also complicated chess-and-political-like games. So is he restrained to the utmost degree?

And since he is so complicated, nothing so extremely complex can be functional on a free basis. So no, God – just like us – doesn’t have free will. So even if God wanted to come into existence, his decision wouldn’t have been free.

Holy water, sacramental bread and sacramental water

As far as holy water, spiritual cleansing is something unproven and extremely silly. Sacramental bread and water’s function is something absolutely unproven as well. Not only does it go against science but also against rational thinking. The transubstantiation is an insult to science and critical thinking.

Does God lessen our duty of compassion?

If God is truly best at leading our lives, then we don’t rely on our duty of compassion. People’s moral compass is led the way that if something bad happens it goes on his account.

If we let countries torture their prisoners, children die prematurely, people live in poverty, nothing happens because we delegated it to God. Some even claim that the suffering has a higher meaning.

The last moment before death proves God

There is a light at the end of the tunnel but that doesn’t prove there is life after death. Although the specific causes of this part of near-death experiences remain unclear, tunnel vision can occur when blood and oxygen flow to the eye is depleted, as can happen with extreme fear and oxygen loss that are both common to dying. And even if this explanation is not true there is no need to believe it is something spiritual, because religions are man-made silly superstitions.⁵

No miracles have ever been observed

Miracles do happen according to a lot of religious people. The truth is there have never been observed phenomena defying science. If you want to have one million dollars, prove the miracles and win the One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge.

Why heaven and hell when there is no free will?

Yes, God tests us and then we are rewarded or punished but we have no free will. Also note that in another version it was the Devil who had created hell, but this would have also meant that God is not omnipotent.

Infinite control of people with free will

Since God is omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent he should also have infinite control of people with free will.

God and cruelty in nature and why create nature at all?

Yes, Christians consider nature as something excluded from morality. We also have the right to kill animals for food. But the very animals also have consciousness and astounding cruelty in the animal world really indicates that there is no God. Why did God create nature at all? It is redundant and unbelievably cruel.

Nature cannot be more strange

Around 99 % of the living species have ceased to exist. One specie destroying other species. Their habitats change and they evolve into something other or cease to exist. Evolution is full of design flaws. Predators devour their prey. Organisms may live in symbiosis or as parasites. Nature cannot be more strange. And you really want me to tell it is a God’s work?

Creationism

Evolution theory had been attacked on all fronts. But now we have creationism that claims not only that evolution didn’t happen in its proposed form but that species were created by God or God-led evolution. Of course, like nearly every pseudoscience they have their mutually incompatible branches.

Not only they don’t have any consistent theory, their different theories are illogical, pseudo-scientific and there is no burden of proof. No evidence for their claims at all.

The creationists often claim their teaching is excluded from mainstream science. And, of course, they are right.

I cannot imagine a serious scientist adhering to their bullshit theories (excuse my French). But they are correct in one thing; there are scientists that can allegedly disprove evolution.

They often present themselves with contradicting arguments contradicting other articles from other creationists. They are pseudo-scientific, sporadic and wrong.

But imagine if evolution theory was really wrong. There would really be something false with the whole theory.

The mainstream scientists have their honor and tens of percents of them would stand-up and bury the whole evolution. No such thing, however, occurred.

Denying evolution is like denying London existed in the 17^th century despite all the evidence.

The evolution theory is something safely proved and evidence-based.

Deism

My arguments are, of course, primarily against theistic God. But what about deism? It is just a more sophisticated way to believe in which God doesn’t intervene and he just some kind of spiritual power. Theology or theological philosophy arguments may be extremely complicated. But deism is just a curtailed version of theism. It stems from theism. And where does theism stem from? Of course, from primitive superstitions. Professor Filip Tvrdý is right. Deistic belief sometimes acts as a neutral science that is objective. But it is not. And as he perfectly puts it, the original intention is to end up with Jesus Christ on the cross.

They don’t process arguments that lead to objective conclusion. They already have their conclusion (that Christianity is right) and make arguments leading to it accordingly.

Somersaults and other acrobatic circus pieces are being shown. One can start doubting his own intellect. But their arguments are still wrong.

And where does Christianity come from? From primitive Bronze Age superstitions, when fur-wrapped semi-literal men were guessing the age of the earth with the very little knowledge they had at their time. So deism is an intelligent, curtailed variation of religion stemming from primitive superstition with a huge, lying main conclusion.

They often use the argument of complexity, but I debunked it above in this article.

One Czech scientist confessed that theology and theological philosophy are two disciplines that are the same sciences as mathematics. You have axioms that lead to conclusions. The issue is, however, that theology and theological philosophy always end with Jesus Christ on the cross. I saw him on a discussion panel where the panelists all concluded that theism is nonsensical and only deism makes sense. The issue is, dear gentlemen, that vast majority of people believe in a theistic God, therefore prayer works, he is all-powerful, all-knowing and infinitely good; they believe in the Devil, heaven and hell and so on.

Another thing is you don’t need any power that is some deity. Imagine that the world had no religions and you would know all the arguments against God and know all the known science. And now what? You would claim there is some higher power and you would suddenly and miraculously start forging arguments for it. No, it is vice versa. There was religion, and as science advanced, the belief was more limited. Therefore, it had to be more and more sophisticated.

And even if you have all the scientific knowledge and the world were devoid of God and you still wanted to have some power and had an objective way to explore it, you definitely wouldn’t end up with Jesus Christ on the cross.

You may read this book and have a deistic belief. But no, I will grossly disappoint you. Deism is pure demagogy in my humble opinion.

Absentee God

Not only didn’t God create the universe, he didn’t create us and emerged as a theistic entity in the 14^th century BCE. He didn’t exist as a deity. It is God we don’t need.

God is greater than can be thought

Some say God is the greatest. But his perfection would mean that his greatness is an ever-evolving phenomenon – the greatness is ever-expanding.

God doesn’t deserve to be blessed and cannot be blessed

If someone doesn’t benefit from God, there is no rational reason to bless him. And he cannot be blessed because he has as much well-being as is possible for a God to have, and hence God cannot benefit.

The theistic or deistic God is redundant

Everything, or nearly everything can be answered by science or scientific progress. Not only that theistic and deistic Gods are redundant. Unfortunately, we must tolerate these completely illogical, obsolete, primitive myths that come from an age when people knew nothing. Some people still need a higher power. And as said before, we are evolutionarily programmed to be religious.

Why take the Bible seriously?

The Bible is a book full of absolutely untrustworthy fairytales. But it says we should take it literally and that it is written by God. Here are some examples:

“At a lodging place on the way, the Lord met Moses and was about to kill him. But Zipporah [the wife of Moses] took a flint knife, cut off her son’s foreskin and touched Moses’ feet with it. ‘Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me,’ she said. So the Lord let him alone,” Exodus 4:24-26 (So now God is a real person but this disputes that nobody had seen God – (“No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in the closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.”)

The Book of Genesis says, “The sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose,” Genesis 6:2. Their children were god-human hybrids that the Bible refers to as the “Nephilim.”

Psalm 82: “God presides in the great assembly; He renders judgment among the gods” … “The gods know nothing; they understand nothing. They walk about in darkness; all the foundations of the earth are shaken.”

“When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth. After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. Altogether, Adam lived a total of 930 years, and then he died. When Seth had lived 105 years, he became the father of Enosh. After he became the father of Enosh, Seth lived 807 years and had other sons and daughters. Altogether, Seth lived a total of 912 years, and then he died. When Enosh had lived 90 years, he became the father of Kenan. After he became the father of Kenan, Enosh lived 815 years and had other sons and daughters. Altogether, Enosh lived a total of 905 years, and then he died,” Genesis 5:3-10.

“The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people,” Matthew 27:52.

God can be proved by rational means

The Bible says that God can be proved not only by sheer spirituality or faith but also on rational grounds. But science and rational arguments have destroyed all religions to their core.

Our brain can perfectly reproduce reality except for religions, superstitions and mental illnesses

Our brain evolved in order to reproduce an extremely complicated reality. And given the fact how complex reality is, it is an absolute miracle how it performs. But there are some exemptions. The first of them is religions. Therefore, you feel presence of God, have a personal relationship with him, Jesus Christ saves you from disaster, you pray, it works and so on. The second is superstitions. The third is mental illnesses, which is my case. A heater is speaking to you or you have groundless paranoia.

We have strong cognitive functions

Putting aside the above-mentioned biases, we have learning, thinking, reasoning, remembering, problem solving, decision making, and attention. All of them fail to see God.

It is completely foolish to connect dark matter with unnatural phenomenons

Yes, there is dark matter we have little clue about. But as I wrote above, we are programmed to be religious and this stems from primitive superstitions. So there is no reason to assume religions are true. But our already explored universe gives us absolutely no reason to presume there are some forces that influence our lives, science would have uncovered them.

Arguments against the Cosmological argument

Who made God? Who made the energy question? Is an agency necessary? There is no need for God’s cause but just plain energy, not a deity. Creating God would also mean there must have been an outside energy.

Since matter exists, and since nothing can come from nothing (in the sense that everything with an originating or sustaining efficient cause needs an originating or sustaining material cause, respectively), matter is eternal and uncreated. The argument can be strengthened in light of the scientific evidence for the conservation laws, according to which it’s at least physically impossible that matter-energy is created or destroyed.⁶

Immanuel Kant also argued that the causal argument failed on this premise: “Reason therefore abandons experience altogether…Thus, so-called cosmological proof really owes any cogency which it may have to… mere concepts. The appeal to experience is quite superfluous; experience may perhaps lead us to the concept of absolute necessity as belonging to any determinate thing. For we immediately endeavor to do so, we must abandon all experience and search among pure concepts to discover whether any of them contains the conditions for the possibility of an absolutely necessary being.”⁷

Stephen Hawking also argued: “The inflation… was a good thing in that it produced all the contents of the universe quite literally out of nothing. When the universe was a single point, like the North Pole, it contained nothing. Yet there are now at least 1080 particles in the part of the universe that we can observe. Where did all these particles come from? The answer is that relativity and quantum mechanics allow matter to be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs. And where did the energy come from to create this matter? The answer is that it was borrowed from the gravitational energy of the universe. The universe has an enormous negative gravitational energy debt, which exactly balances the positive energy of the matter. During the inflationary period, the universe borrowed heavily from its gravitational energy to finance the creation of more matter. The result was a triumph for Keynesian economics: a vigorous and expanding universe filled with material objects (1994:88).”⁸

In another form, this is the “who made god?” question or the” who made the energy question?” question. Such an approach to the issue of an explanation for the existence of the universe assumes that there must be an agent. When the idea of an eternal and necessary agent is introduced, it was done to provide a form to describe a being that some people wanted as the ultimate explanation- a deity. The point of the counter arguments to the cosmological argument is that the idea of an eternal and necessary agency can as logically be expressed as energy rather than as a single being or entity. If the uncaused cause can be thought of as a single entity, then the uncaused cause can be thought of as a single process-energy. ⁹

A flaw in the cosmological argument is in giving special exclusive status to a deity that would need no creator or origin outside of itself- a necessary being–without acknowledging that such a status could be given to the basic stuff, physis, of the universe, its energy, that can take different forms.

The argument arises from human curiosity as to why there is something rather than nothing or something else. It invokes a concern for some full, complete, ultimate, or best explanation of what exists contingently.¹⁰

According to the mereological bundle theory, the world (here, I need not confine myself to the physical world, so by ‘‘world’’ I mean the whole world, not just the cosmos) is a vast mixture of properties, some with a single location (whether in the configuration of space, or in spacetime, or in something else), some with many locations, some located everywhere, and perhaps even some without any location at all (Locations are defined by n-adic properties. For simplicity, take the fundamental space to be relational, and define up ‘‘points’’ in space using these relations and properties). The world is constructed from arrangements of properties and relations fused together to make things of all sorts: concrete objects, abstract objects, events, states of affairs, facts, fields, regions, and anything else there is. So, according to the mereological bundle theorist, fields, particles, entangled systems of particles, spaces, molecules, cells, bodies, persons and societies are all constructed, most fundamentally, from fusions of properties and relations. (Paul, “Building the World From Its Fundamental Constituents”, p. 242).¹¹

What is basically the Ontological argument?

One of the most fascinating arguments for the existence of an all-perfect God is the ontological argument. While there are several different versions of the argument, all purport to show that it is self-contradictory to deny that there exists a greatest possible being. Thus, on this general line of argument, it is a necessary truth that such a being exists; and this being is the God of traditional Western theism.¹²

The ontological argument claims that God exists because if he did not exist, he would not be the most perfect being, and if he were not the most perfect being, then he would not be God.¹³

A minimal modal ontological argument for naturalism

One can run a minimal modal ontological argument for naturalism with just two simple premises:

1. Possibly, there is a necessarily existent essentially material thing.[1] (i.e., the two properties are compossible).

2. What’s necessary doesn’t vary from possible world to possible world.

3. Therefore, there is a necessarily existent essentially material thing.

(2) follows from Axiom S5 of S5 modal logic, and most philosophers accept S5, so it’s fairly uncontroversial. So the argument comes down to the plausibility of (1). But (1) just says that necessary existence and essential materiality are compossible properties, which seems more plausible than the theistic possibility premise in the corresponding modal ontological argument for theism. For the truth of the latter premise requires acceptance of the compossibility of a large swath of exotic properties, such as omnipotence, omniscience, moral perfection, immateriality, and the capacity for creating individuals and/or stuffs out of nothing. It also requires the possibility of personal attributes being instantiated as basic, rather than derivative, properties, which is contrary to experience and our best scientific theories. Therefore, it appears that one has more reason to accept the minimal modal ontological argument for naturalism than the standard modal ontological argument for theism.

[1] Or whatever ultimately composes material things — quantum fields, wavefunction stuff (whether in ordinary 3-space or a massively higher-dimensional Hilbert space), the strings of string theory, the entities of causal set theory or loop quantum gravity, etc. Henceforth assume this qualification when left unstated.¹⁴

Fine-tuned universe for doing mathematics doesn’t prove God

Yes, our universe provides us with the delight of being able to practice mathematics, which our whole technologically-driven society relies on. However, not only does that not prove God but there may be an infinite number of other universes that are not so math-friendly. The existence of abstract objects doesn’t prove God

We have abstract objects we can manipulate: immaterial, infinite, timeless, spaceless, properties and relations, logical objects, propositions, universals and geometrical figures.

God can’t be the cause of abstract objects, for being omnipotent is both an abstract object and one of God’s essential properties. If so, then it must exist and be instantiated before God can do anything at all. But God can’t create and instantiate his own essential properties, for that would require him to be causally prior to himself.

If the reason why abstract objects exist is because it’s metaphysically impossible for them to fail to exist, then one can hardly ask for a better reason for their existence than that (if not, then God is in trouble).

God’s greatness seems to be a bit diminished by the fact that abstract objects have a greater kind of existence than God, viz., metaphysically necessary existence.¹⁵

Who created God and why is God not infinite in time or doesn’t exist beyond time

Since God knows everything including the amount of Quarks and hair we have, he is supposed to be more complex than this universe. So who created God? Someone more complex than God! And so on. Evolution, however, can describe arising complexity by natural selection, which is anything but random. But wait! Some say God is infinite in time or exists beyond time.

The issue is that God cannot exist infinitely in time because he would have needed time to create himself. So he couldn’t have created time alone. The same goes for God being beyond time. Such a God wouldn’t be able to create the universe and so on.

God can be eternal but cannot be creator of anything (including time alone).

Slow emergence of complexity

The Big Bang and evolution can explain arising of complexity in logical and natural manner. We don’t need no super-complex theistic or deistic God (more complex than the universe since he knows how many Quarks there are in the universe) that is not infinite in time or doesn’t exist beyond time.

The universe exists but the probability of creating people equals zero

The probability that homo sapiens would evolve is equal to zero. But randomness wanted it. So this is further proof our universe is purposeless. No, God hadn’t been waiting billions of years for something to evolve.

Fine-Tuning Argument

Final causes are built into God’s nature without a prior cause, therefore God cannot create the nature of a finely-tuned universe.

Fine-tuning can be explained in terms of the existence of multiple universes (the multiverse) and the

objection that the Fine-Tuning Argument fails because fine-tuning is not actually improbable.

“I think fine-tuning in general is a clue to a deeper explanation. Small probabilities might just be small probabilities, or they might be generated by some incorrect assumptions,” Luke A. Barnes added. “The interesting thing about the fine-tuning of the fundamental constants is that they’re at the bottom floor of scientific explanations at the moment. They’re as deep as physics goes (at least, while it’s supported by evidence.)”¹⁶

The age of the earth and why create so many uninhabitable planets and perhaps universes?

According to the original Christians’ statements, the earth is just thousands of years old. The fact of the matter it is billions of years old. It is conclusively proved by science (from many different sources). And to prove his existence, God should have made only one planet with his guinea pigs. No, he had to create trillions of galaxies and even more planets (with incredibly and unimaginably long lengths).

An infinite number of universes may have an infinite number of Gods

Let’s assume there is huge number of other universes. Do they have their own God? It is ridiculous. God also couldn’t exist in a vacuum since he is not infinite in time and doesn’t exist beyond time.

The Big Bang as a God’s work

Since we have to take the Bible literally, the Big Bang really doesn’t belong in its inventory. The world was created in 7 days, no Big Bang. However, even if we don’t take it literally, there is no reason to think it was a God’s work.

So, although there may have been a cause for the Big Bang that we are unaware of, modern cosmology neither defines nor requires one.¹⁷

For example, quantum mechanics has shown that many particles (virtual particles) begin to exist without being caused to do so.

God swept all evidence of his presence away

You would expect God to stand up from invisibility, finally proving everyone he does exist. The forces of God would be so present that nobody would miss them. You could study God and his presence scientifically with a mass of evidence available. University professors would be from the Department of Godly Studies. Free will would be evidence-based, morality would make sense, people would return from hell or heaven spontaneously and only one religion would prove to be the one. But no, God is completely elusive from science, rational thinking and our universe. They claim he created our universe but there is no evidence. He has left us a completely safe evolutionary theory that makes us disbelieve him and has only left us blind faith.

God as the societal leading force

Imagine if God were the leading societal force, he would make scientists discover a particular discovery, regulate the number of murders, assaults, drug addicts, make people rich, super-rich or poor. Political elections would only be in the hands of God. Stupid right-left distinctions would be replaced by a multidimensional spectrum. Everything would be at God’s will: natality, mortality, genocides, the number of chronically ill people, folk beliefs, economic output, inflation, import, export, unemployment, agriculture performance, people’s happiness or sadness, the number of atheists or adherents of other religions, the healthcare system, people’s IQ’s (suddenly you would be John von Neumann). God would make wars start or cease. Can you finish a university or be promoted? Only God’s work. The rich business groups would only depend on God. Sports matches would succumb to God’s will. God would change history or alter present events. Countries’ borders would change, conspiracy theory spread would stop, novelist’s brain would only depend on the will of the almighty. London transport precision would only be connected to God. Circus pieces’ performance? God! He would make you gay, straight and so on.

Science and faith as completely incompatible

There was lot of effort to fit science and religion together. Masqueraded attempts were prevalent during the 20^th century and even in the 21th century. The truth is that religions have dogmas and science axioms you find evidence for.

Religion offers explanations with old, backward, utterly foolish evidence-free fairytales which are the product of insane imagination.

Some people say religion and science can complement each other, which is an utter lie. Does prayer work? Is there a soul, free will, the afterlife. Are we animals? Is there a God or immaterial world?

Science or critical thinking will give you the answers. Religion only lies.

Scientifically and technologically driven society managed to pull billions of people out from poverty and heightened our living standard. Everything is evidence-based and critically made. So fitting these two together is pretty much impossible.

Probability of non-existence of theistic and deistic God, living in simulation and trusting in our senses or consciousness

The concept of theistic religion is so flawed, contradictory, foolish, evidence-free and the fairytales are the product of an unbelievable imagination. The Bible provides us only Bronze age myths and superstitions.

Someone could say the probability of a theistic God’s non-existence is around 99 %. I will strongly oppose this opinion, which I find deeply wrong. Imagine how many times you were looking at your clocks and saw 12:12:12 or 22:22:22. It has had happened to me so many times. Or you were the 599,999,874 millionth viewer of some video. Yes, it has had happened to me many times so this may not have been such a coincidence. But there was a thunderstorm with a strong wind in the Czech Republic. It killed 2 people in the country. One in the small town of Jičín I live in and in the street my grandmother used to live. The person was also the former mayor’s father. What a coincidence! So in my opinion, the probability of theistic God’s non-existence is around 1/30 000. The probability of deistic Gods’ non-existence is around 1/20 000.

Rather than fearing the Gates of Hell, it is far more probable that we are living in a simulation: Nick Bostrom estimates a 1-in-3 chance that we are sims. David Chalmers estimates about 25 %. But now let’s make their opponents talk: The hypothesis popularized by Bostrom is very disputed, with, for example, theoretical physicist Sabine Hossenfelder, who called it pseudoscience and cosmologist George F. R. Ellis, who stated that “[the hypothesis] is totally impracticable from a technical viewpoint” and that “protagonists seem to have confused science fiction with science. Late-night pub discussion is not a viable theory. A bigger proposal that builds on this idea is that Earth could be the end of a long stack of simulations.¹⁸

There are other things more likely than the existence or a theistic or deistic God. They are called radical scepticism or philosophical scepticism, both of which both basically assume we are not able to know this world.

The sole human consciousness is also disputed; Daniel Dennett of Tufts University, find the existence of consciousness such an intolerable affront to what they believe should be a meaningless universe of matter and the void that they declare it to be an illusion. That is, they either deny that qualia exist or argue that they can never be meaningfully studied by science.”¹⁹

“It’s the brain’s ‘user illusion’ of itself,” he says. It feels real and important to us, but it just isn’t a very big deal. “The brain doesn’t have to understand how the brain works.”

However, only few philosophers adhere to it.

The small everyday things

Okay, God does exist and we have free will. But why drink, eat, defecate, go upstairs, arrange a meeting, repair a car, walk in order to get somewhere, fill in a paper form, print documents, negotiate, delay a job interview, move somewhere else, repair your cottage, improve your house, drive to another location, build a building, live in a house or apartment. These things point out we live in an animalistic world with all the small necessaries.

If God wanted to create a society, it would lie on a completely different principle. There would be individuals (something like souls – bubbles), they would interact with each other so they would either act morally or not; the practical things would be completely unnecessary and useless for religion.

Why do we need to suffer?

Some religious people say we need to suffer because of Jesus Christ. The suffering has higher meaning. The issue is we are animals, the part of nature so this has fine natural explanation.

People had (or unfortunately have) nothing to drink, eat; they didn’t have place where to sleep; people are evolutionary programmed to wage wars so threat of imminent death was common. Murder, rape or violent assault are a repertoire of evolution.

Even though the paradigm of the survival of the fittest is obsolete and was rightfully replaced by the theory of selfish gene, nature (created by natural selection) is unbelievably cruel and organisms (including people) are really competing for survival.

But let’s go back to our age. The vast majority the people in developed countries is not hungry, thirsty. They don’t live in cold, have air-conditioners and so on.

So why there is so much suffering? Severe illnesses are because of poor evolutionary design. Then we have relationships issues: break-up, loss of a loved one, divorce, loneliness, sadness. All that fits these things together had meaning in African savanna where people originate from.

Now imagine people living in African savanna in small hunting-gathering groups. They are selfish in order to heighten the chance of spreading their selfish genes. But there is reciprocal altruism where people exchange things or services. Then we have capitalism (based on reciprocal altruism; exchanging money for goods etc.) where greed became motion of scientific, economic and – to some degree – societal progress.

Humans – as higher primates – are selfish even though the living conditions are absolutely different from those in African savanna. So we have deaths because someone didn’t have money for a surgery; unemployment and poverty exist as consequences of capitalism. Whilst economic and scientific progress became unprecedented, societal progress didn’t expand with such speed. So we still have division us/them that allows wars to happen (and yes, with nuclear weapons).

Hate and urge to kill is also an evolutionary-given thing. We also have wars, industrial killing of animals, industrial killing of people and so on.

So natural occurrences and Darwinism explains unbelievable suffering we are witnessing on this planet without any higher meaning.

Politics is politics – evolution didn’t evolve us to solve mass problems

People are great in politics with a number of people adequate for hunter-gathering groups. But when you do politics in the USA, a really populous country, your hands are tied by internal interest groups, opinion interest groups, lobbyists, the super-rich and so on. Then you have stupid left-right ideologies (and yes, ideologies are something animalistic), TV channels with their own agenda, you must lie in order to survive, you must take steps to go strongly against your beliefs. So did God predestine us for mass politics? I really don’t think so.

Why do religions make more evil than good?

I can’t deny religion can help you in your private life (notably in hard times) and secure your sense of the existential meaning. Religion also has many charitable means. But compared to what?

Not only you will live in a lie but religion is animalistic thing therefore violence, wars, intolerance, xenophobia that are naturally attributable to it.

It is slowing down all of the possible means of progress – societal, economic and scientific one.

The progress is slowing down if we think there is an afterlife, soul, prayer works and we are the Godly children.

“God, family, country” is arguably one of the most disgusting mottos ever because there is no God, nationalism makes wars and you should help equally to other people without being genetically related.

IQ and education as detriments to religion

One of the greatest enemies of religion besides critical thinking and science? IQ and formal or informal education.

There was a time when Isaac Newton could calculate motions of heavenly bodies but there was no g factor (IQ). People believed intelligence (in really broad sense) was something based on moral traits.

Factor analysis was developed for the purpose of intellect measuring by Alfred Binet. And it was a great success. The scientist explored that pupils scoring high in one task scored high in other tasks. The factors were connected, and other unknown factors could be derived from the science. Processing speed, digit span, arithmetic, perceptual reasoning, similarities which make one specific logic distributed by the Gaussian curve in population.

There are extremely significant correlations of median average IQ and given professions (Schmidt Hunter 2004). The more prestigious and cognitively demanding, the higher the median average arises. And there are also minimum requirements for each profession. Yes, we have elite lawyers with IQ 90, but there are just a few of them. The median is – predictably- very high.

This also applies to your performance in the work environment, your income, morbidity and mortality. IQ is dependent on the genome end environment you were raised in.

But back then in the backward age? People with an IQ of 65 couldn’t understand jokes from their brighter counterparts. Why make jokes? To prove their intelligence. And there were lot of people with an IQ of 65 back then. Even for the g factor disbelievers – if you have discussion groups (people) not arranged by their average IQ scores (of the particular discussion group); let’s say one with IQ 65, a second IQ 80, a third IQ 100, a fourth IQ of 125, you would be easily able to arrange the discussion groups accordingly by their IQ just by reading the content the people were writing in the discussions.

It is proven that the higher intelligence you possess the more likely you hold a secular belief.

And then we have a formal educational system that made all the technologies, inventions and sciences possible. And guess what? The higher the education, the higher non-religiosity you possess. You can also educate yourself informally, which broaden your horizons.

God as an explanation? No! You will get into deeper trouble

Evolution is an explanation for a slow emergency of complexity (even for such a complicated organ as the brain). Physical laws don’t need a creator because such a creator must have been more complex than them. Religiosity can be explained by evolutionary theory. Homo sapiens animal-like behavior is a product of evolution, not God. Morality served as something useful in the African savanna, yet it makes little sense (compared to the perfect morality). Not only can nowadays physics exclude theism but there is also no immaterial world. But God can be infinite in time or exist beyond time. But I also disproved this. So trying to explain this world by God will get you into deeper and deeper trouble.

Argument from authority: What Einstein and Newton didn’t know

Argument from authority is a form of argument in which the opinion of an authority on a topic is used as evidence to support an argument. Yes, the most direct way is to understand everything and then evaluate it. But there are limits in IQ, talent and time spent understanding and mastering the knowledge. It isn’t a fallacy when you have scientific consensus because you are not an expert, and it is the best scientific result that exists to date. But when you claim Einstein and Newton said or believed in something, it is a huge fallacy. We do not judge whether a claim is true not because someone has achieved a lot or possessed a stratospheric IQ.

Like most humans, I have never ever contributed to humankind in terms of scientific discoveries – obviously. Maybe my writings enrich someone (but this is a question for my dear readers). But I still possess enormously significant advantages over Albert Einstein and Isaac Newton – I was born years and years later. So the new scientific and philosophical knowledge unavailable to these titans was served on a silver platter to me and it didn’t please God-believers.

Isaac Newton possessed stratospheric intelligence, yet he lived in an age when there was no Scientific revolution and people were naturally blinded by demagogic Christianity.

Intellect was considered a moral trait (unlike now when we can prove that is is an innate ability). Not only didn’t people know the true origin of humans, but they had no clue why family existed, why people are selfish, why people reproduce, why people act like people or why nowadays physics can exclude theism.

Newton famously claimed: “I can calculate the motion of heavenly bodies, but not the madness of people.” Yes, because no factor analysis existed to explore schizophrenia as 5-factor model (not to mention studies of the brain) and – obviously – there was no psychiatry (which is of course pseudoscience, but its claims are based on a rational core and helps billions of people).

For example, Newton also had no knowledge of chemistry, microbiology, the Big Bang, geology, computational science or artificial intelligence. He lived in obscurantism when no knowledge was known and the stunning complexity of science left him belief in God.

Albert Einstein, who described theistic belief as “naïve” and “childlike” (so that would have enraged Newton), may have been less intelligent is terms of IQ than Newton but lived in an era when science was flourishing. But we still hold an advantage over him because he didn’t know that when something complex emerges, people automatically consider it as someone’s work because everything in the African savanna had its own culprits (humans). And it is one huge bias. He also didn’t know that superstitious or folk metaphysical things are derived from how we are evolutionarily set, therefore his deistic belief is not true. Evolutionary psychology (nowadays a pretty robust science), which reveals a quantum of information, didn’t exist to this extent at the time of his death.

Albert Einstein insisted the equations are so interconnected and complex that is impossible that they were just products of random processes. He saw a creator. But as I mentioned, this is a huge evolutionarily given bias that actually make things worse (God would have been more complex and it is impossible for him to be infinite in time or exist beyond time).

We don’t need obscurantism. We don’t live in the age of obscurantism

Imagine living in the Middle Ages. Christianity was a major source of fear; they were scaring you with hell, suffering and misery. The vast majority of people were scared to death by these primitive superstitions. Only a few people silently questioned Christianity (the contradictions, obvious lies and so on) and if, they had no clue about the origin of people, thought that there were some other spiritual powers. They were completely blind.

Nowadays situation is completely different. We are literate, the Bible is available to everyone (so you know what lying incoherent nonsense it is), we have IQ’s higher by tens of IQ points, information is everywhere.

You may have never contributed to science, but science is also made available by popular literature. You know nearly everything now: why people are there, why we act the way we act, why religions are false beliefs, why there is no higher meaning of humanity, why there is no soul, why there is no afterlife, you know how science works, why there is no free will, why prayer doesn’t work, why there is no Devil. Everything is served on a silver platter.

Now let’s go back to scientific branches you can study professionally or at a pop-literature level (at least majority of them): mathematics, physics, astrophysics, chemistry, biology, economics, sociology, psychology, biochemistry, microbiology, botany, zoology, ecology, geology, earth science, oceanography, meteorology, medicine, computational science, pharmacy, cultural anthropology, evolutionary biology, political science, analytic philosophy, statistics, genetics, logic, artificial intelligence, psycho-metrics, parasitology, anthropology, history, electronic, optics, quantum physics, metallurgy, materials science, cartography, climatology, dialectology, bacteriology, applied mathematics, audiology, laser physics, linguistics, applied mechanics, astrodynamics, electronics, quantum mechanics, nanotechnology, microfabrication, epidemiology, ethnology, geography, microelectronics, evolutionary psychology, decision theory, computing, photonics, mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, nuclear engineering, biophysics, control theory, aerodynamics, energy, solid-state physics, heliology, thermology, topography and so on. Note that these branches have their own sub-branches. And as I said, this is just a brief outlook.

So science has managed to gain this knowledge in an extremely brief period (a few centuries) comparing to the age of Homo sapiens’ existence (approximately 200 000 years ago). Now imagine having this knowledge in the darkness of the Middle Ages. Not only would you be the most educated, enlightened person on the planet, but you would be absolutely free of the extreme fear Christianity made.

Religion and atheism on the same level. It’s like Hitler and Jews

I find it utterly absurd that philosophers, theologians and some scientists put atheism and religion as phenomena of the same proportions. How can you put the discovery of penicillin, Periodic table, anti-psychotics, signal transmission, Theory of relativity, Newtonian physics, theory of computation, computational complexity theory, medical imaging, DNA, metaphysics and the philosophy of science along quasi-scientific analytic philosophy and all the arguments for atheism acquired by critical thinking on the same level as primitive myths from ages long ago, when they knew nothing and lacked even the most elementary evidence, were incredibly stupid, contradicting, demagogic and superstitious. Christianity is one big, absurd fraud. Lies, lies and nothing but lies.

All of it reminds me of a public debate with five Jews on the one side and five Nazis on the other. Both sides are equal. The truth is religion should be marginalized as much as possible. I am absolutely amazed how much space God gets. We should get rid of religion and emphasize rationality, critical thinking, science and the absence of cognitive biases, fallacies or formal fallacies.

We are immature monkey animals. Are we stupid or not?

In higher primates, we are the most intelligent animals by a landslide. We have developed technology and science that no other animals were able reproduce. But technological progress is definitely only sporadically connected with societal progress. We are being educated in specialized fields so only a few people are attracted to philosophy and science associated with why religions exist and so on. We live in a world full of disagreements (competing for jobs, money, stocks, sexual partners, who has a bigger car and house; we pass through difficult moral situations that are determined and there is no way to avoid them; we developed nuclear warheads just to wage war). So, we are immature monkey animals, cannot resolve religious things properly and truthfully. People are stupid and not stupid.

Why is Christianity still here?

I hope I successfully debunked the religious myths, so the question is why is Christianity still among us? First of all, nobody rules the world and adjusts whether religion survives or not. Second, people are indoctrinated from the cradle, lack critical thinking, never read any non-fiction, have rarely thought about it, use fallacies and cognitive biases and it is very difficult to convert to atheism when you were strong believer once. People also differ in intelligence and culture that can strongly encourage religion. The evolution-given spirituality holds Christianity above the water.

As the scientific evidence was mounting, Christianity didn’t react. They all lived in the era of the Bronze age. It is something like communism or anarchism. The arguments and evidence clearly demonstrate they are utopian, but they still manage to be here and have lot of supporters. So billions of people believe in these superstitious Bronze age myths.

No higher purpose for humankind and why people completely fail to understand this world

People reproduce, eat, sleep, mate, work, build houses, engage in debauchery, buy new cars, talk. Evolution had many paths and one of the most unpredictable branches of randomness has brought humankind into reality. So do these animals (Homo sapiens) have some higher meaning? Absolutely not.

And how many people are aware they are just slaves of one particular animalistic personality which completely fails to ignite the feeling you are part of the universe, free will-devoid robots and every possible behavior is either a product of evolution or its by-product.

People have invented antibiotics, television, internet, universities produce engineers, our economies are knowledge-based, yet most people struggle to understand why they are here, what kind of purpose humankind has, why they happened and what they happened.

1List of cognitive biases – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

2Notes on Ch. 11 of Rowe’s Philosophy of Religion: Many Religions – http://exapologist.blogspot.com/2007/04/notes-on-ch-11-of-rowes-philosophy-of.html

3Monotheism – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotheism

4The Argument from Necessitarianism – http://exapologist.blogspot.com/2022/05/the-argument-from-necessitarianism.html

5 Near-Death Experiences Explained by Science – https://www.livescience.com/16019-death-experiences-explained.html

Near-Death Experiences Explained by Science – https://www.livescience.com/16019-death-experiences-explained.html

6Epicurean Cosmological Arguments for Matter’s Necessity – http://exapologist.blogspot.com/2016/11/epircurean-cosmological-arguments-for_21.html

76. Arguments against the Cosmological – https://jamesdholt.com/resources-for-teaching-religious-studies/philosophy-of-religion/the-cosmological-argument/arguments-against-the-cosmological/

8The Non-existence of God

9Chapter 3: Philosophy of Religion – https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/intro_text/Chapter%203%20Religion/Cosmological.htm

10THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT EXPRESSED IN THE FORM OF FORMAL LOGIC – https://www.saintequipment.com/forum/2019/3/4/the-cosmological-argument-expressed-in-the-form-of-formal-logic

11Negative PSR and Naturalism – http://exapologist.blogspot.com/2020/10/negative-psr-and-naturalism.html

12Anselm: Ontological Argument for God’s Existence – https://iep.utm.edu/anselm-ontological-argument/

13The Ontological Argument: Existence as Perfection – https://academy4sc.org/video/the-ontological-argument-existence-as-perfection/

14A Minimal Modal Ontological Argument for Naturalism – https://exapologist.blogspot.com/2021/09/a-minimal-modal-ontological-argument.html

15Why Abstract Objects Pose A Nasty Problem for Christian Theists – http://exapologist.blogspot.com/2007/06/why-abstract-objects-are-nasty-problem.html

16Is the Universe Fine-Tuned for Life? – https://www.universetoday.com/153083/is-the-universe-fine-tuned-for-life/

17What caused the Big Bang? – https://www.sciencefocus.com/space/what-caused-the-big-bang/

18Simulation hypothesis – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis

19What Is Consciousness? – https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-consciousness/

DOWNLOAD

Discover over 100 unique arguments for atheism in the meticulously crafted eBook “Arguments for atheism” by Jan Bryxí. It’s a treasure trove of insights not found in mainstream atheistic literature.

Distilled from numerous books, lectures from distinguished professors, and a wide range of professional philosophical papers, this collection offers a rich tapestry of thought – an intellectual banquet you won’t find in any other single resource.

Personal appeal

You can download it in PDF or ePub.

(If you get errors, try mirror – here mirror 2 – here – the file is very large due to included video and images – don’t get startled, it is not a virus)

Also available on:

Venture beyond Dawkins and Hitchens – 'Arguments for Atheism' invites you to a world of unheard arguments, challenging your beliefs in a groundbreaking way. And the best part? It's FREE. Dive in now: https://t.co/EK8NFPbFpA #AtheismExplained #FreeEbook #ExpandYourMind

— Jan Bryxí (@JanBryxi) August 24, 2023