It has been said by
believer and nonbeliever, alike, that you can't disprove gods and goddesses
because of the Sacred Rule. This rule, championed to be undefeatable, states
that "You can't prove a negative." It was said with such strength of belief that
few dared to challenge it. I was one of those few. I realized, after reading a
very enlightening article, that this statement is totally illogical because it
contradicts itself! If you can't prove a negative then how can you prove that
you can't prove one?!
And so, with this barrier obliterated, I set out to prove this elusive negative
by first proving a positive.
Before I get started on the evidence for all deities' imaginary status, and
hence against their existence, I must explain my position a bit further. I want
to make it clear that I am not saying that such things are impossible. To say
that would take infinite knowledge and this is something that I am severely
lacking. What I am saying is that these beings can be safely relegated to a dark
abyss of improbability so exponentially massive that it becomes
incomprehensible. This is what I mean when I say that gods' and goddesses'
nonexistence can be proved. The process by which they are sent is what I shall
attempt to explain, in detail, at this time.
All gods and goddesses, the statistically small monotheistic deities included,
carry with them the tell tale signs of human literary invention:
anthropomorphism. This is the tendency of our species to attribute human traits
to just about anything. You can see this very clearly in what exactly was
deified by early man. They looked at the sun and saw a god. They looked at the
moon and saw a goddess. Our entire planet became a "mother" while the sky became
a "father." Volcanoes, the name being derived from the Roman god of fire, were
explained by the workings of gods and goddesses. Storms, earthquakes, tidal
waves, floods all became imbued with anthropomorphism and were given specific
gods and goddesses to explain them. Anything and everything that was lacking an
explanation received a deity. Much like in modern times, though the ancients had
a much better excuse, it was the easy way out of finding the real answer. What
is the origin of our species? Gods did it!
Anthropomorphism can also be seen in the gods' behavior. These beings, who are
supposed to be so perfect, act identical to the ruling class in our human
societies -- with many parallels easily seen to modern politicians! This can be
seen in great capacity with the gods and goddesses of the Greeks and Romans.
They loved, fought, warred, cheated and even drank to intoxication! The whole
Olympian pantheon wreaked of human soap opera. And indeed it was.
These beings, while believed to be disproved by a great multitude of modern
people, were real enough to the ancients to get any freethinking Athenian in
deep trouble if he dared even question a sacrifice made unto one of these
imaginary friends, much less their very existence. In 399 B.C.E, Socrates was
condemned by a 500 man Athenian jury, in part, because they believed the
accusation that he was guilty of "not worshipping the gods whom the state
worships." Anaxagoras, his predecessor, was sentenced to death for simply
teaching that the sun and moon were natural objects and not gods! He fled into
exile. Protagoras was banished from Athens for being openly agnostic in his
books. His books were burned, he died at sea.
The consequences for
denying the big three monotheistic deities of modern times can be just as
severe, mainly I would say because of the psychotic personalities of these
fictional characters -- more evidence of anthropomorphism. These male deities
act just like very immature, yet powerful, human kings who are constantly
throwing temper tantrums if they don't get their way. They all say they are very
jealous of other gods. That's a very human emotion. Kings, wanting to be the
most powerful in their territory, and the world when they've taken control of
all of their local land, have traditionally tried to take out other kings. It
would make them especially jealous if the people in their kingdom favored
another king over them. They get mad at the slightest irritation and kill
thousands. They take what they want and act totally opposite of the rules the
common people are supposed to follow because they feel they have the right to do
such things simply because they have the authority to do so. They even use
bribes that utilize their alleged vast wealth to gain followers and motivate
people to go so far as killing. On the other side of the scale, the characters
in these popular mythologies will also use threats of violence, all the while
under the guise of being loving, to meet their ends. All of these character
traits prove, to me, that our gods are actually an enlarged version of the
terror our human kings have bestowed upon the populace.
The same goes for the goddesses. Human queens have been just as cruel as their
male counterparts in leadership positions. Kali, the Hindu goddess of
destruction comes to mind. I can only imagine the type of woman she was based
on. A woman like that would make kings shudder with fear of her approach.
Usually, though, the female deity embodies the positive aspects of the female
gender. Aphrodite, the Greek goddess of love, would have been based on either a
seductress or someone who was very positive and kind, or maybe both. A queen
such as her would treat her subjects well. There have been rulers such as these,
though, sadly they probably were taken out by the stronger, more aggressive
contenders.
The same trend can be seen in what's popular today. Is it the entirely peaceful
religions that have prevailed? No. It has been the evil religions, with the
frightening consequences for insubordination, that have succeeded in getting the
most followers. They have done this by taking some peaceful elements and
wrapping their religions in them to cloak what is really there. That way, you
get both type of people. The violent, sadistic people can enjoy the darker side,
which comprises the majority, while the peaceful can enjoy the loving side which
is scattered throughout the religion. This is the model that has worked because
this is the same model that has also worked with our human leaders. The strong
survive. The weak perish.
It all makes perfect sense when seen through the lens of anthropomorphism.
Humans, without any of our modern knowledge that science has given us, were
totally ignorant and in awe of their surroundings. To compensate they used what
they knew as a reference. They used themselves and their lives to try to make a
cohesive explanation of their universe.
To further illustrate these beings anthropomorphic roots one need only take a
look at what these beings were supposed to look like! The Japanese gods looked
Japanese. The Indian gods looked Indian. The Mexican gods, Mexican. In our
culture you still see this with the blond haired, blue eyed, pasty faced Jesus
that is so radically incorrect for a person who was supposed to have been born
in the Middle East! Could it be any more obvious?!
Now we come to my all time favorite collection of evidences against the
existence of gods and goddesses. These are amazing and indispensable! I call any
one of these an Argument from Polytheism. They just seem to fit so well into
every argument I have with theists. They comprise many of which I would consider
classic Atheist responses. For example, if a Christian was to accuse an Atheist,
and they do this often, of hating their god what you can come back with is that
they hate, basically, any other god or goddess. This serves as a trap because
what you'll usually get back is that that god doesn't exist. Now you've exposed
their Atheism and you can begin to show their hypocrisy. That's when the fun
begins!
Anyway, here's the jist of the argument. If there exists a god, or gods and
goddesses, then why is there so much disagreement in every area? Why can't they
agree how many gods there are? Why do they have radically different versions of
our universes' creation? Why are there so many different explanations dealing
with the origin of the life on our planet and the appearance of our species? Why
can't they agree on what the afterlife is or if it exists, at all? The following
examples will illustrate just how much they disagree!
Hinduism teaches that there are many gods and goddesses -- hundreds of millions,
in fact! Fortunately for the worshipper, though, there are only several hundred
popular deities. Some of these include Vishnu, the Protector, Brahma, the
Creator, and Saraswati, the goddess of knowledge and learning.
Their creation hypothesis states that in the beginning there was nothing in the
universe but Lord Vishnu laying on his serpent, named Shesha, resting. When this
god awoke from sleeping, a lotus plant grew out of his navel and a flower
blossomed from it. From this another god was born -- the god of creation,
Brahma. This god, right after he was born apparently, started to create the
universe inside a little golden egg called the Hiranyaagarbha, or the golden
womb.
The afterlife, by Hindu belief, is something that varies depending on what your
karma, or the total effect of your actions and conduct, looks like. If you have
bad karma then you will be reborn, or reincarnated, over and over until you get
it right. During this process, if you have to be reincarnated, the goal is to go
up in castes, or social levels in society. When you finally do attain perfect
karma, you will be in a place of happiness with the gods for eternity.
The Egyptians believed there were many gods and goddesses, as well.
Their creation
hypothesis starts out with only Nun existing, the primal ocean of chaos. Out of
this ocean came Ra, the sun god, who gave birth to Shu, the god of air, and
Tefnut, the goddess of moisture. Tefnut, in turn, gave birth to Geb, the earth
god, and Nut, the sky goddess. The physical universe now existed. Men were
created, oddly enough, out of Ra's tears.
Their afterlife was only to be reached after completing a treacherous journey
which included monsters, poison-spitting snakes, fire and boiling lakes.
Apparently, even though you were dead, you could be killed again, this time for
good. If you survived all the dangers there that meant you had made it to the
Hall of Two Truths. Here your heart was weighed on a scale against the Feather
of Truth -- this feather containing everything bad you had done in your life. If
your heart outweighed it, then Osiris, Anubis and Thoth, the gods judging the
weighing, let you pass and onto Yaru you went. If the feather was heavier, then
your heart was tossed into the waiting mouth of the Devourer, a beast that was
part crocodile, part hippopotamus and part lion. At this point, just like the
previous scenario, you were dead for good.
Norse mythology also
states there are many gods and goddesses. Some of these include Odin, the king
of the gods, Aegir, god of the ocean, and Hel, the goddess of the underworld.
Their creation hypothesis begins with Ginnungagap, also called the "yawning
void." It was a great limitless space of nothingness and it went on for infinity
in all directions. At some point, it isn't specified, there came to exist a
world. This world was a world of fire with everything, even the air, being
engulfed in a constant, scorching blaze. It's name was Muspell and it's name
meant 'Home of the Destroyers of the World." It was only the fire giants that
later inhabited this region. There came to be another world shortly after this
one. It was called Nifleheim and it was the exact opposite of Muspell. It was
cold and covered in ice and snow. A dense fog could be seen everywhere and there
were vast forests that stretched as far as the eye could see. In this land there
was also a great fountain named Elivagar and out of this bubbled a poisonous
scum that formed black ice glaciers. Eventually these two areas that inhabited
the yawning void, after growing larger and larger, met for the first time. When
fire met ice there was a great explosion and the fire from this explosion
changed the scum into a giant named Ymir. There appeared a giant cow from which
Ymir nursed. This cow also licked an icy continent and from this a god appeared.
His name was Buri. To make a very long story short, Ymir had descendents and so
did Buri. These descendents and Ymir had a giant fight and Ymir was killed.
Odin, Vili and Ve, his killers, dragged his body to the middle of Ginnungagap.
His blood formed all the bodies of water on earth. The rest of his corpse was
used to make the mountains, hills, trees, and beaches and everything else on our
planet -- except the clouds. They were made of his brains! For the sky they
threw his skull cap up in the air and had four dwarves hold it up forever. Their
names, Nordi, Sudri, Austri and Westri. The first humans were made from
driftwood that Odin breathed into and were named Ask (Ash) and Embla (Elm).
The Norse afterlife was different for whatever the person happened to be in
Viking society. It all depended on which god or goddess chose you. If you were a
warrior and died a heroic death your soul would be carried by the Valkyries,
beautiful flying maidens, to Odin's Valhalla and were served, by the same
beautiful female beings, meat and mead, or medieval beer. Also, if they were to
fight in this hall, and they did, their wounds would heal overnight, no matter
how severe. If you were a sailor and died at sea then you would go to Aegir's
hall which was at the bottom of the ocean. Or if you simply died of sickness or
old age then your soul would be under the control of the Goddess Hel. You could
be sent to Eljudnir, her hall, if you were good, or Nifleheim if you were bad.
Christians, the Trinitarian variety, believe in four gods but like to pretend
they only believe in one. These gods include Yahweh, the all-powerful king of
the gods, Jesus, prince of the gods, the Holy Spirit, the messenger god, and
Satan, the god of the underworld. They get away with claiming to be monotheistic
by saying that the first three are one and the last is not a deity, at all.
Their assertion is, of course, not supported biblically and shows a lack of
understanding of mythology.
Their creation hypothesis takes place over the period of six days with Yahweh
creating the universe out of nothing and then proceeding to populate the new
world, Earth, with life. In one version man and woman are created at once. In
another, the man, Adam, is first created and placed in the Garden of Eden. Then,
after a short period, Yahweh takes one of Adam's ribs and makes an incestual
bride with which they are to populate the entire Earth.
The Christian afterlife
is typically divided into two eternal spheres: heaven and hell. Heaven is
supposed to be a place of happiness in the clouds and is a place of reward for
the believer that has met certain criteria and follow certain rules during their
lifetime. Hell is supposed to be a place of anguish and torment that is located
inside the Earth. The believer who did not meet the above criteria and broke the
rules is to come here. Believers of all the previous faiths and indeed every
other faith that ever existed, by their mythology, end up there, as well. This
includes those who don't have a faith, Atheists.
Muslims believe in one god and call him Allah. This does not translate to the
word "god," but is rather his personal name. Their god is differentiated from
other gods by the curious fact that it is forbidden to assign him a human form.
To do so is considered blasphemy. If they were to, though, he'd be just like all
the other gods and look like the race that created him. Perhaps this is why
Mohammad chose to make that a sin. He didn't want his deity's popularity being
limited by appearance.
Their creation hypothesis is virtually identical to Judeo/Christian set forth in
the Old Testament with the only differences appearing in the wording. Allah
makes the world in six days but didn't get tired. Apparently Mohammad realized
that an omnipotent god wouldn't get weary, ever! The first humans, Adam and Eve
were made out of clay. And the similarities go on and on. This is, of course,
because Islam evolved out of these two religions several hundred years after the
invention of Christianity and so absorbed much from these two dominant forces.
Can all these contradictory creation accounts be reconciled with each other? Can
their gods and goddesses? Furthermore, how can one determine what would be the
right combination or correct religion out of the thousands? After sampling but a
few of the world's huge pantheon the absurdity of such a task becomes painfully
obvious. The only logical conclusion is that they are all false as they are all
man-made.
Our ancestors, in different cultures, in different times, under different
influences came to totally different conclusions about how to explain the world
around them and how it came to be. Using their imaginations, they dreamt up
these fanciful anthropomorphized beings to fill the void of knowledge they were
so desperate to fill.
It has only been in modern times that science has answered enough of the
questions of existence to satisfy our hunger and all but vanquish the gods of
the gaps. I have confidence, though, that the constant march of scientific
progress will eventually eradicate any gaps that remain and finish the job that
started so long ago when the struggle first began.
Next on the list is the "soul," or more correctly, the soul theory. If this
theory of human consciousness and animation can be disproved then the afterlife
disappears and we, as species, can be shown to be totally natural organisms who
operate as organic machines. Without this soul, there is neither a need for
saving from a negative scenario, nor the striving for a positive, and the entire
religious scheme falls apart! By showing the soul theory is utter nonsense we
can effectively remove the vital link between people and their imaginary
creations: gods and goddesses.
Let's begin by defining what exactly is meant by this "soul." What is it?
Dictionary.com defines "soul" as being "the animating and vital principle in
humans, credited with the faculties of thought, action, and emotion and often
conceived as an immaterial entity."
Now let's look at the word "brain." The same site defines this term as "the
portion of the vertebrate central nervous system that is enclosed within the
cranium, continuous with the spinal cord, and composed of gray matter and white
matter. It is the primary center for the regulation and control of bodily
activities, receiving and interpreting sensory impulses, and transmitting
information to the muscles and body organs. It is also the seat of
consciousness, thought, memory, and emotion."
Now, can anyone see the similarities between the two terms? They both are
supposed to be involved in thoughts, actions, emotions, and though the above
definition doesn't say so specifically, the source of consciousness, as well.
Primitives, not knowing anything about the brain, assigned all these
responsibilities to this "soul" because they knew no better. Scientists, armed
with CAT scans, MRIs, extensive experience with brain surgery, findings from
psychology and psychiatry, have been able to piece together the truth about what
the brain does. Where does this leave the soul?
Our new understanding of the functions of the brain put the soul squarely where
it belongs: within the context of mythology. It has been relegated to the same
realm as ghosts, goblins, fairies, leprechauns and other fictional creations
from the mind of man.
What about the people who say that the brain is where the soul resides? What if
it is the "ghost in the machine?" What if this "soul" acts like a little person
in a control room throwing switches and pressing buttons? What if, indeed. Where
is the evidence for such a proposition? Why would it be needed? The brain, with
all it's various interlocking components, functions fine without the need for
any supernatural intervention.
Our consciousness is a product of a living brain. Does a heart need a "soul" in
order to beat? Does a liver need a "soul" in order to detoxify the blood? Does a
stomach need a "soul" in order to digest food? Do white blood cells need a
"soul" in order scavenge our body for pathogens? If none of these organs needs
assistance then why should the brain be any different?
Besides not being needed to explain any of the phenomena of consciousness, this
"soul" is likewise not needed to explain how we are alive. To see just how
obvious this is, one need only look at our reproductive system. Living sperm is
created inside the testicles. Living eggs are created within the ovaries. A
sperm joins with an egg and a living embryo is produced shortly thereafter. Now,
where exactly would this "soul" be needed? Where in this process would an
infusion of life be required? Not anywhere that I can see. You add life to life
and you get life. Could it be any simpler?
Now that we can see that this "soul" isn't needed to explain anything, let's
move onto the aspects of it's mythology that are completely nonsensical by
asking a few pointed questions. Why, if this "soul" can supposedly do everything
a brain can do in the alleged afterlife (whichever one), then why is a brain
needed in the first place? Following this same logic, why, when a person
acquires a brain injury doesn't this "soul" take over? Why does Alzheimer's
matter? How can anyone be mentally retarded? Are humans the only one with this
"soul?" Why or why not? If they aren't, does this mean that, along with all the
multicellular animals on the planet, single celled organisms have it, too? Why
or why not? If this is granted, then it would have to mean that our own cells,
such as skin, intestinal, liver, muscular, would also have to have this
"animating principal." If not, then why? If everything has this soul, does this
mean that each has it's own afterlife? Is there a Heaven and Hell for bacteria?
Are winged sperm greeted in paradise by 72 eggs? Do flies get judged for their
actions?
All these questions are vitally important because they expose just how flawed
and unintelligent the whole hypothesis is. Believers, when confronted with such
an interrogation, should be forced to think about why they believe in something
so ridiculous. Hopefully, it will lead to an unraveling of the entire
mythological system and this person will be freed.