POSITIEF ATHEÏSME

See bottom of page for further articles by various authors available in English

Welcome to 'Positive Atheism' the site for people who want to think for themselves, unrestricted by religion and dogma, and especially a word of comfort for all those who feel burdened under the restrictions religion imposes on their quality of life, on their rational intellect, on their empathy and tolerance towards fellow men, on their free development, in short, for all those suffering under the restrictions religion so unjustly imposes on their humanity.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Is your religion really the right one?

(Revised 29-08-2011)

The question is justified, is it not? Out of all the available religions worldwide you have chosen to stick to just one, with the exclusion of all others. So to you, as devotee of your favored religion, the matter is too important to answer without further critical consideration, because you are well aware that countless others have chosen differently, and are just as happy and convinced with their choice as you are with yours. Many others have even discarded religion as a superstition of 

the past, before science emerged. Then how did you arrive at yours?

In this case, putting the question begs the answer. Because we all realize full well that hardly anybody ever made that choice voluntarily and fully conscious. That religion was - with the best intentions - forced upon you, only by accident of birth. Being born of religious parents automatically led to having all restrictions of their particular religion instilled into yourself since early youth, because your parents only meant the best for their children. And their religion - although also acquired by accident -  had grown into conviction under influence of their community and clergy.

Nevertheless, now the responsibility is entirely yours

And fortunately, you are completely free in that all-important choice. In this modern day and age, and living in a free society, constitutional laws uphold your absolute autonomy in this matter. If you wish, you could choose for a positive atheism, a way of life founded on your own conscience and good sense, not on the stipulations by some self-appointed spiritual leader, not even on anyone's stipulations but your own. The community in which you live might not agree, but only you yourself can rightfully decide which position to take in adult life, and only you are solely responsible for that choice! Reason enough to consider the above question a little deeper. Now being an adult, full responsibility for your stance in life no longer rests with your parents, but entirely upon you. Now you are responsible for thinking for yourself, now you are responsible for limiting yourself to just one single variant out of all these religions, or –  dare you even consider it? – to reject them all, and choose for a positive atheism. Many have preceded you and are nevertheless leading a responsible and honest life. You could do so on rational grounds, because you think all these religions only cause discord within the family of men, or be prompted by emotional feelings and moral sense because this "loving" God once committed genocide on the entire world population by means of the Flood and therefore seems to be a doubtful protector, or by any of all these other doubts that have been troubling your conscience ever since you were exposed to biblical myth in childhood. Cognitive dissonance troubles the minds of many children exposed tot biblical myth. These doubts have to be suppressed because the threat of hell lurking behind them, since that false threat - in combination with the fib that God knows the innermost thoughts of all six billion people on this earth - was the most effective part of their indoctrination. It forms a psychical burden which requires great mental courage to dispose of by thinking independently and following one's own conscience.

But whichever reason prompts you, for your personal happiness it is utterly important to realize that this life is not just a preamble to an afterlife in eternity (because obviously, no such thing exists), but that this is the only life nature grants us. This so-called afterlife may once have served well as a (false) comfort to the oppressed and exploited, but it is no more than a dummy teat, a pacifier employed exactly by those who effected and helped maintain the oppression and exploiting. So enjoy your life now, and live it in full co-responsibility with the community. It is the only one you will ever get, your only chance to be good and useful, and to live in peaceful co-existence with all of your fellow men!  

Just a word of reassurance: In case you are not fully convinced that there will be no afterlife (and after all these years of indoctrination, don’t feel embarrassed by it), I can assure you that no-one, believer or atheist, has ever been disappointed in their expectations after death. No one has ever complained, and in case you don’t believe me, consult your physician. Admittedly, a future reunion with a dearly beloved departed is a strong sales argument for religion. However, it is just that, a dummy teat, and if you cannot live without a comforter you’d better cling to it, for at least it provides some false comfort. 

To the – for instance, Christian – believer, much depends on the right choice, very much even, for a wrong choice would have disastrous effects on that promised afterlife, if it were to exist. For undoubtedly, you will be aware of that quote attributed to the Christian God “.... For I, your God, am a jealous God....” and have heeded the warning. In case you hadn’t, you would risk all the troubles this “loving” God has in stock for you, for example:

And, in case you still don’t really grasp the gist of what “Gods” love for you really means, the Good Book rambles on along those lines for another forty verses or so, because perhaps the ancient Hebrews were a little thickheaded. 

Even so, of course you will also know that these puerile threats are nothing more than a gentle preamble to the real punishment that awaits you after death. And, unless you start thinking for yourself now, that horrible threat will be foremost on your mind, and linger over you for the rest of your life, and I sympathize. Because you can never be quite sure that everything you do will meet with “God’s” approval. Because “sinful” thoughts too, would lead to your eternal damnation, so you are told.

For although even under the most oppressing dictatorships man can still think freely, Christians are denied that last bit of freedom too. The all-knowing God knows their innermost thoughts, and remember them for ever, so their clergy has told them. Of course, there is not a single shred of evidence for this, but the threat alone has proven sufficient to secure absolute obedience. In case you are still tortured by this deception, I sympathize with you. I can understand your great mental confusion, and feel compassion for a fellow human being thus cruelly misled.

And although it requires only a minimum of intellect to see through this deception, it takes a considerable amount of courage to dare deny it after having been indoctrinated with this phantom since receptive childhood. The result of this psychological child abuse can haunt you for long after, and that is exactly what its propagators meant it to do. Remember, practical experience with profitable ways of spreading  this superstition over the past 2,000 years has polished it to near perfection. So much so even, that it proves a source of inspiration to commerce.  

Yet we have to admit, this threat of eternal suffering – however cruel – has been a masterstroke as means for customer relations, entirely befitting the people who invented it and the period they lived in. More than by any other means, including missionary efforts and even the stake, this deception has helped to maintain that superstition from Middle-Eastern ancient times right up into the modern era, notwithstanding present-day knowledge and ethics. This frightening delusion will effectively prevent you from independent thought, and moreover even corrupt your natural capacity for it.

For instance, this idea will prompt believers – to protect their “eternal soul” – to deny everything written on 'Positive Atheism', and possibly even withhold them from reading on. In this way, straying away from the path their clergy has laid out for them will be prevented, without any further effort from their side. Consequently, religion is thus made into a truly self-sustaining system. The gullible are made to believe that meeting with the clergy’s instructions will eventually lead to eternal reward in heaven, and reunion with their dearly beloved departed. Independent thought on the other hand, would be punished eternally in hell. Rational arguments are then no longer needed (for there are none) for the propagation of religion; the prospect of reward or punishment suffices. Do you realize that dogs too, are trained this way to act contrary to their nature?  

And while you are still thinking for yourself, ponder on the justice of an eternal punishment. In a civilized constitutional state, punishment is always meted out proportional to the offence. One does not receive a life sentence for speeding. Imagine a Roman-Catholic priest – his senses frustrated by celibacy – sexually abuses little boys over a period of forty years or more, thereby leaving them psychologically marked for life. Nowadays, the media almost daily report on instances of this time-honored tradition among the Roman-Catholic clergy. Rational thinkers will demand that these offenders, and especially the prelates who have aided and abetted them, will be severely punished for it. But surely, not forever?

What do you think this resembles most, divine justice or blind vengeance by primitive barbarians? If you believe in the first option, you should realize that one is then convicted by someone who is guilty of worldwide genocide, and countless other atrocities besides, according to the Bible. For the sake of this argument, we will assume eternity exists. Ask yourself then, do you consider eternal punishment proportional to anything at all, and justifiable? For, regardless of whether this issue is fictional or real, this is about your sense of justice, your own moral values, not those expressed in the Bible or promoted by the clergy.  

Eternal! Can you imagine anything at all with this concept of eternity? Can your mind really grasp how long that lasts? How dead-end, how devoid of any prospect this condition must be to the intelligent mind! Suppose, after the first ten or so centuries in heaven, you might just get slightly fed-up with the monotony of the compulsory daily “Hosanna” jubilations, or - heaven forbid! – the eternal presence of your incessantly nagging mother-in-law. It could happen to individuals with a lively mind, you will grant, but there is no way back from there. You’re trapped up there for the rest of your everlasting life; your only prospect is a next eternity of exactly the same, day after dreadfully boring day. And you can bet your eternal life on it, you will never be even halfway there yet, not in a million years!  I wouldn’t wish it upon my worst enemy. Fortunately, neither nature nor man can bring this sheer agony over us. After we die, we rest forever without a worry in the world. 

How could this delusion originate?

This is the right question, because you are by no means the only one who believes in one god or another. Rhetorically you will ask, “Can all these people be wrong?” And the freethinking non-believer will – enjoying his freedom – confirm this without hesitation. He will base that conviction on common sense and everyday science. But you too, are gifted with common sense and you too are familiar with everyday science!

But what we now call everyday science was not known in the olden days, great thinkers first had to gather the common knowledge we all have at our disposal today. So to understand how this delusion could originate, we must place ourselves in the minds of people in prehistoric times, before science existed. Primitive man found himself – just as we are today – confronted with all the manifestations of nature. From past experience, he knew that some of these effects had proven favorable for his existence, while others threatened his life. Think for instance of a roaring thunderstorm, with deadly lightning. Or imagine a devastating tsunami, drowning people by the thousands and destroying their homes. It was an experience that probably served as the origin of the Great Flood myth, long before The Roman Emperor Constantine had ordered the Bible into existence in 325 A.D. Among other places, we already find this story in the Epic of Gilgamesh, written around the year 2,000 BC, so there is little originality here! 

© www.bandoli.no

At that time, primitive man wondered who brought about these manifestations, and why. Because man wants to know. Knowing creates a sense of security. And when we don’t seem to have an answer, we can always fabricate one. Saying for instance, “It is God!” sounds far more convincing than, “I don’t know.” And when the gullible then asked who this “God” figure was, and why he did this, he probably got the same sort of answer the clergy today still supplies, “God moves in mysterious ways.” Try it out for yourself, ask your cleric why this loving "God" afflicts humanity with such terrible disasters like earthquakes and tsunami's, killing innocent people by their thousands. For no matter how deeply religious you are, you don't believe they all died for their "sins" either.

Yet, even with our present-day knowledge, we can have some understanding for this assumption, at the time born out of ignorance. And naturally, just like today, there were power-greedy individuals then who claimed to be in contact with these god or gods, and to have intimate knowledge of the deepest thoughts of these supernatural - and therefore unknowable - beings. It rendered respect and standing in their community, as it still does today. It was in this way that in many separate communities, often unaware of each other’s existence, many gods and many religions could spring into existence and organize themselves. These gods and religions have now become extinct, because the societies in which they originated died out. And without followers, no god can survive. Ask yourselves, why these religions were not the proper ones then, and why yours would be the right one today? What proof have you got for that?  

Undoubtedly, calling yourself a Christian, you will derive authorization for your conviction out of all you read in the Bible. After all, it is “God’s Word”, so the clergy likes to call it, and who are you to doubt that? And yet, Bible researchers of reputable standing have shown us beyond doubt that all Bible books are the fruit of literary labor by fifty different, but also very human authors. Small wonder it contains so many contradictory texts. Yet it was “God” himself, so you will be told, who inspired these authors. If I were so inclined, I could claim exactly the same for all I am saying here, and I would then challenge you to disprove me. Moreover, is it not remarkable that the “Almighty’ did not master the art of writing himself? Let alone the ability to speak. Nowadays, even small children have no problems with that. If this “God” had meant so well with mankind, he should have taken the trouble to learn this, and then we would know his will “straight from the horse’s mouth”. It could have avoided much confusion and discord, and would at the same time have denied theologians their meal ticket.

Perhaps you had not noticed yet how many contradictions, how many impossibilities, how many unlikely events, or how much barbarity “Gods Word” contains. You may be excused for your ignorance, for those fifty authors of Antiquity together concocted in no less than 780,000 words in a total of 1189 chapters, to express what they thought “Gods Will” ought to be, thereby obviously expressing their own morals at the time they created and shaped their “God”. And because science as we know it today had yet to be born, these authors were unable to tell their god that this planet Earth which he was going to create had already been in its orbit around the sun for roughly 4.5 billion years, because they did not know this either. Yet this is just one of the countless proven impossibilities in that ancient book.   

So, out of sheer necessity you possibly just read those parts the clergy draws your attention to, because there are more things to do in life. Even so, now you have reached maturity, do you still believe that the speaking serpent which seduced Eva used to walk upright on legs, or that the waters once withdrew to let fleeing Hebrews pass? If ever there was an exodus from Egypt, that is. Because Egyptian historians of that period never noticed either the presence, or the exodus of Jews in these days, despite the reputed spectacular effects that went along with it. Do you still believe Jesus walked on the waves? Do you believe that Little Red Riding Hood... No, that is a different fairytale, we tell this to our children ourselves. However, we do not back it up with the terrible threat that if they later on come to realize that it was no more than a fairytale, they will then be damned for ever after.

In case you have chosen – after ample deliberation, of course – for one of the Christian religions, because they are the most popular in our part of the world, you’re not there yet, for the Christian truth flourishes in a rich abundance of variations. Moreover, every one of them claims exclusive knowledge on how to serve their “God”. So now your problem is just beginning. Should you choose for the Roman-Catholic god, because you are impressed by the great pomp and circumstance of pompous prelates in ostentatious robes and ridiculous hats, you must accept that although you will be gracefully allowed to contribute to their upkeep, “God” did not destine this kind of luxury for you. You will be limited to contact with low-grade priests, often pedophiles, who might molest your children. You may even have experienced this yourself, and in that case you have my heartfelt sympathy. 

Members of the “Voice of the Survivors” foundation, a community of victims abused by clergy, at a press conference in Rome on October 31, 2010.

Left, Italian deaf man Gianni Biisioli showing a placard reading in Italian: “At the Provolo Institute for the Deaf in Verona, I was abused by 16 priests, 5 clergymen, 5 elder classmates and one bishop.”

Source: Guardian News & Media Limited, 2010.

So you may well prefer something of protestant signature instead. However, then you are really entering into a labyrinth of possible denominations. Baptism, Pentecostalism, Adventism, Calvinism, Presbyterianism, Congregationalism, Puritanism and Anglicanism constitute just a small part of all available choices. Nevertheless, to choose the right variety, you should still bear in mind the slogan: "...for I, your God, am a jealous God”.... And mind you, each of these religions has had its own schisms, so you have to examine all these as well. So, can you now still claim that your choice was the right one?  

But, whichever one you chose to pick, consider its implications. For once, think for yourself! Do not indiscriminately accept the brutish morals of a primitive desert tribe of antiquity, of people who still practiced human sacrifice, just think of the story of Abraham. Once you have made your choice for whichever version of the Christian God, you have to devote your life to someone who commands, “Thou shalt not kill”, but who – according to the myth you are then expected to believe – once enthusiastically committed worldwide genocide by the Great Flood, and that was just for starters. For some time after that, as we learn from his “Word”, he was responsible for the following:  

And so the Good Book rambles on and on, for these are not by far all of “God’s” crimes. To the sensitive mind, this really is disturbing literature.

But then, we have not even mentioned yet the greatest recommendation apologists have to offer in favor of their hero:    

        “He who loved the world so much that He offered His only born Son....”

How utterly horrendous! Just try to view this terrible crime in the light of your own ethical convictions. Could you really adore a person who had – although almighty – allowed people to torture his son to a grueling death? Could you have done it yourself, given the opportunity? Would you have liked to have a father like that? Can the execution of one individual cleanse away the misdeeds of anyone else, even those yet to be born? Would you appreciate the affection of such a perverted being, or would you rather turn away in disgust?  

Then what does the positive atheist believe in?

The atheist thinks for himself about important ethical matters, instead of merely believing what the clergy instructs. For although they hold that believers are free to believe in whatever they were imbued with in impressionable childhood, they still prefer to think for themselves. They want to know, instead of just believing what others are saying, they want to search, inquire, investigate, explore and be convinced by rational arguments.
Relying on common sense, the unbeliever compares biblical mythology with the explanation science gives us about this wondrous world we live in. Furthermore, unbelievers will compare the ethics of a primeval desert god as depicted in the Bible, with present-day morality. They are thankful to be living in a time and a civilization wherein the "divine" rule "a life for a life, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" - is now seen as reflecting the ethics of primitive barbarians - is no longer considered morally acceptable.
The unbeliever objects to that cynical corruption of reason that organized religion lives on to survive, thereby keeping a delusion alive that is inherited from the infancy of mankind. The unbeliever wants to defend everyone’s right on free thought. Of course, this also means that the unbeliever does not scorn those who have fallen prey to this ideology, purely by the accident of have been born of 'believing' parents. After all, they and their parents themselves were indoctrinated with the lie that one must "believe" in order to be a decent human being. And who wouldn't want to be that? Moreover, to help them believe in this delusion, the cruel threat of eternal hellfire has always been an effective tool to impress the "fear of God" upon their immature minds. We must try to help these subjected fellow humans to free themselves from the mental burden of this deception, purely by rational thought. 
However, It is precisely against those who still exploit this delusion from barbaric times for their own benefit - thus promoting discord and seriously undermining human happiness and peace of mind - the atheist speaks out.  

Does 'Positive Atheism' reflect the opinion of one sole individual?

That it does by no means! Many great thinkers and scientist have expressed their objections against the worrying problems with which religious propaganda burdens the minds of the sincere individual. They have published rational arguments clearly exposing what religion really is: A delusion born in antiquity out of fear and ignorance, and nowadays maintained and exploited by the interested to subject people. On this site, the open-minded reader has access to a great variety of articles written by mainly academics, people who know that hypotheses must be supported by proof before they can be accepted as truth, or at least as a likelihood. These can be accessed under the tab “Authors”, which provides some information on the authors, and a list of their articles on this site.

Would you like to share your opinion on 'Positive Atheism' ?

Our guest book offers the opportunity to express your opinion, relate your experiences, comment on articles, or discuss their contents with other visitors. 

What is meant by ‘Positive Atheism’?

Well, nothing new really. With that term, we only emphasize that atheism, precisely by its denial of the existence of gods, by definition implies a positive attitude toward life. In fact, atheists accept reality, instead of just believing in religious myth. Positively, this means facing up to one’s own responsibility, and not relying blindly on a destiny some phantom may have in mind. Positive thinking atheists do not lead docile lives waiting for whatever ultimate designs an imaginary god may have for this "burdened by original sin" planet.
We accept the fact our planet Earth is nothing more than a tiny dot within an immeasurable universe with billions and billions of stars and their planets, and that it is only due to the natural process of evolution that man grew into the highest developed animal among the millions of other animals crawling upon it. We are fully aware of the fact we owe this exalted status not to have been knocked together on a Friday afternoon by some prehistoric god – or that the first woman came into being more or less like a pork chop made out of a man’s rib, but know and accept that we all originated by a trial-and-error process of evolution instead, that went on for billions of years.
We accept man alone is responsible for the way he treats his fellow beings, that only they are capable of judging his behavior, just in the here and now, because this is the only life nature allows us, just like all other animals. Unbelievers fully realize that if they choose to do well, they do so purely for the benefit of their fellow beings, not because they expect to be rewarded for it with eternal bliss in a falsely promised hereafter.

Moreover, they are fully conscious of the fact that we all — collectively, but completely independent of any deity the clergy may throw at us — must work on the future of this world. We will have to do this without “gods help”, but completely by ourselves as responsible people, by fighting hunger, poverty, discrimination, repression and wars. With concern for the environment, so that even after our demise this world will remain an inhabitable place for our children. In a word, atheists are concerned about everything on which man can exert influence, and where he or she is not subject to whims of nature. Atheists accept their own responsibility within the limitation of their possibilities. However, we do not claim that only atheists display such positive attitude. Many other unbelievers, who need not necessarily have to be outspoken atheists — because in childhood, they were not subjected to indoctrination, and therefore, cannot imagine its evil consequences — and even right-minded liberal believers can show a less fatalistic attitude towards life. 

Unfortunately, upbringing and clergy have thus conditioned many Christians to hold the denial of their God’s existence on a par with negative concepts such as an immoral life, or an anti-social attitude. Theists are all too easily inclined to emphasize just the atheists’ denial of the impossible, and in their arrogance insist that atheism must therefore also mean a denial of ethics. If that really were the case, atheism would be amoral indeed. Conversely, in contrast with the blind acceptance of “Gods Word” by the believer, atheists consider many texts in their Bible as highly immoral, and feel themselves confirmed in that judgment by modern secular law. For instance, if some warped mind today would utter the following garbage, they would demand prosecution of its perpetrator by the proper authorities for inciting to murder, or for him (it simply could not be a ‘her’) to be put under a compulsory mental care for his own protection:

Regrettably, these Bible-thumping moralists do not realize that creating gods has always been a human effort, with all its limitations. In the case of the creation of the Judeo-Christian god, we must constantly bear in mind the intellectual limitations of nomads who were roaming the deserts of the Middle East more than four thousand years ago, when they created this particular god. They were people with no education, oblivious of the barbarity of their ethics at the time. They have left us no worthwhile literature, no great poems, no magnificent buildings, no sculptures, no art. To them, it was only imperative that their god had to be more cruel, more bloodthirsty, and mightier than all gods together of the - mostly higher developed - tribes surrounding them. For how else could their god protect them against the gods of these hostile tribes? In those days, the most powerful prevailed and in that region that principle still seems to hold.

Now living in the twenty-first century civilized society, we realize how far ethics have evolved since then, to return to that concept so displeasing to God. Thanks to present-day morals, divine laws such as the stoning of a "rebellious" son (Deuteronomy 21:18-21) or of a raped girl (Deuteronomy 22:21) are viewed in the light of today’s ethics. And fortunately, to protect us from "divine" wrath inflicted by religious zealots, this more civilized insight is also laid down in our secular legislation. And another thing, wishing terrible illnesses and other calamities upon people who disagree with you (Leviticus 26:16), is now frowned upon as being 'not done'.

With the gradual decline of many ancient civilizations and cultures, several gods who were born in it, died a quiet death. Unfortunately, this was not the case with the god of the Hebrews. Belief in this god was strongly promoted when emperor Constantine issued in the year 313 the so-called Edict of Milan in order to avert the unrest in his empire. This unrest had come about because various Jesus cults came into conflict with the religion of the Hebrews, who had also been incorporated in the Roman Empire. In this Edict of Milan, the Emperor ordered that Christianity was to be accepted as one of the official religions of the Roman Empire. And since it was generally known at the time that to show openly any sign of disagreement with the Emperor could seriously impair one’s health, this idea was widely accepted. This proved an important contributing factor to the later growth of this religion. 

In time, its power grew supreme; an unfortunate era of stagnation — and decline — in the development of the western world ensued, a period which is presently referred to as the Dark Ages. The church wielded almost unlimited political power and suppressed all science. They had strong "arguments" at their disposal, enforced by that infamous crime syndicate called the Roman-Catholic Inquisition, with its torture and burnings at the stake, to help convince the masses. Unfortunately, that power was to last for hundreds of years, and many paid for it with their life. Nowadays, in a more enlightened society, the church reluctantly has to make do with 'just' the indoctrination of innocent and trusting children, no matter how immoral this practice still is. However, that limitation first had to be forced upon the church by an emerging secular society. Theism was still the norm then, atheism the exception. Confessing to atheism meant putting one’s life at risk. Not until the Enlightenment the idea of man born free of guilt, was spread widely. Only then people of conscience dared to deny the existence of gods, and expose the malicious deceit by the clergy. From that moment on, man dared to live his life according to his own moral standards, which were aimed at human happiness in a harmonious society. Right up to this day, we all benefit from the resulting progress of science and culture since then, even the faithful. 

But even today, many believers still see atheism as a negative attitude, because they suffer from a misplaced sense of superiority. For a far too long period, Christianity has been completely embedded in our western civilization, and many expressions in the daily use of our language linger on to show how this delusion became commonplace in our society. Expressions such as "god-willing," or "if God had meant it to fly, he would have given it wings" even now show Christianity’s conceit for clear reasoning. Nevertheless, in reality, the single difference between atheists and Christians lies in the fact that atheists merely believe in one god less than they do. For out of all the numerous gods man has imagined during his long development, worldwide and in various cultures, the monotheistic believer acknowledges only one, to the exclusion of all others. Why Christians had to choose the barbaric god of the Hebrews may remain a mystery forever, for it is a curious choice. Anyone who has learned to read with an open en critical mind, can check the correctness of the following observation by just reading the Bible:

Why does this admiration for a literary monstrosity still persists? Could we possibly recognize anything of this monster in the character or behavior of his followers? No, no, thank goodness, not any more, anyway. It would no longer be a privilege to live in the here and now. Just remember what Nietzsche wrote more than a hundred years ago:

Is that worship only lingering on out of fear for eternal torture in an imaginary hereafter, as the Jesus-figure so lovingly promised? Could it be a clinging to a fictitious mighty patron by people in dire need, or with little self-esteem? Is it perhaps because people want someone to whom they can entrust all their petty worries and desires, someone who never objects or interrupts, and does not seem to tire of their complaints? Someone who never breaks off a conversation because something is boiling over or there’s someone at the door? For they realize full well that there are thousands of dead Christians knocking daily at the heaven's door.

Alternatively, does that attitude perhaps also touch on the so-called "Stockholm Syndrome" (a psychological response sometimes seen in abducted hostages, in which the hostage shows signs of loyalty to the hostage-taker). A distinct parallel emerges, if we were to accept what the clergy propagates. For if all were true, the believer would be totally dependent on that imaginary god for all necessities of life, necessities that this god would grant indeed. Nevertheless, also according to "His Word", that god would be mercilessly cruel in case of apostasy. Do you see how cleverly all this is thought out? If one believes in that myth, one becomes thankful for everything "God bestows". Even so, it still remains a riddle how even intelligent people can keep cherishing that fear of God. It is food for thought for psychologists perhaps. To me, it is just further evidence in support of my thesis: "Religion corrupts common sense."

Whatever the reasons may be for this superstition, the atheist denies the existence of even this last "surviving" god, and does so for sound reasons:

What is the purpose of 'Positive Atheism'?

In the first place, to free our fellow beings from the malicious deception by the clergy, from the terrifying lifelong delusion of eternal hellfire, promised so lovingly by sweet Jesus. But one must keep foremost in mind that escape can only be effected by daring to think for oneself, critically, just as we must remain critical of all ideas, no matter how long they have persevered.

Nowadays, over two-thirds of Dutch people don’t go to church any more. This proportion has grown spectacularly over the past decades, from 16% in 1958 to 66% in 2006, and the number of nonbelievers is still growing. The rest of the population is divided (literally!) into various denominations, the most important of which are, in order of size, Roman Catholic, Dutch Reformed, Christian Reformed, Muslim and Hindu. All of these denominations are divided again in an amazing number of sub-denominations, all of which disagree with each other, but nevertheless all claiming to hold the exclusive divine truth.

By way of illustration, the headline of an article about the current proportions in NRC Handelsblad, (one of the most prestigious daily newspapers in the Netherlands) of September 5, 2006 reports:

And yet, it is remarkable how those Christian minorities continually try to force their opinion upon us, and want to impose the specific values and norms of their ancient god upon nonbelievers. For what does unite them in all their diversity is their typical missionary urge. For instance, a shameful spectacle took place a few years ago when Dutch parliament was democratically debating the introduction of new euthanasia legislation. A group of pupils of a Christian school was sent to Parliament Square by their teachers, to protest against a subject about which they could not yet possibly have formed an independent opinion. There is much more; the reader will experience it daily.

Unbelievably, on the edge of our new (Dutch) euro coins even now, in the twenty-first century, that naive plea "God be with us!" is repeated. Nearly the same heartfelt cry, but more in accordance with their national characteristic formulated as an order, "Gott mit uns, (God with us)" was depicted on the belt buckles of our occupying forces during WW II. This God/Gott must have been really busy indeed, because as we know, he also fought on the allied side.

Even though not all of these Christian utterances are equally objectionable, and since in our democratic system everyone is permitted — within the limits of propriety — to proclaim his opinion, this not only gives a one-sided and strongly distorted picture of the daily perception of most Dutch people, but also of that of most Western Europeans. 

'Positive Atheism' is not meant for convinced Christians

 It may be obvious from the above that this site is not intended for Christians, who are convinced of deriving strength from religion for their daily lives, and feel they actually experience that strength. For apart from trusting one’s own intelligence and sense of responsibility, we can offer them no alternative for moral support. This they must find in their own minds and in their community, because there is no mythical heavenly father who looks after them. Besides, we do not intend to undermine their deepest convictions. We are not a missionary society. For them this is the right moment to shrug their shoulders and to continue living on in religious bliss.

_____

_________________________________________________________________________________

More articles available in English:

➤ Albert Einstein - 'Religion and Science'

➤      "          "        'Science and Religion'

➤ Ambrose Bierce - 'The Devil's Dictionary'

➤ Annie L. Gaylor - 'Women without Superstition'

➤ Bertrand Russel - 'Is there a God?'

➤      "          "        'Why I am not a Christian'

➤      "          "         'Has religion made useful contributions to civilization?'

➤      "          "         'Am I an Atheist or an Agnostic?'

➤ Chapman Cohen - 'Deity and Design'

➤      "          "           'Morality without God'

➤ Clarence Darrow -'Absurdities of the Bible'

➤      "          "          'The Myth of the Soul'

➤      "          "           'Why I am an Agnostic'

➤ David Rand - 'Atheophobia'

➤ Frank R. Zindler - 'How do you know God doesn't exist?'

➤      "          "          '"Creation Science" and the Fact of Evolution'

➤      "          "         'Did Jesus Exist?' 

➤      "          "         'Ethics without Gods'

➤      "          "         'Spirit, Soul and Mind'

➤      "          "         'Why is Religiosity so Hard to Cure?'

➤      "          "         'An Interview'

➤ Jim Walker - 'The Dark Bible"

➤      "     "      'Did a historical Jesus exist?'

➤      "     "      'Martin Luther's dirty little book'

➤ Jonathan Petropoulos -'The Vatican Ratline'

➤ Mark Twain - 'Thoughts of God'

➤     "       "'Bible Teachings and Religious Practice'

➤     "       "'Letters from the Earth'

➤ Marshall Gauvin - 'Did Jesus Christ Really Live?'

➤     "          "          'Is There A real God?'

➤ Max Hastings - 'Save us from politicians with God on their side'

➤ Nicholas Humphrey - 'What shall we tell the children?'

➤ Paula Kirby - 'Fleabites - 1'

➤     "        "      'Fleabites - 2'

➤ Peter van Montfoort - 'A Blasphemer's Prayer"

➤      "               "           'The negative effect of church on society'

➤      "               "           'The glorification of an instrument of torture'

➤      "               "           'Thoughts on the creation, development and preservation of gods'

➤      "               "          'Vatican and Dictatorships'

➤      "               "           'Fairy Tales'

➤ Robert Ingersoll - 'About the Holy Bible'

➤      "          "          'The Gods'

➤      "          "         'What would you substitute for the Bible as a Moral Guide?'

➤ Raymond D. Bradley -  'A Moral Argument for Atheism'

➤      "          "         "       'It All Began with Santa'

➤      "          "         "       'The Meaning of Life'

➤      "          "         "       'God's Gravediggers: Morality and Science'

➤      "          "         "'Design, by God or evolution?'

➤      "          "         "'Intelligent Design or Natural Design'

➤      "          "         "       'De Rivalry between Religions'

➤ Ricky Gervais - Why I am an atheist

➤ Scott Bidstrup - 'Bible and Christianity'

➤      "          "       'The Mind Virus'