Atheism: The Case Against God-George H. Smith

Onward I proceed on this journey of escaping the vacuum of swaddled thinking and into the netherworld of the forbidden and unknown. This time stopping at the station of Atheism; which, next to outright Satan worship, is considered to be one of the largest and most offensive affronts to God: The denial of his existence.

This wasn't exactly my first time venturing down the road of a theory that travels in the opposite direction of everything I hold sacred in my life. Nor was it the first concentrated piece of literature I had read—and come to hold a modicum of respect for—that posited the idea, that, perhaps, the Bible is not as it seems. That it is nothing more than a fairy tale, or, an intricately authored allegory designed by man (or outwardly beings) to induce widespread subservience and/or instigate persistent conflict.

The first novel I read that introduced this idea is by an author named William Bramley called The Gods of Eden.

After five years of diligent research, Bramley presented a hypothesis that states that mankind itself and all of its maverick religions are the byproducts of a superior alien race he calls custodians, and our flesh—the vessels in which we live, eat, sleep, breathe, and love from—act as a form of tether, or, flesh prison, for our spirits. And to keep us persistently ignorant to this fact, seeds of conflict are planted from the dawn of our existence through this very day to vertigo mankind within an endless cycle of warfare, endlessly toiling for their benefit alone, always kept ignorant to the secret of spiritual liberation via unity.

Pretty wild stuff.

Interesting, sure, as I do believe there are hidden councils—which I usually label as Satanic—that deliberately manufacture conflict for benefit to keep us in endless strife. But so far as this being marionetted by aliens…is a bit of a stretch. The evidence Bramley presents is potently strong, and the dots he connects are hard to refute.

But, as the saying goes: "Keep an open mind, just don't let your brain fall out."

***

Investing time and effort into reading material that directly attacks your soul can be a bit daunting. It is almost as if with every sentence that you read, you are saying to God "What you've provided me with so far is interesting, and I love you and all that jazz, but, before I commit to you, let me hear what this guy has to say. You know…just to be sure."

However, if, as a Christian, you have invested enough weight into your anchor of faith, it is easier to accept ideas that run contrary to established scripture without your spiritual feathers being ruffled. With well-fortified devotion to Jesus, you have the full confidence of knowing that it will take more than semantics to lead you astray and any genuine questioning of God's infinite love for you would require far greater efforts than ink and paper. But until you possess absolute conviction of these two prime elements within your arsenal, I'd recommend being careful when treading into waters that may tend to get a bit choppy.

In the case of George H. Smith's extended expose, I was more than confident in my faith to read what he espoused without the irrational urge to burn his book in effigy for the blatant blasphemy written between the pages. Such an act as is nothing more than modern-day tomfoolery handed down from the Dark Ages manifested in a more subdued light.

"Freedom of expression is one of the bedrocks of a healthy culture. It allows that society and its people to grow. A wide diversity of ideas gives people more perspectives to choose from. Possessing such a choice is preferable to having intellectual options restricted. In an open society, many unconventional ideas come and go, but that is a small price to pay for the enormous benefits of leaving communication lines open and free."

-William Bramley

I believe it is incumbent upon Christians to venture outside of the realm of comfort and strive to make themselves cognizant of what other religions and movements adhere to. To inoculate yourself. And this begins directly at the source. Gone are the days of moralizing to others how they should and should not live their lives in order to reach peace through Jesus Christ. This is an antiquated cousin of ruler-slapping nuns and paddle-whacking priests and presents a mellow ring against the thunderous drumbeat of independent hearts. If Christians truly wish to round up the lost sheep back into the herd, it is not to be done by exchanging curse words and insults with abortion proponents and transvestite storytellers on courthouse steps. No matter which side of the battlefield you are on, the devil is proud one way or another. Just so long as both sides hate each other, he is pleased.

It is coffee shop tables, park benches, and backyard fire pits—where organic and intimate conversation can be exchanged—where the glory of God can truly begin to take effect.

And even those who have no urge whatsoever to connect with God or Christianity in any capacity (I'd like to think) would have to mutually agree with the fact that rational conversation should always be the goal of any good company. Not hostile arguments to be followed up with spiteful online friend deletions and unfollows. And the more knowledge we all possess on a wide variety of topics (be it theology, arts, economics, science, politics, religion, whatever) the richer the exchanging of banter can grow to become.

It is a shameful symptom of today's day and age—that—with the plethora of resources available to us—people by and large would much rather toss themselves into a self-imposed prison of narrow-minded thinking and view the world through a jaded filter. Oftentimes instigated from biased sources rehashing cherry-picked elements and distorting the truth.

As a fully devout Christian, by reading Atheism: The Case Against God, this is exactly the type of behavior that I wish to expel. To reestablish the ability to converse with civility and intelligence, rather than leaping into the defensive armor for a battle of both spiritual and ethical superiority where there are no winners.

It doesn't need to be that way.

I can have fascinating conversations across the board with Marxists, Atheists, Muslims, Christians, Hip Hop and Country music fans, Bowlers, Rugby Players, Conservatives, Progressives, and even Steeler fans without an ounce of judgment begging to be relinquished.

This ability comes as an added benefit of knowledge. With the gift of discernment comes the erosion of preconceived notions. The more cognizant you are of any particular area in life, the less you feel the need to engage in arguing and begin to understand that every person's shoes are their own. I can only attest to the sneakers I have worn, and I have never walked even a fraction of an inch in anyone else's. So how do I know what experiences others have had to lead them to their personal beliefs?

This leads us to what is widely regarded as the coup de grace of proof that there is no afterlife: George H. Smith's Atheism: The Case Against God.

As time goes on and the more I read and learn a moralistic principle has emerged that forbids me to engage in universal declarations. But I cannot help but get a sense that, far beyond the words of most ardent anti-Bible thumpers, beneath the truculent feelings, deep within, it is not an allegiance to Atheism itself, but a shelter to exact revenge against an abusive authority figure that misinterpreted scripture by beating it into the child during the stages of nurturing. The reactive attitude is not against God, Jesus, or The Bible no matter how scathing the words may be. The trinity only serves as the medium for a transfer of resentment. A metaphorical target.

And who can blame them?

I seriously doubt that anyone—whose automatic association with church comes with the resurrected memory of a slap across the face or a belt across the back—will grow to become a fervent pew warmer.

I know this is not always the case. But I have yet to meet a devout atheist absent of a condescending tongue.

Once anyone who belongs to the atheist sect discovers that you are a Christian, it is almost as if the temperature in the room is cranked up to over 100 degrees and the air is ripe for a roast of the delusional Jesus freak.

A great example of a public figure who fits this bill to a T is Michael James Pultz, a local Z-List Cleveland celebrity known for hosting the now-defunct free-form sports talk show on 91.1 WRUW called The Defend Cleveland Show. Very little of his show was concerned with talking about sports and instead the air was filled with his vocal dysentery about how much he hated the Bible, Christians, and anything related to Jesus. As a means of punctuating this point, the segue to the final hour was a Cartman rendition of televangelist Jesus songs followed by a faux surgeon general's warning about how the Bible is false and is nothing more than a means to gain obedience in fools.

But between the cracks of this, Mike would let slip the fact that he hated his father very, very much. And recalled him being a bigoted racist conservative who would hammer scripture passages into his son. At least, to the best of my recollection, that was how he talked about his father.

And therein lies the common thread binding together every atheist that I have ever met. The true language is not to be spoken within their vitriol against God or The Bible, but against the culprit who was culpable for diminishing their self-esteem as a child. Which is why the reaction always tends to be so hostile. Underneath it all, it is not me, nor my Christianity, or God they are angry at, but the guardian. My devotion to Christ is like reopening an inflicted wound from childhood that never was able to be healed.

"Paul did not become a wholly different person by becoming a Christian; he found a new set of beliefs which satisfied his unconscious more effectively than the old ones and for this reason the new attitudes were likely to be stable. Similarly, many atheists have been brought up in oppressively religious homes and the change from belief in, and fear of, an awe-inspiring and vindictive God to a conviction, through reading, study, and the influence of others, that there is no God provides a feeling of relief. Yet contact with many such people will lead to the conclusion that there has been little real change in the personality as such, and that the same deep-seated attitudes have only been attached to different goals. This type of atheist campaigns for his new beliefs with the same intolerance, narrow-mindedness, and obsessiveness that he manifested in his previous state; formerly he worshipped a vindictive God, now he worships 'no-God', that is all."

J.A.C. Brown (Techniques of Persuasion: From Propaganda to Brainwashing, emphasis added)

Or, from the man himself.

"There are not many reasons for explicit atheism, some rational and some not. Explicit atheism may be motivated by psychological factors. A man may disbelieve in God because he hates his religious parents, or because his wife deserted him for the neighborhood minister. Or, on a more sophisticated level, one may feel that life is futile and helpless, and that there is no emotional room for God in a tragic universe. Motivations such as these may be of a psychological interest, but they are philosophically irrelevant. They are not rational grounds for atheism, and we shall not consider them here."

George H. Smith (Pg 17, emphasis added)

It was George H Smith's recognition of this misplaced aggression that made me realize that this book should be read with some degree of respect because there was some serious thought and deft intelligence behind his stance, and not some traumatized man-child writing blasphemous epithets for 300+ pages.

From there I was surprised to find that semantics was the weapon of choice for George and not the Higgs particle and Science, like most atheists retreat to when confronted with any form of scripture.

George comes from the school of Rand. This was another factor that kept me paying attention to every word and reading it respectfully. He quotes several passages from another author whose work I respect very greatly: Nathaniel Branden. Together they espouse what the main theme is from beginning to end: rational thought and the law of identity.

I know I will butcher a lot of what he wrote, but if you are familiar in the least bit with Atlas Shrugged and the John Galt radio address and took to the speech then you may enjoy this book even more so, because it reads like a thesis centered around the irrefutable fact that A can only be an A, not a non-A or any other invented derivative.

*It is this very theory that drives liberal-minded Marxists wild with fury and may be the reasoning behind this book not having much clout in the "science is real" community. For instance, when I boarded the bus and a fellow passenger across the aisle with all sorts of metal shit in his face wearing fishnets and eyeliner asked me what I was reading, and I responded with a book on atheism inspired by Ayn Rand, he puckered his face in distaste and remarked that it probably sucked because Ayn Rand was a fascist. Gotcha.*

From there George uses this law as the foundation to paint theists into a corner where they have no choice but to admit that they are wrong.

Some examples:

Christian: For everything that comes into creation there is a purpose.

George: Well, based upon that half-cocked theory, who created God then?

Christian: Nobody. God is the alpha and omega.

George: But if everything that comes into creation serves a purpose. Then something had to create God. Right?

Christian: No. He is the beginning and the end.

George: But, again, if he comes into creation, he serves a purpose. Hence, he serves something else. And that something else serves something else. Until ad infinitum.

Or, if you prefer.

Christian: God is an all-loving benevolent being.

George: Then how do you explain all of the horrible things that happen in the world?

Christian: God's motives are not for us to know.

George: But he is in control of everything, and, therefore, is not an all-loving benevolent being.

Christian: The Bible says its so.

You get the picture.

It goes on and on generally from this standpoint and distinguishes the difference between addled agnostics—who believe that there is a God, but that they just don't have enough information to conclude in the present time, and the atheist, who believes absolutely that there is no God at all.

While George presents a strong case with well-thought-out arguments throughout his book, I found that it leads to a rather bleak outlook if one adopts everything he espouses wholeheartedly.

Think about it: There is no such thing as love, it is only reduced to a superfluous emotional state to enhance procreation. Humanitarian aid is nonsensical because there is no such thing as karma. Morals and ethics are obsolete, because why refrain from stealing and brutality? There's no hell anyway. And the only consequence for any type of deceit is when you are caught. Otherwise, gather all that you can at the expense of your fellow man. This life is but a breath and once we're gone there's nothing left.

For me, Jonah's trip to Nineveh and Jesus's resurrection is far more believable than the absolute assertion of nothing beyond the here and now. And while George drastically reduces the Bible to nothing more than contradictory morals to gain a false sense of superiority over your fellow man, I can certainly attest to the contrary.

Through my devotion to Christ I have gained attributes in areas that once were numb. Empathy for my fellow man, discernment in tricky situations, durability through hard times, forgiveness for those who have trespassed against me, love for my Father, a best friend in Jesus Christ, security through the Holy Spirit, and what this world promised but that I could never provide for myself: respect.

Intrinsically, I absorb communication through kinetics—feeling. When I pray to God or hear him speak to me, it is within my heart, or, gut, or, intuition. And the same thing can be said for the feeling of fulfillment I gain by performing a charitable deed. The limited parameter of words is simply insufficient to capture that feeling of love that I experience.

The fact that George is unable to decipher this, nor explain the law of selectivity (I.e. who decides who gets to be at the top of the food chain as a human instead of living their life as an ant or a cat) prevents me from accepting this argument as anything more than to say hmm, that's an interesting point.

But to be fair, George does set himself apart from the psychologically flawed atheist that I have always had the displeasure of encountering. If more atheists were able to adopt a principled approach to rationality, as George has, perhaps people would be more receptive to their stance. But I seriously doubt that day will ever come. It is just much easier to give in to hostility than uncover a wound and work towards healing it.

Bottom line, some may view God, Jesus, and the Bible as nothing more than the poor man's opiate. Or a glorified fairy tale crutch for those who can't hack it in the real world to lean upon which inevitably snaps. But I've had the rich man's opiates, and will always prefer to overdose on the poor man's.

Grade: B+

Verdict: Read