Why Am I an Atheist Essay Example for Free

why Am I an Atheist EssayIt is a matter of debate whether my lack of tenet in the human race race of an Omnipresent, Omniscient god is callable to my arrogant pride and conceitedness. It never occurred to me that to a greater extent or lesstime in the in store(predicate) I would be involved in polemics of this kind. As a result of whatsoever discussions with my friends, (if my claim to friendship is non uncalled for) I scram realised that after having realisen me for a little time only, m either of them bedevil r distri butivelyed a kind of hasty conclusion slightly me that my godlessness is my foolishness and that it is the outcome of my narcism. Even and so it is a serious p pick offlem. I do non boast of being above these human follies. I am, after all, a human being and nonhing more than. And no wholeness peck claim to be more than that. I imbibe a weakness in my soulality, for pride is one of the human traits that I do possess.I am k without delayn as a dictator among my friends. Some time I am called a boaster. Some drive home uncea blazegly been complaining that I am bossy and I pressure others to accept my opinion. Yes, it is true to some(prenominal) extent. I do non deny this charge. We can use the intelligence activity vainglory for it. As distant as the contemptible, obsolete, rotten values of our society argon concerned, I am an extreme sceptic. that this question does non concern my person alone. It is being soaring of my papers, my thoughts. It cannot be called blank pride. Pride, or you whitethorn use the word, vanity, both mean an hyperbolize assessment of ones personality. Is my atheism because of unnecessary pride, or guard I ceased believing in matinee idol after thinking hanker and deep on the matter? I wish to dumbfound my ideas before you. First of all, let us differentiate between pride and vanity as these be two different things.I beat never been able to infrastand how unfounded, baseles s pride or empty vanity can resist a person from believing in theology. I may refuse to ac crawl inledge the greatness of a genuinely great person only when I present got fame without doing either serious efforts or when I lack the superior mental powers necessary to become great. It is blue-blooded to understand precisely how is it possible that a believer can turn into a non-believer because of his vanity? Only two things are possible every a man deems himself to be in bullheadedness of inspired qualities, or he goes a cadence further and declares himself to be a god. In both these states of mind he cannot be an atheist in the true sense of the word. In the first case, it is not an outright rejection of beau ideals existence in the other, he is affirming the existence of some kind of supernatural power responsible for the working of universe. It does not wound our argument whether he claims to be a god or considers God to be a truth in existence above his own being.T he real point, however, is that in both cases he is a theist, a believer. He is not an atheist. I want to bring home this point to you. I am not one of these two creeds. I totally reject the existence of an Omnipresent, all powerful, all knowing God. wherefore so? I resulting discuss it later in the essay. Here I wish to punctuate that I am not an atheist for the discernment that I am arrogant or proud or vain nor am I a demi-god, nor a prophet no, nor am I God myself. At least one thing is true that I take over not evolved this thought because of vanity or pride. In order to serve up this question I relate the truth. My friends say that after Delhi barrage and Lahore Conspiracy Case, I rocketed to fame and that this fact has turned my head. allow us discuss why this allegation is incorrect. I did not give up my belief in God after these incidents. I was an atheist level(p) when I was an unknown figure. At least a college student cannot cherish any sort of exaggerated noti on of himself that may lead him to atheism. It is true that I was a favourite with some college teachers, entirely others did not like me.I was never a hardworking or studious boy. I never got an chance to be proud. I was very careful in my behaviour and somewhat pessimistic about my future career. I was not completely atheistic in my beliefs. I was brought up under the care and vindication of my father. He was a staunch Arya Samaji. An Arya Samaji can be anything only if never an atheist. After my elementary education, I was sent to D. A. V College, Lahore. I lived in the boarding house for one year. Besides prayers early in the morning and at dusk time, I sat for hours and chanted apparitional Mantras. At that time, I was a staunch believer. Then I lived with my father. He was a tolerant man in his religious views.It is due to his teachings that I devoted my life for the cause of liberating my country. simply he was not an atheist. His God was an all-pervading Entity. He adv ised me to offer my prayers every day. In this counseling I was brought up. In the Non-cooperation years, I got admission to the National College. During my handicap in this college, I began thinking over all the religious polemics much(prenominal) that I grew sceptical about the existence of God. In spite of this fact I can say that my belief in God was firm and strong. I grew a beard and Kais ( hanker head of hair as a Sikh religious custom). In spite of this I could not convince myself of the efficacy of Sikh religion or any religion at all, for that matter. But I had an unswerving, unwavering belief in God.Then I join the Revolutionary Party. The first leader I met had not the fearlessness to openly declare himself an atheist. He was unable to reach any conclusion on this point. Whenever I asked him about the existence of God, he gave me this reply You may believe in him when you feel like it. The second leader with whom I came in contact was a firm believer. I should ment ion his name. It was our respected Comrade Sachindara Nath Sanyal. He was sentenced to life imprisonment in link with Karachi conspiracy case. Right from the first rapscallion of his only book, Bandi Jivan (Incarnated Life) he sings praises to the Glory of God. See the blend page of the second part of this book and you incur praises showered upon God in the way of a mystic. It is a figure out reflection of his thoughts.According to the prosecution, the Revolutionary Leaflet which was distributed throughout India was the outcome of Sachindara Nath Sanyals intellectual labour. So a lot it happens that in radical activities a leader expresses his own ideas which may be very dear to him, but in spite of having differences, the other workers swallow to acquiesce in them.In that leaflet, one full split up was devoted to the praises of God and His doings which we, human beings, cannot understand. This is sheer mysticism. What I want to point out is that the idea of denying the exi stence of God did not nonetheless occur to the Revolutionary Party. The famous Kakory martyrs, all four of them, passed their at last day in prayers. Ram Parshad Bismal was a staunch Arya Samaji. In spite of his vast studies in communism and Communism, Rajan Lahiri could not suppress his desire to recite hymns from Upanishads and Gita. There was but only one person among them who did not indulge in such activities. He employ to say, religion is the outcome of human weakness or the limitation of human knowledge. He is alike in prison for life. But he excessively never dared to deny the existence of God.Till that time I was only a romantic revolutionary, just a follower of our leaders. Then came the time to shoulder the whole responsibility. For some time, a strong opposition put the very existence of the party into danger. Many leaders as well as many yearning comrades began to uph onetime(a) the party to ridicule. They jeered at us. I had an apprehension that some day I wil l also consider it a futile and hopeless task. It was a turning point in my revolutionary career. An incessant desire to study filled my heart. Study more and more, said I to myself so that I might be able to face the arguments of my opponents. Study to support your point of view with convincing arguments. And I began to study in a serious manner. My foregoing beliefs and convictions underwent a radical change. The romance of militancy predominate our predecessors now serious ideas ousted this way of thinking. No more mysticism No more blind organized religion directly realism was our mode of thinking. At times of terrible necessity, we can resort to extreme methods, but violence produces opposite results in mass movements.I have talked much about our methods. The most classic thing was a clear conception of our ideology for which we were waging a long struggle. As thither was no election activity going on, I got racy opportunity to study mixed ideas propounded by various write rs. I studied Bakunin, the anarchist leader. I read a few books of Marx, the father of Communism. I also read Lenin and Trotsky and many other writers who successfully carried out revolutions in their countries. exclusively of them were atheists.The ideas contained in Bakunins God and State seem inconclusive, but it is an interesting book. After that I came across a book ordinary Sense by Nirlamba Swami. His point of view was a sort of mystical atheism. I developed more interest in this subject. By the end of 1926, I was convinced that the belief in an powerful, compulsory debut who created, guided and controlled the universe had no sound foundations. I began discussions on this subject with my friends. I had openly declared myself an atheist. What it meant will be discussed in the following lines.In May 1927, I was arrested in Lahore. This arrest came as a big surprise for me. I had not the least idea that I was wanted by the police. I was passing through a garden and all of a sudden the police ring me. To my own surprise, I was very calm at that time. I was in full control of myself. I was taken into police custody. The next day I was taken to the Railway Police lockup where I spent a whole month. After many days conversation with police personnel, I guessed that they had some information about my connection with the Kakori Party. I felt they had some intelligence of my other activities in the revolutionary movement. They told me that I was in Lucknow during the Kakori Party Trial so that I might devise a final cause to rescue the culprits. They also said that after the plan had been approved, we procured some bombs and by way of test, one of those bombs was throw into a crowd on the occasion of Dussehra in 1926.They offered to release me on condition that I gave a statement on the activities of the Revolutionary Party. In this way I would be set free and charge respected and I would not be produced as an approver in the court. I could not do la ughing at their proposals. It was all humbug. People who have ideas like ours do not throw bombs at their own exculpatory tribe. One day, Mr. Newman, the then senior Superintendent of CID, came to me. After a long talk which was full of compassionate words, he imparted to me what he considered to be sad news, that if I did not give any statement as demanded by them, they would be forced to send me up for running play for conspiracy to wage struggle in connection with Kakori Case and also for brutal killings in Dussehra gathering. After that he said that he had equal evidence to get me convicted and hanged.I was completely innocent, but I believed that the police had sufficient power to do it if they desired it to be so. The same day some police officers persuaded me to offer my prayers to God two times regularly. I was an atheist. I thought that I would settle it to myself whether I could brag only in days of peace and happiness that I was an atheist, or in those hard times I could be steadfast in my convictions. After a long debate with myself, I reached the conclusion that I could not even pretend to be a believer nor could I offer my prayers to God. No, I never did it. It was time of trial and I would come out of it successful. These were my thoughts. Never for a moment did I desire to save my life. So I was a true atheist then and I am an atheist now. It was not an easy task to face that ordeal. Beliefs make it easier to go through hardships, even make them pleasant. Man can capture a strong support in God and an encouraging solacement in His Name. If you have no belief in Him, then in that location is no alternative but to depend upon yourself. It is not tiddlers play to stand firm on your feet amid storms and strong winds.In difficult times, vanity, if it remains, evaporates and man cannot pass off the courage to defy beliefs held in common esteem by the muckle. If he really revolts against such beliefs, we essential conclude that it is not sheer vanity he has some kind of extraordinary strength. This is exactly the fact now. First of all we all know what the judgement will be. It is to be pronounced in a week or so. I am going to sacrifice my life for a cause. What more consolation can there be A God-believing Hindu may expect to be re born(p) a king a Muslim or a Christian might dream of the luxuries he hopes to hump in paradise as a reward for his sufferings and sacrifices. What hope should I entertain? I know that will be the end when the rope is tightened round my neck and the rafters move from under my feet. To use more precise religious terminology, that will be the moment of utter annihilation. My soul will come to nothing.If I take the courage to take the matter in the light of Reward, I see that a hapless life of struggle with no such magnificent end shall itself be my Reward. That is all. Without any egotistic motive of getting any reward here or in the hereafter, quite disinterestedly have I devoted m y life to the cause of freedom. I could not act otherwise. The day shall usher in a new era of liberty when a large number of men and women, taking courage from the idea of serving humanity and liberating them from sufferings and distress, define that there is no alternative before them except devoting their lives for this cause.They will wage a war against their oppressors, tyrants or exploiters, not to become kings, or to gain any reward here or in the next birth or after death in paradise but to cast off the yoke of slavery, to establish liberty and peace they will tread this perilous, but glorious path. Can the pride they take in their noble cause be called vanity? Who is there rash enough to call it so? To him I say either he is foolish or wicked. Leave such a fellow alone for he cannot realise the depth, the emotions, the sentiment and the noble feelings that passel in that heart. His heart is dead, a mere lump of flesh, devoid of feelings. His convictions are infirm, his em otions feeble. His selfish interests have do him incapable of seeing the truth. The epithet vanity is always hurled at the strength we get from our convictions.You go against best-selling(predicate) feelings you rap a hero, a great man who is generally believed to be above criticism. What happens? No one will answer your arguments in a rational way rather you will be considered vainglorious. Its reason is mental insipidity. Merciless criticism and autarkical thinking are the two necessary traits of revolutionary thinking. As Mahatmaji is great, he is above criticism as he has risen above, all that he says in the electron orbit of politics, religion, Ethics is right. You agree or not, it is binding upon you to take it as truth. This is not constructive thinking. We do not take a leap forward we go many steps back.Our forefathers evolved faith in some kind of Supreme Being, therefore, one who ventures to challenge the validity of that faith or denies the existence of God, shall b e called a Kafir (infidel), or a renegade. Even if his arguments are so strong that it is impossible to refute them, if his affectionateness is so strong that he cannot be bowed down by the threats of misfortune that may supervene him through the wrath of the Almighty, he shall be decried as vainglorious. Then why should we waste our time in such discussions? This question has come before the people for the first time, hence the necessity and usefulness of such long discussions.As far as the first question is concerned, I think I have made it clear that I did not turn atheist because of vanity. Only my readers, not I, can decide whether my arguments carry weight. If I were a believer, I know in the present mess my life would have been easier the burden lighter. My disbelief in God has turned all the circumstances too harsh and this role can deteriorate further. Being a little mystical can give the circumstances a poetic turn. But I need no opiate to meet my end. I am a hard-nos ed man. I want to overpower this tendency in me with the help of Reason. I am not always successful in such attempts. But it is mans duty to try and make efforts. advantage depends on chance and circumstances.Now we come to the second question if it is not vanity, there ought to be some sound reason for rejection of age-old belief in God. Yes, I come to this question. I think that any man who has some reasoning power always tries to understand the life and people around him with the help of this faculty. Where concrete proofs are lacking, mystical ism creeps in. As I have indicated, one of my revolutionary friends used to say that philosophy is the outcome of human weakness. Our ancestors had the leisure to solve the mysteries of the valet de chambre, its past, its present and its future, its whys and its wherefores, but having been terribly short of direct proofs, every one of them tried to solve the problem in his own way. Hence we find wide differences in the fundamentals of v arious religious creeds. Sometimes they take very antagonistic and unlike forms. We find differences in Oriental and Occidental philosophies. There are differences even amongst various schools of thoughts in each hemisphere.In Asian religions, the Muslim religion is completely incompatible with the Hindu faith. In India itself, Buddhism and Jainism are sometimes quite separate from Brahmanism. Then in Brahmanism itself, we find two conflicting sects Aarya Samaj and Snatan Dheram. Charwak is yet another independent thinker of the past ages. He challenged the Authority of God. All these faiths differ on many fundamental questions, but each of them claims to be the only true religion. This is the root of the evil. Instead of developing the ideas and experiments of ancient thinkers, thus providing ourselves with the ideologic weapon for the future struggle, lethargic, idle, fanatical as we are we cling to orthodox religion and in this way reduce human awakening to a stagnant pool.It is necessary for every person who stands for progress to criticise every tenet of old beliefs. Item by item he has to challenge the efficacy of old faith. He has to analyse and understand all the details. If after rigorous reasoning, one is led to believe in any theory of philosophy, his faith is appreciated. His reasoning may be mistaken and even fallacious. But there is chance that he will be corrected because Reason is the guiding principle of his life. But belief, I should say blind belief is disastrous. It deprives a man of his understanding power and makes him reactionary.Any person who claims to be a realist has to challenge the truth of old beliefs. If faith cannot withstand the onslaught of reason, it collapses. After that his task should be to do the groundwork for new philosophy. This is the negative side. After that comes in the positive work in which some material of the olden times can be used to construct the pillars of new philosophy. As far as I am concerned, I admi t that I lack sufficient study in this field. I had a great desire to study the Oriental Philosophy, but I could get ample opportunity or sufficient time to do so. But so far as I reject the old time beliefs, it is not a matter of countering belief with belief, rather I can challenge the efficacy of old beliefs with sound arguments. We believe in temper and that human progress depends on the domination of man over nature. There is no conscious power behind it. This is our philosophy.Being atheist, I ask a few questions from theists1. If, as you believe there is an Almighty, Omnipresent, Omniscient God, who created the earth or universe, gratify let me know, first of all, as to why he created this world. This world which is full of woe and grief, and countless miseries, where not even one person lives in peace.2. Pray, dont say it is His law. If He is bound by any law, He is not powerful. Dont say it is His pleasure. Nero burnt one Rome. He killed a very limited number of people. He caused only a few tragedies, all for his morbid enjoyment. But what is his place in history? By what names do we remember him? All the disparaging epithets are hurled at him. Pages are blackened with invective diatribes condemning Nero the tyrant, the heartless, the wicked.One Genghis Khan killed a few green people to seek pleasure in it and we hate the very name. Now, how will you justify your all powerful, utter(a) Nero, who every day, every moment continues his pastime of killing people? How can you support his doings which chastise those of Genghis Khan in cruelty and in misery inflicted upon people? I ask why the Almighty created this world which is nothing but a living hell, a place of constant and bitter unrest. why did he create man when he had the power not to do so?Have you any answer to these questions? You will say that it is to reward the sufferer and punish the evildoer in the hereafter. Well, well, how far will you justify a man who first of all inflicts injurie s on your body and then applies soft and assuasive ointment on them? How far the supporters and organizers of Gladiator bouts were justified in throwing men before half rapacious lions, later to be cared for and accounted after well if they escaped this horrible death. That is why I ask Was the creation of man intended to derive this kind of pleasure?Open your eyes and see millions of people decease of hunger in slums and huts dirtier than the grim dungeons of prisons just see the labourers patiently or say apathetically piece of music the productive vampires suck their blood bring to mind the wastage of human energy that will make a man with a little common sense shiver in horror. Just observe rich nations throwing their surplus produce into the sea instead of distributing it among the needy and deprived. There are palaces of kings built upon the foundations laid with human bones. Let them see all this and say All is well in Gods Kingdom. Why so? This is my question. You are si lent. All right. I proceed to my next point.You, the Hindus, would say Whosoever undergoes sufferings in this life, mustiness have been a sinner in his previous birth. It is tantamount to saying that those who are oppressors now were Godly people then, in their previous births. For this reason alone they hold power in their hands. Let me say it but that your ancestors were shrewd people. They were always in search of petty hoaxes to play upon people and snatch from them the power of Reason. Let us analyse how much this argument carries weightThose who are well versed in the philosophy of Jurisprudence relate three of four justifications for the punishment that is to be inflicted upon a wrong-doer. These are revenge, reform, and deterrence. The Retribution guess is now condemned by all the thinkers. Deterrent theory is on the anvil for its flaws. Reformative theory is now widely accepted and considered to be necessary for human progress. It aims at reforming the culprit and conver ting him into a peace-loving citizen. But what in essence is Gods Punishment even if it is inflicted on a person who has really done some harm? For the sake of argument we agree for a moment that a person committed some crime in his previous birth and God punished him by changing his shape into a cow, cat, tree, or any other animal. You may enumerate the number of these variations in Godly Punishment to be at least eighty-four lack. Tell me, has this tomfoolery, perpetrated in the name of punishment, any reformative effect on human man?How many of them have you met who were donkeys in their previous births for having committed any sin? Absolutely no one of this sort The so called theory of Puranas (transmigration) is nothing but a fairy-tale. I do not have any intention to bring this unutterable trash under discussion. Do you really know the most cursed sin in this world is to be inadequate? Yes, poverty is a sin it is a punishment Cursed be the theoretician, jurist or legislator who proposes such measures as push man into the quagmire of more heinous sins. Did it not occur to your All clear-sighted God or he could learn the truth only after millions had undergone untold sufferings and hardships? What, according to your theory, is the wad of a person who, by no sin of his own, has been born into a family of low caste people? He is hapless so he cannot go to a school.It is his fate to be shunned and hated by those who are born into a high caste. His ignorance, his poverty, and the contempt he receives from others will harden his heart towards society. Supposing that he commits a sin, who shall bear the consequences? God, or he, or the learned people of that society? What is your view about those punishments inflicted on the people who were deliberately kept ignorant by selfish and proud Brahmans? If by chance these poor creatures heard a few words of your sacred books, Vedas, these Brahmans poured melted lead into their ears. If they committed any sin, who was to be held responsible? Who was to bear the brunt? My dear friends, these theories have been coined by the privileged classes.They try to justify the power they have usurped and the riches they have robbed with the help of such theories. Perhaps it was the writer Upton Sinclair who wrote (Bhagat Singh is referring to Sinclairs pamphlet Profits of Religion MIA transcriber) somewhere only make a man firm believer in the immortality of soul, then rob him of all that he possesses. He will willingly help you in the process. The dirty alliance between religious preachers and possessors of power brought the boon of prisons, gallows, knouts and above all such theories for the mankind.I ask why your Omnipotent God does not hold a man back when he is about to commit a sin or offence. It is childs play for God. Why did He not kill war lords? Why did He not obliterate the fury of war from their minds? In this way He could have saved humanity of many a great calamity and horror. Why does H e not instill humanistic sentiments into the minds of the Britishers so that they may willingly leave India? I ask why He does not fill the hearts of all capitalist classes with altruistic humanism that prompts them to give up personal possession of the means of production and this will free the whole labouring humanity from the shackles of money. You want to argue the practicability of collectivized theory, I leave it to your Almighty God to enforce it.Common people understand the merits of Socialist theory as far as general welfare is concerned but they oppose it under the pretext that it cannot be implemented. Let the Almighty step in and arrange things in a worthy way. No more logic chopping I tell you that the British rule is not there because God willed it but for the reason that we lack the will and courage to oppose it. Not that they are keeping us under subjugation with the consent of God, but it is with the force of guns and rifles, bombs and bullets, police and militia , and above all because of our apathy that they are successfully committing the most deplorable sin, that is, the exploitation of one nation by another. Where is God? What is He doing? Is He getting a diseased pleasure out of it? A Nero A Genghis Khan Down with HimNow another piece of manufactured logic You ask me how I will explain the origin of this world and origin of man. Charles Darwin has tried to throw some light on this subject. Study his book. Also, have a look at Sohan Swamis Commonsense. You will get a satisfactory answer. This topic is concerned with Biology and innate History. This is a phenomenon of nature. The accidental mixture of different substances in the form of Nebulae gave birth to this earth. When? Study history to know this. The same process caused the evolution of animals and in the long run that of man. Read Darwins Origin of Species. All the later progress is due to mans constant conflict with nature and his efforts to utilise nature for his own benefit. This is the briefest sketch of this phenomenon.Your next question will be why a child is born blind or lame even if he was not a sinner in his previous birth. This problem has been explained in a satisfactory manner by biologists as a mere biological phenomenon. According to them the whole burden rests upon the shoulders of parents whose conscious or unconscious deeds caused mutilation of the child prior to his birth.You may thrust yet another question at me, though it is merely childish. The question is If God does not really exist, why do people come to believe in Him? Brief and concise my answer will be. As they come to believe in ghosts, and evil spirits, so they also evolve a kind of belief in God the only difference being that God is almost a universal phenomenon and well developed theological philosophy. However, I do disagree with radical philosophy. It attributes His origin to the courtesy of exploiters who wanted to keep the people under their subjugation by preaching the existence of a Supreme Being thus claimed an authority and sanction from Him for their privileged position. I do not differ on the essential point that all religions, faiths, theological philosophies, and religious creeds and all other such institutions in the long run become supporters of the tyrannical and exploiting institutions, men and classes. Rebellion against any king has always been a sin in every religion.As regard the origin of God, my thought is that man created God in his resource when he realized his weaknesses, limitations and shortcomings. In this way he got the courage to face all the trying circumstances and to meet all dangers that might occur in his life and also to restrain his outbursts in prosperity and affluence. God, with his whimsical laws and parental generosity was painted with variegated colours of imagination. He was used as a deterrent factor when his fury and his laws were repeatedly propagated so that man might not become a danger to society. He w as the cry of the distressed soul for he was believed to stand as father and mother, babe and brother, brother and friend when in time of distress a man was left alone and helpless. He was Almighty and could do anything. The idea of God is helpful to a man in distress.Society must fight against this belief in God as it fought against idol worship and other narrow conceptions of religion. In this way man will try to stand on his feet. Being realistic, he will have to throw his faith aside and face all adversaries with courage and valour. That is exactly my state of mind. My friends, it is not my vanity it is my mode of thinking that has made me an atheist. I dont think that by strengthening my belief in God and by offering prayers to Him every day, (this I consider to be the most firm act on the part of man) I can bring improvement in my situation, nor can I further deteriorate it. I have read of many atheists facing all troubles boldly, so I am trying to stand like a man with the head high and erect to the last even on the gallows.Let us see how steadfast I am. One of my friends asked me to pray. When informed of my atheism, he said, When your last days come, you will begin to believe. I said, No, dear sir, Never shall it happen. I consider it to be an act of degradation and demoralisation. For such petty selfish motives, I shall never pray. Reader and friends, is it vanity? If it is, I stand for it.