After endless discussions about the Bible and other holy scriptures there still remains one truth.

The ancient scriptures and their many interpretations give one a garbled runaround and even after hours of reading and discussions one still has to decide what one finds plausible about reality. How does one go about it?

Philosophical and theological arguments for gods are many and though one may be cleverer than the other, they are not the base from wich to move on to a well established belief. People do not believe in the supernatural because they were convinced by some argument. If they do, in my experience, it is because they have a limited understanding of how logic works, or because they have fallen in love with the answer to their argument, and lost their capacity to evaluate it objectively. Most often people believe, because they were taught to believe. It is a cultural thing. Much like one person finds it hygienic to wipe their arse with a paper and a nother prefers washing their rear end in the same everyday situation.

As I have never been a believer in any gods, or the supernatural and as I have no experiences that would ever have led me to believe there exists anything beyond the material reality we call the universe, and furthermore, since there is no evidence of any kind of anything supernatural actually influencing the reality ever measured, or proven by the very best method we have to evaluate the objectivity of any claim – science – I am sad to say (well not that sad), that all claims about the supernatural and all gods add up to the story in the video abowe.

Let me clarify. If someone claims they have been in contact with a spirit entity mentioned in this or that ancient storytelling tradition and then adds, that the entity was invisible, inaudible, and left no “inprint” to the ground or the reality other than the emotions of the person, then I am forced to assume the entire entity existed merely in the imagination of this person. Certainly it was real enough for them, but if one tries to estimate wether such an experience was caused by something of wich we have no objective data, or by the emotions and creative mind of the person working with the cultural heritage of said person, then why would we assume that the former was true, rather than the latter? To confirm our own cultural bias? Would that not be a bit intelligently dishonest?

When I say people do not believe because of arguments I mean arguments like; where did everything come from, if a god did not create it. Many people present such arguments when they face doubts about their beliefs in their own cultural package of beliefs in the supernatural, they have accustomed to take for granted. Yet, if you think about it, why would anyone really believe something to be real only because it is a fitting explanation to something we know we really can not explain? Something that really is beyond our grasp. Like for example the origin of the Universe.

If I mysteriously lose my sock and simply can not explain where did it disappear, it is not a viable explanation, that a sock stealing supernatural pixie stole it. Is it? Yet, it perfectly explains the unexplainable. The reason nobody (I hope) believes in this notion of sock stealing pixie is, that it is not in their cultural heritage. It is a novel idea, though somone might have presented it before me, that does not make it any better explanation. Does it? Even if we had an ancient scripture, that described pixies stealing socks, that would not make it any more real. Would it? We would still require some other confirmation to the existance of such pixies, than just the disappearance of the sock. Even if that sock disappeared into thin air right in front of our very eyes. Right? Nothing as powerfull as a sock disappearing in the very eyes of people has never been confirmed to have happened in defence of any particular god claims. Has there?

There are, of course even more sophisticated appearing arguments than the origins of all, like the origins of logical absolutes, or morals, but they are even more sillier than the argumentation about the origin of the universe, as they are asking for a cause for descriptive concepts. Logic is not an existing “thing” it only describes the reality that we do happen to exist in. As for morals, it is a description of human behaviorial models that are beneficial to us as a species and as such merely an evolutionary trait. A trait I am not willing to give up, to excuse for any gods described in primitive and tribally moralistic societies, that used gods as excuses to act immorally. Because selfishness is also a evolutionary trait and a behaviour model, but one needs to find a balance between selfishness and selflessness and that can then be called morals…

Why would an area held sacred by the Aboriginees be any less sacred than an area in the Middle-East held sacred by billions of Christians, Jews, and Muslims? Why would an Aboriginal spirit entity and traditional story be any less real than an ancient Jewish spirit entity and storyline? Why would any spirit entity be any more real than an imaginary spirit entity in a comedy show? Humans make these stories up, that is the truth of it. Is it not?