It is this true original definition of altruism that I am using here, and I will use altruism and selflessness interchangeably.

Selflessness is irrational. It is irrational because it demands that the beneficiary of your actions be others. Does it suggest who these others should be? That is a decision an individual would make for himself based on his personal values. But, since altruism dictates that we should hold our interests or values in no regard when acting, altruism actually states that the personal value of the beneficiary be irrelevant to our action! By this “logic” not only would giving money to a drug-dealing rapist be just as moral as giving money to an orphanage, it would be more moral!

Why is that? It comes down to personal values. To suggest that some people are more worthy than others to benefit from acts of generosity implies that one has made a value judgment oneself in such matters based on a personal evaluation of worth. But acting in accordance with one’s personal values is a SELFISH act. Choosing to help your friend over a stranger is a selfish act. Choosing to save the life of your lover over the life of an enemy is a selfish act. Going to work and spending your hard-earned money on yourself and not giving it to every beggar in the street who asks is a selfish act. Conversely, giving help to an unknown over a friend would be selfless. Giving up the life of your lover so that a hated person could live would be a selfless act. Coming home from work and handing out £50 notes to people you see on the street would be a selfless act. Selfless means “otherness”; it means the defiance of personal values.

Clearly, this is not the sort of moral guide most altruists have in mind when they talk about “selflessness” (although many altruists do, such as the religious), yet that is exactly what their “morality” means, and if they disagree they don’t understand their own moral position.

A perfect example of this self-contradiction is in a recent post by the humanist Ebonmuse:

“Instead, what brings happiness is participation – interaction with the world and exploration of all it has to offer, our relationships to friends and loved ones and a larger community, and selfless labor for the good of others.” (Bold mine)

Notice that our friends, our loved ones, our community, our happiness, our interaction are cited as positive things. Positive for whom? Beneficial for whom? For us! These are selfish values. They are a personal value to us, and we act on them because we derive benefit from them. Yet Ebonmuse also insists that our labour be totally unrelated to personal value! So which is it? Should our actions be selfish or selfless? You cannot have it both ways.

Proponents of “selfless morality” (a contradiction in terms) will fiercely disagree and claim that I am attacking a strawman or twisting their position. But clearly I am not: to use any personal values as a guide to making decisions is a selfish act. Selflessness requires the contradiction of personal values; it requires that one act for the sake of acting, for no personal benefit at all. And if you disagree that this is the correct course of action you should not call yourself an altruist or promote selflessness.

The belief that an act (or anything) is good or bad in itself is intrinsicism. However nothing can be good or bad in itself. “Good” or “bad” provoke the question: good or bad to whom? Which implies that someone or something can make a value judgment concerning the objective effect that something in reality will have in regard to their existence. There is only one thing in existence that can do this: consciousness. Moral value judgments arise because of a consciousness’ relation to reality. This is simply, and self-evidently because, for there to be “good” or “bad” – value or non-value, there must be a valuer.

This personal evaluation of what is beneficial or detrimental to a conscious being has to be performed by that conscious being. By identifying the type of being it is and its relationship to reality, a being can discover what is of value to its life and what is not; what is “good” for its life and what is “bad” – and this is what morality is: a code of values to guide actions. That is why true objective morality is not a duty, or set of rules passed on by authority, or a guidebook invented by man. It is something that can, that has to be, objectively discovered by humans; by each human.

For this reason, morality is a personal matter – it is a guide for each of us how to live our lives. It is not an ethereal magical phenomena that arises through social behaviour; it is not determined by social norm or majority whim or evolutionary instinct.

Since morality is a code of values to guide actions, it is necessary that these values be rationally discovered – otherwise they would not correspond to reality and would therefore be useless as a guide to any action. But selflessness would demand the contradiction of our values. It would demand of us sacrifice.

The morality of altruism is the morality of sacrifice: the giving up of higher values for lower ones; surrendering what is of more value to you for what is of less or none. Just as giving up £100 for £5 is irrational, so is sacrificing your values to non-values. But the irrational cannot be the moral, since it is only moral values that can be a guide in our life. Therefore, selflessness and altruism are positively immoral – they require the irrational nonsensical valueless abandonment of our values for a non-existence supposedly intrinsic immanent “good”.

The sacrifice of values cannot result in happiness, since happiness is the lasting joy that arises from achieving our values. Our values guide our actions, and ultimately every action has a purpose, and our ultimate purpose is: life. There is only one alternative: death. And since selfishly pursuing one’s own values is the moral guide to achieve happiness, selflessness is ultimately the immoral guide to achieving suffering. Rational egoism holds life as the standard. Selflessness’s standard is death.

- Evanescent

(originally published on evanescent)

Imagine that one second represents a thousand years. We’re about to count, and count back in time. As you count, the years fly by in reverse order.

1

That’s all for now. One second. In the blink of an eye we’ve just skipped past every football match ever played, the landing on the moon, the first and second world wars, the invention of the aeroplane, the advent of guns, the renaissance; the germ theory of disease by Pasteur, the discovery of the circulatory system by Harvey, the skeletal structure by Galen. The works of Mozart, Beethoven, Handel, Bach. The beauty of masterpieces by Michelangelo, da Vinci, and Monet. The Dark Ages, the Crusades, the Black Death.

We’ve come a long way haven’t we?

Let’s look at things from a biological point of view. Count with me…

1…2…

We’ve just gone back in the time to the wolf, when there was no breed of domestic dog currently alive today. Every single variety and nuance of canine has evolved from the same ancestor. Except, in the case of dogs, humans have played the role of selector, as oppose to nature.

In that same time, just 2 seconds, we journey back to the supposed time of Jesus. Perhaps there was a real man who started the myths (actually there were probably many at the time!), or perhaps there wasn’t. Here we have a small frightened cult that preached brotherhood and salvation for all convertees, in its infancy.

1…2…3…4…4 and a half…stop!

4 and-a-half seconds takes us back in time to about 2560 BC. At this point in our travels, we’ve just seen the last stone being laid at the Great Pyramid in Giza. What a magnificent site. Can you imagine seeing it before you? Feel the sand on your feet. Feel the baking sun beat down on the back of your neck. As you stand here, in the time machine of our thoughts, you contemplate that you won’t exist for another four and a half thousand years.

Count to 20.

We’ve travelled back to a time where no record of writing exists. There are no major cities, no civilised cultures. The human race is largely nomadic. Language is very primitive.

Now, to count back to the emergence of the human race itself, you would need to keep counting for only 3 minutes! Does that not fill you with a sense of awe? Here we are, the human race, and everything we have ever done in our entire history, can be converted into 3 minutes of counting, if we take one second as a thousand years!

Is that an unfair scale? Not when we consider that to see Homo Habilis, our earliest ancestor, we must count backwards in time, one second for every 1000 years, for about 33 minutes. (And some say there wasn’t enough time for evolution.)

But 33 minutes days is just to see our earliest ancestor. What about the Earth itself? You would have to keep counting, every second of every hour of every day of every year, for the next 52 days to arrive back in time when the earth was just forming.

And if you wanted to witness the Big Bang in the time machine of our minds, you would have to keep counting for around 180 days!

What work of fiction or product of myth can compare with the wondrous facts of our universe? Isn’t it humbling to see man’s place in the timescale of the cosmos as less than a molecule of a drop of water in the ocean?

Indeed, if the entire age of the universe was spread across one solar day, one year would take place in 0.00006 of a second (6 nanoseconds). Another way of looking at it is for every second 160,000 years would pass. The human race would have existed for just the last 1.6 seconds.

There are those who say that science is arrogant, or doesn’t have all the answers. Or cannot find answers to deeper human needs. These are the same people who might believe the earth is only a few thousands old, or believe that all of this was made especially for humans. How provincial! How parochial! How conceited! In fact, how rather dull!

What New Age belief or holy book comes close to the wonder of the real world? What ancient text, metaphysical rambling, or liturgy compares to studying creatures millions of times smaller than us, or stars billions of times larger? From the beauty and terror in nature to the everyday usefulness of clean water and mobile phones, look at what science has to offer.

And our 1.6 second ephemeral presence in the Day of the Universe should make us feel lucky that we can see our real place in the cosmos, and understand it. There is plenty of wonder to be had just around you in things that are real, than in all the mystery and contrivances of things that are not. Your infinitesimally short lifespan is a gift from the universe. I think the least we can do is know more about our Cosmological Mother.

If the history of the entire human race is 1.6 seconds on our Universal Day scale, your life is 0.0004 (that’s four ten-thousandths) of a second long. Doesn’t that make every single real second of your life precious? Doesn’t that make every 86,400 seconds (one day) worth living, because they’ll never come again?

I’d like to close with the words of Richard Dawkins, quoting from his book Unweaving the Rainbow:

“We are going to die. And that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born. The potential people who could have been here in my place but who will in fact never see the light of day outnumber the sand grains of Arabia. Certainly these unborn ghosts include greater poets than Keats, scientists greater than Newton. We know this because the set of possible people allowed by our DNA so massively exceeds the set of actual people. In the teeth of these stupefying odds it is you and I, in our ordinariness, that are here.”

- evanescent

Religion never shied away from making bold claims about the world when it was talking to an ignorant unscientific audience. If religion doesn’t overlap with science today it is only because the religious are rightly afraid to compete with science; a battle they have historically always lost.

Some fundamentalists aren’t happy to remain on their side of the playground however; they actively undermine legitimate science and try to have their view of reality supersede any other. Finally, religion makes numerous claims that are incompatible with scientific knowledge. Some theists rationalise these incongruities by appealing to symbolism or non-literalism. That’s their choice, but I don’t think you can justify every contradiction, and indeed if religion was true, why would you have to?

Another position that I used to tacitly hold is that religion can do whatever it wants, as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone. That is after all, one of my universal principles for living: do as you wish, as long as no one is harmed. In theory, if religion also lived by the same precepts, I would have little problem with it. I don’t agree with everyone’s worldview, but I would hate to see a world where any worldview was imposed. In my ideal world, free speech, free inquiry, and freedom of belief (or non-belief) would be permanent inalienable human rights. The reason I am so opposed to religion is because it embodies everything that civilised society should not want to see realised on any scale.

I see no reason to believe in anything supernatural, which obviously includes god. That makes me an atheist. But what about anti-theism? You don’t have to be an atheist to be an anti-theist strictly speaking. One could fully believe in a god and also be opposed to him and his regime. One assumes that the character of Satan is an anti-theist. Being an atheist doesn’t necessarily mean you’re an anti-theist either. I don’t know many atheists personally who self-identify as anti-theists, but this might just be because they don’t know of, or like to use, the expression. I will explain why I’m an anti-theist.

First, I’d like to point out that there doesn’t seem to be one theist who doesn’t dislike the idea of what they believe in. This may seem like a rather obvious point, but is subtly powerful. There are many facts about the world we accept. Some of them we like and some of them we dislike. Some we are glad are the case, and some we wish were different. But we accept it. I don’t like the fact that I will die, but I accept it. I don’t like losing, but it happens (occasionally). I don’t like having to pay so much in taxes, but it’s a fact of life. A nihilist may consider the ephemeral nature of life as inferring that life is meaningless, whereas a humanist would infer that life is even more precious because it is so brief. Isn’t it rather convenient that there isn’t one theist who believes in a god and doesn’t wish it were true? If it were so obvious that a god existed, why are the only ones who believe in him those who wish it were also true?

The following are notions that all monotheisms hold. From Christopher Hitchens’ God is Not Great, Chapter 15, page 205:

• Presenting a false picture of the world to the innocent and credulous
• The doctrine of blood sacrifice
• The doctrine of atonement
• The doctrine of eternal reward and/or punishment
• The imposition of impossible tasks and rules

I am not just an atheist. I’m an anti-theist because I am strongly opposed to the very foundations of religion itself.

Religion lies to people about how the world really is. Where it doesn’t lie, it actively makes claims that it cannot possibly know, which is as much the same thing. It befouls the minds of children (and in many instances mutilates the genitalia of children) with falsehoods and superstitions.

Religion dictates that sacrifices, of some sort of other but nearly always blood, are a necessary part of a believer’s life.

Religion decrees that we must keep atoning for our very nature constantly; that we are wicked, licentious, and depraved, and that our natural desires and bodily functions are shameful and something be repressed. Religion has always criminalised homosexuality and any sexual freedom. Religion has historically been one of the greatest oppressors of women in all times.

Religion offers what it has no right to offer: forgiveness of and for another person. It offers the ultimate reward that it has no possible way to know of. It also threatens eternal torture in the most sadistic and execrable way for those who will not accept the shotgun offer it proposes.

Finally, religion demeans humans by demanding the impossible and then condemning us for not living up to its own warped notions of perfection. There are ridiculous restrictions on diet, entertainment, language, and association. Restrictions on not only who you can have sex with but also in what sexual positions you may copulate.

One or all of the above are symptomatic of all religions. They are the antithesis of the most noble and enlightened concepts that humanity has to offer: tolerance of humans, freedom for humans, respect for humans.

Not only do I not believe in a god, I am glad that the god of monotheism doesn’t exist. Imagine living in a world where the god of religion existed. It would be like living in a theocratic police state, where you can be convicted for the crime of thought; virtually the very definition of totalitarian. Where the entire purpose in your life is to serve and worship and venerate another being; where you owe everything you have to a galactic dictator who you never elected, and you’re born into a system of total mental and physical control that you had no say in choosing.

The central figure in this eternal Dominion is a being who apparently knows you before you were even born, who watches you every single minute of every day of your life, and whose control over you reaches beyond death! As Hitchens observes, even in human totalitarian regimes, or in Orwell’s 1984, at least you can die and escape the regime. With religion, not even death is an escape, and indeed for any supposed crime you commit, an afterlife of eternal torture awaits you.

In this theocratic regime, freedom of speech would be as unknown as the theory of evolution. Who you choose to fall in love with, and how you choose to make love, would be under constant surveillance on penalty of death.

In this regime, you have to accept responsibility for the crimes of others that you had no part of, incur their bloodguilt, and unconditionally receive the only way to be absolved of this guilt: accepting the blood sacrifice by torture of another person that you had no say in at all.

No thank you, I don’t want it. I reject the very absurd notion of original sin; that I have somehow transgressed for someone else’s actions; this is the very opposite of justice. I reject the exculpation offered to me that was supposedly paid for by a process of human sacrifice to appease the blood thirst of the Divine One; a sacrifice that was necessarily the murder of an innocent man, something I would have objected to anyway.

And if I reject this barbaric offer, am I free to live my life my own way and die as all people must? No. If I refuse the “gift” I never asked for and never wanted, I can be promised an eternal live roasting.

This is why I positively reject religion and theism. As a thinking human being I could not, in good conscience, be party to such an inhuman and cruel regime, and I could not worship or love such a dictator. Humans beings with ethics, self-respect, and intelligence, should refuse to submit to any theocracy. That is why the necessity is not just of atheism, but anti-theism.

- evanescent

That was what I thought as I read about hypnosis on the Skeptic’s Dictionary (SD). Wasn’t hypnosis putting somebody under a spell, a trance? It might have appeared fun when I was quite young watching Paul McKenna, but since then it had been explained to me that hypnosis was wrong, an unholy use of power, and ultimately could open a window to demons.

But the SD explained what hypnosis was and what it wasn’t, and how it worked by purely natural explanations. It didn’t reference anything supernatural. It just explained in common sense terms what was going on. After reading a lot of convoluted far-fetched explanations of hypnosis and coming across offers of “Buy this book and you will be hypnotising someone to forget their own name in 5 minutes!”, this explanation was quite refreshing.

I was raised a Jehovah’s Witness (JW). The view of hypnosis as dangerous and wrong was just one of the things I was told. But, if the SD was correct, and it certainly presented a better explanation that literally putting someone into a trance, didn’t the organisation know this?! Couldn’t they have really done the research themselves?! Wasn’t it a bit close-minded to give their own explanation, when, surely they weren’t actually scientists themselves? It just smacked of propaganda to me.

But then, I was raised to see people outside the belief as wicked and destined for destruction. Having strong friends outside the group was actively discouraged. I couldn’t quite reconcile the 5 million Jehovah’s Witnesses (at the time, now over 6 million), with the 6 billion people on the planet. How on earth would everyone get the chance to be saved or not? The organisation had existed for over 100 years, and still less than 1/1000th of the population was to be saved? That’s a lot of death if Armageddon comes tomorrow, I thought. It was a puzzle, but I had faith so I let this discomfort pass me by.

I have never been comfortable with censorship. I could never understand why it was wrong to see what other people had to say, because if I had the truth (which I honestly believed I had), what did I have to fear? If anything, looking at the counter-arguments of others would only strength my conviction because, surely, there was nothing they could say that I couldn’t answer? That’s not arrogant really if you believe you have the truth. But the JW society frowns on that. You are not encouraged to read material that contradicts what the Governing Body says. And you are explicitly told not to read apostate material. (An apostate is someone who was part of the JW faith but now has left and expressly opposes it).

Still, I couldn’t understand this. It seemed like the Governing Body wanted to treat members like kids; not able or intelligent enough to make their own minds up and defend themselves from external attack. I’ve never shied away from a fight if I think I’m right. I will argue with anyone because my interest is the truth. So there is no fear of losing because if you lose, well you weren’t right to begin with. This seemed like common sense to me; why didn’t JWs view it the same way?

JW doctrine is that ghosts and clairvoyants and many supposedly supernatural things, are supernatural, but not caused by genuine ghosts or genuinely clairvoyant people, but through demons deceiving and being evil. But, SD explained ghosts, psychics, and clairvoyants all very well without needing to invoke a supernatural explanation. Now, this didn’t make the JW beliefs wrong of course, but it did seem to me that the Society could explain to its members the truth behind charlatanism and “supernatural” events. But it seemed like they wanted to fit demons into the explanation. Again, this is an organisation that is responsible for feeding information to millions of people, so shouldn’t they be extremely careful about what they produce as fact?

Finally, I came across a link “The Watchtower Indoctrination Process” at the bottom of this page:

http://skepdic.com/cults.html

I also happened across a link (I spent 20 minutes trying to find the original but can’t anymore) linking to Bible contradictions. I was very hesitant at first to even click the link; afraid that Jehovah himself was watching me and I would be committing a grievous sin by looking at apostate material. But, I plucked up the courage to do it, and rationalised the action to myself by thinking that I would find the contradictions laughable, false, and easily refutable. Ultimately, I believed that my belief would win out.

For me, the bible is either the perfect inerrant word of God, or it isn’t. It’s as simple as that. I don’t accept that the bible is the word of god but also contains errors. I know liberal Christians might accept that, but that doesn’t make sense to me. Because, how can the bible be god’s message to man, whilst he allows it to be mistranslated, erroneous, or confusing. No, I’m sorry, that doesn’t work. Either the bible is god’s perfect word, or it is a lie; a myth; a collection of old primitive stories. This isn’t a false dichotomy, it is simply the only rational way to view the bible.

I always believed, and of course was brought up to believe, that the bible contained no errors and no contradictions. I knew unfortunately, that if I could find even one, that would destroy my beliefs of inerrancy. This was the very first contradiction I remember seeing:

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/ahaziah_age.html

The second book of Kings says that Ahaziah was 22 years old when he became king. The second book of Chronicles says he was 42 years old. Alarms bells went off in my head. ‘How can that be?!’, I thought. I immediately went downstairs to retrieve a copy of the New World Translation, which is the bible translation Jehovah’s Witnesses use. I looked up both passages: they both said 22! I felt a cold shiver – as one might feel when they discover themselves being watched, or part of a huge conspiracy. Had the Society re-edited their version of the bible to remove this contradiction?! (The bible isn’t talking about two different persons by the way – Ahaziah’s mother’s name is shown in the verses and it’s the same in both accounts).

I read more and more contradictions and I could not rationalise them away. I could understand faith in tough times, or believing in god even though I couldn’t see him; but I believed the evidence for god was good anyway. But I couldn’t use faith to ignore blatant contradictions. That was dishonest as far as I was concerned. I was afraid. Genuinely. The possibility of beliefs I’d held my entire life being false was dawning on me. It was a feeling of being thrown out in the cold; like the world is collapsing around you. The closest I can describe it for those who haven’t been through this, is by using a scene from the first Matrix film: Neo is strapped into a chair and Morpheus asks him: “have you ever had a dream that you were so sure was real? What if you were unable to wake from that dream? How would you know the difference between the dream world and the real world?”

Whilst this is happening, Neo is incredibly disorientated, as the mirror in front of him seems to dissolve; as the very world around him fades and become unreal; his sense of reality breaks down. He awakens, in the real world. It is nothing like he thought! It is cold; harsh; alien; bleak. It is frightening, and there is real danger, real death, and there are no happy endings.

This is what it’s like to de-convert. It is like waking up from a comforting dream. It is like realising it’s Monday morning when you were convinced just for a moment that it was Saturday all over again. It is not pleasant. Ignorance at this point, seems like bliss.

At the time I was a fan of a popular collectible card game which led me to a fan site for it. The creator of the site was a devout Christian and had a forum for discussing Christianity and the bible. This was about two months after my first SD experience above. I had read a lot more since then about the lies of the Watchtower Society. Sheer time prevents me from listing everything I read and all my experiences in that time, so I hope you, the reader, will forgive me. Suffice it to say that reading many “apostate” sites that I was forbidden to, exposed the contradictions, turnarounds, and lies that the Governing Body had made in its past, and continued to make. Re-writing its own history, changing new editions of old books to cover errors and failed predictions, blatantly lying about what it said in the past, changing its mind on the issue of organ transplants and blood transfusions – because of which people died…are just some of the things the organisation was guilty of. It could not be the truth. I was sure of that now.

But, I was also sure that if the JW belief couldn’t be the truth, nothing else could. And the reasons for this are that the problems with the Jehovah’s Witness organisation are applicable to ALL religions. If I reject the bible as the word of god, then bangs goes all bible-based belief. Having come across the counter-arguments for the existence of god during this short time, I learned about logical fallacies; how to spot them in others’ arguments; what made a good argument; the difference between a valid and a sound argument; circular reasoning etc. I saw the argument from intelligent design destroyed. The ontological argument was also easily refuted. The popular cosmological argument or arguments from morality that I had been raised to believe as genuine hard proof of god, had in fact been debunked by sceptics and atheists decades, even centuries ago. I felt like I was catching up on an age of philosophy. So because of this, I rejected all religion. It would have been very easy to turn to another form of faith; another belief system, to keep my mind comforted and happy. But that’s not me – I am proud to say I am intellectually honest, or at least I like to think I am and try to be wherever possible. I am proud of myself now for that, because that’s something I have achieved. But I’m also proud that that’s the person I was before, because otherwise, I would never have had the guts and courage to challenge my beliefs and face the facts, however unpleasant.

On this website forum, I argued with theists and used my new powers of critical thinking to debunk their beliefs. Imagine going your entire life trying to convert people and preach to them what you believe, to in a few short months destroying these very same arguments in others! Because I used to be a theist I thought (and I still do) that this gives me a very good way of arguing with theists, because I know how they think and their arguments. It was a liberating experience, and I suppose inasmuch as I was arguing with theists and debunking their beliefs, I was destroying the remaining walls of belief in my own mind too. One day when the website was down, I searched out other forums for discussion and argument, and came across the Internet Infidels. I posted here for a long time and was even a moderator in two forums. I made many friends and enjoyed my stay there. I don’t post there anymore, but not because I don’t want to, but because I do! I don’t want to flit in and out; I would want to spend far more time there. But because I simply can’t, it’s something I’ve had to leave off altogether. I remember Rowland98 there, an Administrator. I made good friends with Alliey and Doug (I know they won’t mind me mentioning them – if you ever read this: hi!) I also remember Magus55: you will never meet a more fundamentalist fundie than him! I also made friends with Plognark on the MTG fanatic site, and he came across to IIDB later as well.

It was also on IIDB I came across the poster Ebonmuse and visited his website called Ebon Musings. I have said elsewhere that in my opinion this is the best atheist/evolutionist website on the internet (next to mine of course). I read all his essays. This was a massive help in learning more about atheism and why it made so much sense. His essays brilliantly destroyed religious belief and explained that not only was it wrong, it was unnecessary and caused more harm than good. Since then I have actively encouraged people to read his material, and at least one good friend of mine is in constant touch with Ebonmuse. He also created and maintains the blog Daylight Atheism.

I have skipped over the blackest part of my life though. I came home from a night out one evening. It was not a good night and I was upset over something, admittedly. (What it was isn’t important.) I remember just breaking down crying on my bedroom floor. Desolate. Destroyed. Inconsolable. I had lost the will to live. There was nothing. There was no god. No future. No happiness. I would die. Facing your own mortality when you’ve believed your entire life in a potential everlasting life is hard. I would see my own parents grow old and die. There was no point to life. To call my worldview nihilistic at this point would have been an understatement. I remember my dad trying to console me and being replaced with my mum, who unfortunately attributed my state to the fact that I had rejected my faith. She was right, but she didn’t understand why! In the end she spent hours regurgitating the same old tired religious bullshit that was exactly what I had rejected. How embracing Jehovah etc and committing to his way of life was the only way to find happiness. But it was exactly that which I didn’t believe anymore. I remember sitting there tuned out, quiet for ages, just wishing she would leave. I love her very much, and she was just trying to help. But she couldn’t see beyond her own worldview and as such, she was useless in helping with mine. She could not help with my doubts about belief, because to her there were no doubts!

I was off work for two weeks after this. I was very depressed but because of taking time off, my doctor’s note for work stated “stress”. I didn’t like the idea of being signed off with stress, because I felt like I was taking the piss; and I knew some people in work would think that. At the time I didn’t care, but the truth is of course I wasn’t stressed – I was severely depressed. I unashamedly admit I considered suicide. But my depression wasn’t chemical or hormonal, or the result of a mental disorder. It was simply the destruction of an entire worldview in a short space of time, resulting in total nihilism.

Some may say that this is why de-converting people is not good. And indeed, I would never wish what I went through on anyone, except perhaps bigots like Pat Robertson, or the deceased Jerry Falwell who is now very much not burning in hell. But remember, the belief system was to blame. Do I blame the facts for putting me through that living nightmare? No! I blame the belief system for a lifetime of lies and indoctrination. We should never be afraid to de-convert people! It should be done with care if possible, but never should a lie take precedence over the truth where lives are concerned.

I relapsed into depression several times after that, for reasons other than just my de-conversion.

But when I started to get over that spell, which lasted a few months, I was glad in the end to have the facts. When I asked myself: “would I go back in time and change anything, given the pain of what I went through?” the answer was ‘no’.

I wrote a few essays myself on old websites I had. The desire to write and debunk was always strong with me since then. I spent most time on IIDB during 2004. For those who are wondering, I don’t attribute any real depression during that time to England going out of Euro 2004 to Portugal. At that time I still cared about the England football team. I remember having my head on a stool as the last penalty was taken (I didn’t look) and leaving it there for about 20 minutes afterwards.

But I digress. Towards the autumn of 2004 something happened that was good for me personally. It is irrelevant to religion or anything I’ve mentioned here, and I guess you, the reader, will just have to wonder forever what it was! It doesn’t matter really. What matters is that it was a positive change in life for me. I could talk about seeing a lovely girl not long after this for a few months if you will forgive me for wandering once more. I fell in love with her (at least I think I did), and we had some beautiful times. It never really worked for other reasons. By the spring of 2005 there was not really anything of us in that way to speak of. By the summer we were good friends but didn’t keep in touch much. I still say to this day that one evening I spent just sitting outside with her rivals all my memories as one of the greatest nights of my life. Of course, there is one night in particular back in May 2005 that also ranks up there. And I’ve had two nights since just spending time with an amazing girl that I will also cherish forever.

I’ve digressed again, haven’t I? Sorry.

The point is that since my de-conversion I’ve learned things about life. Everyone does, I guess. Maybe it’s called growing up. Or maybe it’s just experience, and if it’s experience then it doesn’t matter how old you are; wisdom isn’t necessarily about age. It’s about knowledge and what you’ve learned – so anyone can be wise!

I adopted a rational worldview. I don’t believe in god because I’m an atheist. I’m an atheist because I don’t believe in god. My worldview doesn’t stem from my beliefs; my beliefs stem from my worldview. My worldview is rationalism; evidence-based; logic-based; nature-based. I believe everything in the world can be explained naturally. I believe that only through evidence and study can we come to know anything. Although I’ve always loved science, this rational worldview is best expressed by science. In a choice between the dogmatic traditionalistic absolutism of religious faith and the testable repeatable evidence-based logical theories of the sciences, there is only one winner.

Rationalism for me means a life of pure freedom. A life where your mind is free from superstitions as great as god(s) and karma, to idiosyncrasies such as believing you are unlucky or fated. Atheism means that there is no one watching over you. There is no Big Brother in the sky, no one to see your secret deeds whether good or bad. This means that there is no eternal reward or punishment for anything you do. It also means that everything you do, ultimately over time, will fade. But this means that this life that you’re living now is the most precious thing you’ll ever have. Every day, every week that goes by will never come again. The friendships and relationships you have are of the utmost importance. Because there is no Big Daddy to appease or suck up to, or be afraid of, you should be nice to people because it’s nice! You should treat people like you want to be treated! You should not steal or murder because it hurts people, and hurting people is wrong. Always. No one needs a god to tell them this, and if you do need a god to tell you this then you belong in a mental institution.

To quote one of Joss Whedon’s popular TV shows:

“If this life is all there is and in the end nothing we do matters, then all that matters is what we do; the smallest act of compassion, can be the greatest thing in the word.”

Being a rationalist, and being able to think critically is very empowering. It gives you confidence in yourself, your ability to think, your ability to talk, and your interactions with other people. It makes you sure of yourself, but humbles you to realise all the ways in which you can be wrong. It serves as a constant mental checkpoint at what leaves your mouth and what enters your mind. If you say something irrational or realise the error in your own thoughts, a red flag immediately raises. It also comes in handy as a nonsense detector when someone starts talking to you about crystal healing, reiki, chi, takionics, ghosts, psychic energy, pyramid schemes, chain-letters, George Bush, and the like.

In short, rationalism is a worldview with no drawbacks, and only positives. It encourages honesty and truth. It encourages knowledge and science. It promotes interest in the common good, and cultivates respect and tolerance for other people, especially those you might not personally agree with. It makes you appreciate the evanescence of life; which demonstrates how valuable it is, and why humans should work together and live together in peace. It demands that we respect the environment and other animals, and leave a legacy for our descendants. It means that we must each give our own lives meaning, and not get given a purpose from someone else.

Some say that life is short. Well it is. But this is rather paradoxical, as a funny chain e-mail I came across once said: “Life is short. What the hell?! Life is the longest thing anyone can ever do! What can you do that’s longer?!”

There’s probably no point making sweeping statements about your life when you’re in the middle of it or in my case, still young (and virile, with the torso of a swimmer and the legs of a footballer). But what I can say with certainty is that de-converting is the greatest thing that has ever happened to me, and will be, no matter what else happens in my life. Because I’m convinced that whatever good happens in my future, will be founded on the worldview of rationalism I developed once I shed the dark superstitious mental baggage I was carrying for years.

The irony is that whilst de-converting, it was like leaving somewhere warm and bright for somewhere cold and dark. But really, religion and theism belong to the darkness and the night. And the night tends to get its coldest…right before dawn. Right before the sun finally comes up. As religion and faith are the stifling oppressive night, so rationalism, atheism, and also science, are the liberating piercing light. And without light, life would be impossible.

I’ve hope I’ve given you a glimpse of that light, or at least what it meant to me. Thanks for reading.

- evanescent