The disappearance of God - the making of an Atheist

"I called thee and there was no answer."

I see truth and it forms a vision in front of me. I hear words and it mingles with the distant murmuring. And I just fade away.

I was born and you branded me with a name, you people, you, made a character out of me, put me in a role before I understood the act.

Maybe that is why I cried out loud when I was born, maybe out of defiance, maybe out of hate for these rituals that is going to cling into me like a second skin which i cannot peel off. Maybe that was why I was afraid to open my eyes with fear of what I might see. I was innocent.

Humans, we live in  a Society. We call it a gathering of the like minded. Why do you want me to be like you? I do not want to be like you. You made kneel so I could kiss the sky. I would rather kiss the ground beneath me. To there you will go with me in the end. Did it help you then? Did it help you now? Didn't we die the same death? You were the one who taught me the vices. Now you are the one who frown at me. If this is your religion then what is your faith? if this your faith then what is your religion?

I tried to walk the path you told me about. The enchanted one. The one that leads to the fulfillment of our purpose. But what is the purpose? Why are you confused when I ask you that question? You want me to be two persons at the same time. I am but one. My mind is my soul, my body is my heart. Are they not one? Why do you try to separate them? Do one man live to support different purposes. If I have to be blind, why do I have these eyes.

You say there is an Eye in the Sky. The Master who we cannot see. How am I suppose to serve a master whom I cannot see? Isn't that being selfish, being person who desires. Carnal or not desires are for the same purpose. We don't know the reason why we should do but we want the end result. You want the fruit of the tree you planted no matter how less you cared for the tree. And if the tree does not bear any fruit you see it as a misfortune or a result of some greedy eyes. Or because there is evil in it. Where is your conscience now?

You asked me to believe in something which you called "faith". You asked me to be weak in my mind. And when I remained idle to prove that I have "faith" and that "faith" shall provide you said i am not good for anything. What hypocrisy is this? Now tell me are you not a confused one.

I was there always believing that the best would come out of it, for the words were golden, honey coloured, sweet and tempting. Did you not tempt me with those words. Wasn't you the one who called evil things to be tempting. Why do you tempt me now of freedom of Heaven? And if you want me to believe in your words why force me with the terror of  the future and not with just the love of the present. So you want "faith" without trust.

I've seen times of darkness before my eyes. Where is your light now? Where are the miracles I have heard of? Now if you say our purpose is a test, why tell the result beforehand. Let it be a purposeful test. What your religion destroyed more, your evil destroyed lesser. Your religion hates me more without reason than my inner evil, as you call, hates your religion with reason.

A Proposal for the introduction of a new Idea to understand some stupid situations better

A thing has been bothering me for sometime. We all know the whole human world is basically divided into two ideas- the absolute and the relative.Here idea,in the philosophical sense, maybe perceptive or non perceptive. Ideas like persons, a particular book, the moon, the sun, etc, etc. are absolute and that's a known fact, nearly. Also ideas like Love, happiness, fear, greed,etc. etc. are all relative ones... they differ from entity to entity. Now sometimes i come across some stupid situations but they don't provide me with the sufficient facts to be able to put it in just any of the both ideas singly, because they can be described in both ways. Like we take the example of being drunk. Now when a person is drunk he really doesn't know how much he is drunk so he might think he is not at all drunk, he is a bit drunk or he is heavily drunk. Let us put this drunk man in front of a sober man. the sober man will give him an absolute answer. Now let us put this drunk man in front of another drunk man. We get a real problem here, but still for convenience let us suppose one thinks he is heavily drunk and the other thinks he is not at all drunk. So the the person who thought he was heavily drunk will now begin to think by looking at the other person that he is not that heavily drunk and lower his drunk measure and start thinking he is just a bit drunk. This is a relative idea of the first person with respect to the second person. Now of course to realize a solution to such types we need a new idea. So i would like to propose a new idea the "realative"... It's neither totally absolute nor totally relative. It's a mixture of both.

Dostoevsky and the Philosophy of Crime

crime

/krīm/

Noun

1. An action or omission that constitutes an offense that may be prosecuted by the state and is punishable by law.


2. Illegal activities: "the victims of crime".

According to the dictionary, Crime is an act of breaking the law, a static and constant guideline  for maintaining equilibrium in the society. So a Criminal is someone who does not follow these constant guidelines and makes a detour from these ways. Someone who once in a while got bored of routine and decided to pick up the gun and blow off someone's head. Okay, maybe that was a bit too Tarantoic illustration of the idea, but let us extrapolate from here towards a wider philosophic extraction .

In his novel, Crime  and Punishment, Dostoevsky reveals a rather surprising comparison between ingenuity and crime as stated in Raskolnikov's article. In the article, he divides the human race into two classes; the ordinary and the extraordinary. The purpose of the ordinary is just mere reproduction, by which occasionally an extraordinary man arises. This extraordinary man, at times may believe to have the right or even the duty to destroy anything that comes in the path of their ideas. In other words, he is not afraid to change the way things are.  Therefore one can basically define him as being similar to a criminal. Let us pause our thoughts for a moment and travel back in time; back to the moment when Galileo revealed his discovery that the Earth moved round the sun and not conversely. Galileo was fully aware about the consequences of his revelations and how it will be reciprocated negatively. But still he did not back down from what he believed in and destroyed every idea that was there before and trampled on it willingly, making a mockery of those contemporary beliefs. And then he was condemned as a 'criminal'. I agree with it, I mean the term criminal. He was a criminal. He broke routine and brought chaos to the minds of the ordinary.

We are all great believers of Routine where our philosophy is bound by a fixed strategy and our whole life revolves around it. We hate it when anything goes a bit off the track. In other words we hate changes made to our life. We even ridicule people who does things in a different way. But once in a while there comes someone in our life who just changes our whole viewpoint by force and if it's beneficial to us we call him a genius but if it somehow doesn't turn out to be we brand him as a criminal for making it happen. We detest that person but wasn't the core idea of both the person same. So what made one criminal and the other not.

So that's where Raskolnikoff's article prettily points out how we can say a little bit of crime is needed for a desired effect. It depends upon you, how you take the crime