Something that’s come to my attention is the debate between those who believe in God and those who actively deny his existence. This argument may either be active or passive, and much more damage is done to both sides when it is passive.
I wish to address this because I see an answer that is liberating to both parties involved. I wish to enact a fictional scenario in an attempt to take it as far as need be so that the answer will make sense.
We have, on the one hand, a Christian man. He is above average intelligence and is able to argue his case with fervidity, passion, and authority. He believes that the bible holds wisdom for every man and that God is the answer to all things. He is bright, friendly, and courageous. The people love him instantly.
On the other hand we have the atheist, the one who says that this isn’t the case. He argues that most religions are propaganda which lead away from the truth, and that most religions are peculiarly looking forward to the impending doom that is coming soon (especially on the extremist side of religion). Not to mention the suffering that’s in the world today.
They sit and decide to actively argue in front of an audience. The Christian goes first by telling his personal story, and the audience is enamoured by his charm. They feel bright in their solar plexus when he speaks, and because of this everyone thinks “he must have found something, or else he wouldn’t have been able to escape from that hellish kind of life.”
When he’s finished the audience gives him a round of applause that can be heard far outside of the room. Very well done.
The atheist comes forward and explains his observations on the people who are self-proclaimed to be religious. He sees that most of them are wanderers who are unable to come to grips with the complexity of life. They are, as he puts it, “ensnared in the jaws of propaganda and mind control.”
He explains a theoretical life without religion and how many people have died in the name of God, and his point of view is very captivating to the audience. He finishes with a different kind of applause – an applause that shows respect instead of jubilee.
They know each-other’s story, and this helps them to empathize with each-other. The Christian argues that God does exist and points to certain passages in the bible for reference. The atheist counters by saying, “The bible cannot prove itself, friend. And besides this, it doesn’t change the fact that people have died in the name of religion.”
The Christian doesn’t seem phased by this and doesn’t try to retaliate in any way. He simply says, “I believe with all of my heart that, past the corruption, past everything, that God is real and that he exists.” The atheist says, “I hope you see past the corruption and continue living a happy life.” They shake hands and leave.
We can see that both sides of the argument are very, very real. What I mean by this is the Christian is able to spread a feeling of light in the solar plexus area, and that the atheist is smart enough to see past it and address the issue he wishes to address.
They are, at this point, two equally-abled runners springing down the track towards the finish line. They are both powerful individuals in their own rite.
I created this short and fictional debate to point out the fact that when the Christian says “God” he really means “me,” and when the atheist says “there is a problem with God’s religion,” he’s trying to lead people towards peace through the lies and deception of dogma. So what is the answer? The answer is that both parties must consciously choose to realize that they, themselves, are the power they seek.
The Christian believes in God, but he must realize that he is God, and the atheist must find his own power again after having navigated through the lies of the church. Then both may feel what they wish to feel, and know what they wish to know!