Atheism: A Rough History of Disbelief (Jonathan Miller)

Have you come to question whether there even is a god, gods or spirits? You are not alone ... you are part of a long tradition. This 3 part documentary focuses mainly on the Western traditions of religion but there are equally strong atheist schools and traditions in the East.

Atheism can be the rejection of belief in the existence of deities or the position that there are no deities, the word originating from the Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning "without god(s)". However, it is, in itself, not a belief system. There is no one ideology, or set of beliefs or behaviors, to which all atheists adhere. It's history, in the history of thought, is rarely taught or celebrated. Nor its leaders, such as Baron d'Holbach, remembered.

One view of the origins of many religions the world over, currently arising from the study of archeology, is that it arose from a misunderstanding of how the weather worked. The earliest gods appear to all related to the effects of climate; gods of wind, rain, storm and so on, who held human life in their hands.

The rise of monotheism, in contrast to pan- or polytheism, is a whole other story.

If you are an atheist, or tend towards a scientific understanding of the world around us, give thanks for the time and place you live in and be grateful for the early atheist martyrs who walked before you ... like Gallileo's follower Bruno, who was imprisoned and tortured for 8 years before finally being burnt to death, his bones hammered to pieces and cast to the wind by the loving Christian church ... or Unitarian Hammond who, for starting that Jesus was just an ordinary man, had his ears cut off and was burned to death by the Bishop of at Norwich.

So the religious were able to suppress the rational, the development of science, and the ordinary people by such horrific displays of power for 100s of years.

All Religions have this in common, that they are an outrage to common sense for they are pieced together out of a variety of elements, some of which seem so unworthy, sordid and at odds with man’s reason, that any strong and vigorous intelligence laughs at them ...

For the strong intellect laughs at religion, while the weak and superstitious mind marvels at it but is easily scandalized by it.

How have the Brahma Kumaris so suppress reason for so long? They're few beatings appear to have been aimed at PBKs, not non-believers. They do "assassinate" individuals ... but only verbally and of their credibility.

Do they primarily target Charron's "weak and superstitious minds" and good minds during periods of weakness?

Regaining strength of mind in BKism appears to lead to two things, final leaving ... or a decision to jump at the business opportunity the business of religion, New Age spirituality, hypnosis, or mentoring corporate executives.

Part Two of the documentary talks about the development of Deists and Deism, individuals and gentlemen who attempted to create a more reasonable form of religion. Perhaps the greatest of which was David Hume. Are many Western demi-BKs not still in a similar camp?

Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous.

Nothing is more surprising than the easiness with which the many are governed by the few.

Perhaps the BKs ... at least those without a direct interest in the business of their religion ... those BKs who are still doing for love of god or religion ... should consider the very ancient riddle of Epicurus, a Greek philosopher of over 2,000 years ago (BC 341-270), who insisted that "nothing should be believed, except that which was tested through direct observation and logical deduction".

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

- Epicurus

My opinion is that the reason the BKs call their whatever ... their god "God" ... is that it is good for business. Whether it their first god - Lekhraj Kirpalani as Prajapati God Brahma - or merely a collective consciousness they have created. When Lekhraj Kirpalani's and his early followers' money ran out, and the End of the World did not save them, they had to turn to the business of religion in order to feed, clothe and shelter themselves.

The essence of BKism comes from an international trading caste and they are just trading a low level of religious thought and a bit of hypnotism internationally. Their business of religion has much in common with the Bhaibund and Amil tradition of the Sindiworkis and they are targeting the weak and superstitious. Just as the Sindiworkis initially traded other people's attractive craftworks, so to the Brahma Kumaris turned to trading other religions' attractive ideas; monotheism extending from their first love of their Krishna (Lekhraj Kirpalani again) and being influenced by what Lekhraj Kirpalani saw in Christianity and Islam.

The BK god is not omnipotent ... he is almost impotent in human matters ... so why call him God, and claim he is the only one? Whether he is malevolent or not, perhaps only time may tell ... it may be a question of opinion at present. However, he is most certainly a trickster god who knowns little of history, religion and humanity, and chooses to support a deceptive and manipulative elite.

Evil, the BKs have their own answer for. They say it arises and is present where individuals think they are bodies not soul and that thinking they souls not bodies conveniently frees them from the consequences of doing it.

Hume stated, "No one ever threw away life while it was worth keeping". From that, do we deduce that when we throw our lives away in the Brahma Kumaris, we chose to throw them away because we no longer felt they were worth living?

That might be a theory which connects the unhappy wife in a loveless marriage, to the young girl in a village escaping the same, to the lost souls in their twenties and oddballs or mid-life crises who have all been sucked into the BKWSU.

Is he neither able nor willing [to prevent evil]?
Then why call him God?

- Epicurus

The strict Gyan view of god does indeed state this is the case. He is absolutely, akarmically, non-interventionist. Only humans perform action and experience the fruit of action.

"Why call him 'god'" is a realistic question because ”god” is a title, not a name, and begs the question, ”what does this word ”God” mean?”

The regular redefining of ”God" over many years by the BKs allows each BK to find their own definitions.

Some have the strict, akarmic, non-interventionist seed of knowledge idea, and all else is human (whether Brahma or spirits or karma etc)

Others see ”BapDada” a god-man, a blurry Christ-like idea that Dadi Janki seems to get off on, who has some supernatural powers and can perform miracles at certain times, able to bend or break the laws of physics for those who are his favourites.

Others carry a melange of Christian and other religious ideas of god’s omnipotence, can do but doesn’t - except when he wants to - which resonates Epicurus’s second point - he either plays favourites or is limited in potency, or occasionally un-compassionate. (BTW, the stricter aspect as first mentioned above means that he is un-compassionate, he only does what he must do, according to Drama - all else is anthropocentric projection by humans).

E.g. the notion of being "under a canopy of protection”:

- flies in the face of the Gyan itself (that one’s karma must be played out in some way and God be non-interventionist)
- flies in the face of the laws of the universe (which ”god” says he doesn’t - can’t? - interfere with)
- flies in the face of facts, that so many BKs have died, been killed, experienced injury and great sicknesses, lost sanity, been attacked or abused etc

So what good is a canopy of protection that only works when things are OK and there’s no karma?

The notion that God has a singular function - to reveal The Knowledge of soul, god and The Cycle of Time also makes no sense in light of any ”canopy of protection” notion, or manifestation of a God that has such an anthropomorphic personality or, most revealingly, when his singular and primary function, that fundamental knowledge of soul, god, etc has itself changed over the years.

"Appeal to belief" is no different than any creator of fiction’s "appeal to suspend disbelief". Much truth is revealed through fiction, but any fiction writer who claims his fiction is fact is a con-man, a trickster.

Any intangible, any idea that is both unprovable & undisprovable can be anything you want to to be.

I could claim that the Faery Queen is the prime energy of the earth and humanity is under her spell. That can neither be proven nor disproven for all attempts are part of the spell anyway ... Apply this to Gyan. In the end, it's what people want to believe.