Whether an individual is a believer or not has been a controversial subject of discussion. However, it still remains unclear to me whether or not the level of belief that an individual poses is positively correlated with the character of the individual. According to some people, being a believer means that the individual makes all efforts to live a good life at all the times. From that perspective, I would support the idea of an individual being a believer. That is, if the person has a sincere intention of living a good life that is less harmful to him and the people around him. There are different types of beliefs that various individuals subscribe to. They could be Islam, Christianity, Buddhism or Hinduism. Gone are the days when we could predict the character or lifestyle of an individual by the behavior the religious belief and ideologies they subscribe to. It could be predicted that individuals who had strong religious beliefs.
In my opinion an individual who is a believer must be conversant with two major terms, dogmatism of principles and belief in some supernatural being. In my opinion, I see that believers are individuals who take ideologies directly as they are without questioning their relevance. It is expected that every believer will believe that God exist without for asking for a proof of the same. This idea of believers just following the previously set principles without questioning is an attitude that I dont advocate for. I would be more comfortable with being a believer I were able to get the answers to all my worries and doubts without any excuses for lacking information. However, this dogmatic behavior of the believers does not work well with me. This dogmatism is very common to Christian beliefs such as catholic, as well as the Muslim community beliefs. Take an instance of the jihad or the so called holly war that the Muslims practice. This is an instance where the Muslims kill all those who dont subscribe to their faith. They consider all non- Muslims to be non- believers. This is not fair to me and it could be a major factor that keeps encouraging me to remain a full-fledge non-believer. Logically speaking, why would you force someone to live your way? This in my opinion is a serious case of oppression.
Muslims for instance believe in God and immorality. However, they also by all standards believe that all Christians are sinners and should therefore subscribe to their religious ideologies. Looking at it from a fair perspective, I think we all originated from one creator and therefore should have one common person to believe in. I also feel that we should have one uniform religious that unites all human beings without continuously putting blame on other individuals. Take Christianity for instance, you have to believe that Christ was on the lowest side the most divine man to ever live. He is indeed the best man to ever live according to Christians. This is a dogmatic belief that they subscribe to yet Im perfectly sure that none of the Christians were there to witness Christ do all the things they claim he did. In my case, I need solid evidence to prove that this man lived and that he did all the good things that he is said to have done. You have no right to call yourself a Christian believer if you dont subscribe to these ideologies. Whitaker Almanack states that the world population is divided into Christians, Buddhists, Mohammedians and Fetish worshippers as the major categories. It is therefore evident that what comes to anybodys mind when he is told that one is a non-Christian is that the person does not believe in God and in immorality. Secondly, the person does not believe that Jesus was as wise as it is claimed he was.
Most believers also believe in the existence of hell. According to both Christians and Muslims, all sinners will burn in this eternal hell if they dont change their ways. I as a freethinker at times question Gods existence. I naturally find it hard to prove the existence of God without sufficient evidence to show for it. The catholic doctrine, which is a section of the Christian faith states that they can prove the existence of God by a clear chain of evidence-based arguments.
There is the argument by believers known as the first cause argument. This argument states that everything that we see in the world has a cause. This means that all the at least there was some starting point for everything. The physical features like mountains, rivers, seas and oceans did not just arise out of the blues. Believers across all the religious divides have the faith that they were created by some supernatural being. I strongly oppose the first cause argument since it no longer caries much weight in the present times. I one day read John Stuart Mills Autobiography that had this specific sentence how do you answer the who made me question? This question cannot be answered directly since we first will need an answer to who made God. This was John Stuart Mills argument and I see it more logical than just the mere belief in the first argument. John Stuart Mill argue that the first argument holds no water and so strongly disputed it. I have his argument as one of the backups as to why Im not a believer. The fallacy in the first cause argument is that if everything has a cause, God also has a cause. If anything might not by any chance have an explainable cause, then the first cause argument becomes virtually invalid. I therefore fail to agree with the first cause argument and therefore have no reason to believe that God created the world. Somehow, I need to know who created God first to be a believer. This partly explains why Im currently not a believer.
Take a keen look at what the natural law of argument states. People discovered in the eighteenth century that the planets went around the sun in a particular way. Believers thought that God made the planets go round the sun in that way. This was in my opinion the most convenient way by believers of avoiding the many questions that came with the reason why the planets move round the sun. I tend to believe newtons explanation of this movement of planets around the sun. He explained it using the gravitational laws that makes more sense to me than just the normal dogmatic belief that the planets were created and made to revolve around the sun in that way. I see that the believers are lazy people who dont want to take their time to investigate the information they are given. They just believe every information they are given. This is another factor that contributes to my anti- beliefs policies. I usually ask myself why God used the laws of nature that the believers talk about and not any other laws.
The other factor that makes me to be reluctant when it comes to being a believer is the fact that most believers tend not to do all what they need to according to the religious principles. I have come to realize that there is a lot of pretense in the Christianity, Islam, Buddhism and other religious ideologies that people subscribe to. Most of the time, the believers usually pretend with an intension of pleasing the people in leadership positions or their fellow human role models which is not what is expected of them according to the laws of God.
The other argument that believers are fond of is the argument from the design perspective. It basically refers to the argument that claims that everything in the world was created so that man would take care of it. The world was also made in the most conducive way to support life. If any small change was made to the way in which the world is placed, survival wouldnt be possible. This theory does not make sense to me and I tend to believe Darwins theory that describes how living organisms including man adapted to the environmental conditions. Therefore the ideology of believers that everything was created to suit the survival of mankind does not make sense to me.
I also tend to believe that religious believers are those who have some serious psychological problem or worry that they have no clue of going about it. They therefore turn to their religious masters to drive away their worries. The poor are closely associated with this religious affiliation due to the same reason stated. This according to me should not be the case. I feel that strong individuals should be able to handle their shortcomings and worries strongly without exhibiting emotional connotations. There is also an argument by believers that imply that God advocates for justice and reduction of cases of injustice in the world. I feel that this is just an argument that is designed to instill fear in the non- believers. I also feel that religious beliefs usually deny people the freedom and right to live a free life that they desire.
The above illustrations clearly define why I dont see myself becoming a believer any time soon. I need the freedom to live the life I desire without the fear of being monitored or the fear of hurting anybodys expectations. I feel that believers have more worries and fears than the non- believers. Im also trying my best to ensure that I dont get caught up in the high levels of pretense that believers subscribe to.
Cite this page
Personal Essay Example - Why I'm Not a Believer. (2021, Mar 25). Retrieved from https://proessays.net/essays/personal-essay-example-why-im-not-a-believer
If you are the original author of this essay and no longer wish to have it published on the ProEssays website, please click below to request its removal:
- Application for MSc Psychology of Education Degree
- The Importance of College Education - Essay Sample
- Early History of Buddhism in China Essay
- Faith Statement and Belief - Thesis Statement on Religion Issue
- Sin and the Effects of Sin Paper Example
- Why Abolishment of Examinations in Schools is Necessary
- Alpha Level: Education Paper Example