As I look back, it amazes me that in spite of nagging doubt I was able to hang on to the Christian religion for forty years. I never was able to understand that a supposed almighty god could allow the suffering of innocent people. The moral teaching of blame and divine judgment worried me. Even the humane teaching of Jesus Christ did not satisfy my enquiring mind. Increasingly I found my own sense of justice, fair play and compassion at variance with the Christian dogma.

My mother and father had been honest and loving parents who provided a warm and secure home for their two sons. They had devoted their lives and entire fortune to the preaching of the Christian message. Some of my earliest memories are of daily prayers and Bible reading and the constant procession of evangelists who passed through our home. You could say that I was nurtured on Bible stories and for years automatically accepted Christian concepts without serious question. I now realise that while at school I had begun timidly to question some of the philosophy. Increasingly I became uneasy with its so-called truth, especially in early manhood. Yet after marriage and children of my own, I threw myself back into the Christian community and church work. All the time I was endeavouring to quieten a growing inner sense of disunity. I was really trying to convince myself that the Bible was the word of god, while at the same time a deeper awareness of its unreality was trying to surface.

Finally the realisation burst upon me that I had lost all faith in god and the Christian dogma. I would have to withdraw from church association even if it cost me all my friends. The argument was between me and the god of the Bible I had thought was real. Just to slide quietly into a position of rejection of god was not enough. Somehow I needed to dramatise my decision by a physical and emotional act of defiance. I needed to be able to look back to a time and place when I finally rejected the Christian religion.

The house was quiet, my family was away at a function elsewhere, I was alone. Now was the time to express my total disillusionment with the Christian philosophy I had so sincerely sought to follow for so many years. As I took one of my Bibles into my hands, a mixture of adventurous expectation and relief pervaded me. Its pages were soiled by constant use, it was underlined and cross-referenced in many places. I knew my way about its pages. Over many years I had studied its contents, trying to blend it into a believable philosophy. Now I was going to dethrone it, to deny that it was an instrument of truth and a saving message for myself and mankind.

So I went into the garden to ceremoniously burn my Bible in an old incinerator. Tearing out handfuls of pages I vowed never again to be subjected to its narrow and contradictory doctrines. Mentally shaking my fist skywards, I challenged god (if there was such a being) to demonstrate himself. As I watched the flames destroy my Bible, I was rejecting god completely, together with all the fears, hopes and trappings of the Christian faith. Henceforth I would trust myself and my own innate sense of justice and personal worth.

Quietly I walked back to the house. A great weight had been lifted from my shoulders, the deep division within me was gone, I felt almost euphoric, free and clean, and I have continued to feel so ever since. I had decisively taken myself back from a god I now believe to be mythical. I had rejoined the human race and was free to live my own way in accordance with my own standards of justice and compassion. My narrow religion had taught that only the few who believed in Jesus would go to heaven, that all others were destined for divine judgement. I felt that I was no longer a different kind of person from my neighbours, every man and woman was my brother and sister.

A new sense of personal worth arose within me, I did not want a vicarious or imputed worth as presented in the Christian religion. I had burned my Bible saying "to hell with god, I am an honourable man, not because I must be, but because that is how I am within myself." I became a free person willing to accept the warmth and worth of my own person and take responsibility for myself. I did not need or want a saviour or a faith which made me dependent on another, be it even a god.

Religion has had a powerful hold on society for thousands of years. Until a century or so ago, it was accepted almost without question by the vast majority of European people. But the winds of science, freedom and skepticism have swept our age. There still are however, large numbers of people who live in a wilderness zone, somewhere between religious belief and agnosticism. Many sincere and honourable people, who want the best out of life, find themselves bewildered and divided by the teachings of their religion and nagging doubts about its reality.

I wish to re-examine some of the research which led me to reject my religion. In the following pages we will find out how Christian dogma arose and compare the Bible with other philosophies and modern thought. I would like to show that real peace and satisfaction does not come second hand through an event that happened some two thousand years ago. The desire for justice, peace, social approval, fair play and an enjoyment of life is understood and accepted by almost all of us. We are all members of the human community and should express our full potential. We all have the ability to experience love, friendship, compassion and to strive for harmony, justice and peace. So let us enjoy the beauty of the world and our existence in it without the contrived and inhibiting influence of absolute dogma.

This thesis is written for open-minded persons who would like to look at some of the vast amount of evidence contradicting that which is promulgated by religious teachers. Truth can stand investigation, is strengthened and confirmed by enquiry. If truth cannot withstand scrutiny, it can no longer claim to be truth. In the final analysis, two opposing paradigms or concepts cannot both be totally right.

A scientist establishes a paradigm or model-concept then seeks to test it. If the concept cannot be disproved, it may in time become a law, otherwise it will be rejected. Our difficulty is that one cannot scientifically prove that a god exists. Equally, one cannot scientifically prove that he does not. Lack of proof of a god does not disprove his existence. It does, however, cause rationally minded people to seriously doubt his existence. As we carefully examine supposed acts of god, we find physical or rational explanations which make a mockery of the notion of divine intervention. Understanding the physical cause of a condition, tends to eliminate belief in a supernatural cause or intervention.

It seems to me that the question of the existence or non-existence of a god is dependent on a belief system and not on science. The notion of a god has been perpetuated by the passing down of myths and legends from generation to generation. Different cultures teach different myths and legends to their children. These stories usually comprise part of their belief system.

I do not intend to soften my criticism of religion but will be honest and state the matter forthrightly as I see it. I have no feelings of animosity toward people, no matter what their beliefs may be. We will look at some of the reasons behind the considerable growth of agnosticism and atheism among western intellectuals during the last hundred years. Why do I bother, and what gives me the right to attempt to support an atheistic point of view? There are two reasons, the first is that I suspect that most people have not had the time to really consider the evidence, both for and against religion. The second reason is that in Christianised societies, morals have been widely assumed to be a by-product of religion, as though god and Christian thought had a monopoly on ethical attitudes. I take issue with that idea and will show that ethics predated Christianity by thousands of years and are a matter of social concern. The focus will be on the ethics of human welfare and will show that they form an integral part of human nature and experience.

The notion of a supernatural being will be rejected. Ethical humanism is considered a realistic and worthy social objective which can be approached directly. It is not helped by the confusion and bigotry which accompanies religious doctrine. For this reason the last two chapters will discuss behaviour from a humanistic viewpoint.

The committed devotees of religion will not be receptive or interested in this point of view. Each of them will have established his or her own fixed beliefs according to personal persuasion and background. There is no wish to disturb the believer in religion who is gaining comfort and strength from the faith. Religious belief is notoriously immune to rational argument. While the scientist will insist on critical examination of the assertions, most religious people have made up their minds on emotional grounds and passed a verdict before they have begun to look dispassionately at the evidence. It is hard to sever the umbilical cord of entrenched religious beliefs, no matter what brand of faith is adopted.

Many are turning again to mysticism. They understand the scientific explanations of the laws which govern apparent phenomena, but they are not ready emotionally to stand on their own feet as persons responsible for themselves. They are not ready to leave their mythological heavenly father to establish their own independence. They feel the need to have some all-powerful one, up there, who may be able to over-ride the disadvantages circumstances may place them in and to provide a hope of security in an afterlife.

Religion still has tremendous influence in the halls of power. The religionist would claim that it is an influence for good, and indeed that often cannot be denied. A great deal of social benefit has accrued from devout believers who have given selflessly of their time, love, and caring to millions of people in distress. This is not an attack on the integrity of genuine believers, no matter what their faith may be. We are questioning the fact or falseness of gods. It must also be remembered that a great deal of suffering, wars, injustice, bigotry and many kinds of intolerance can be laid at the door of religionists. Often their doctrinal beliefs have caused them to adopt violent measures in an unenlightened effort to impose their dogma on others.

All religions have promoted moral behaviour. Yet morals are not the exclusive domain of religion. It is a truism that no nation, group of people, or person has a monopoly of good or evil. We are all social creatures and as such have a basic interest in social and moral standards. The conflict between what is considered good and bad, and efforts to control it, date back to prehistory. We will compare some different religious viewpoints, and talk about the origin of traditional Christian belief and some of its history. We will look at the problem of suffering and the rewards of human integrity. In other words, we will discuss personal maturity, dignity and social responses as imperative and natural pursuits of human endeavour, devoid of any need for belief in a mythical god.

Some have argued that the record of the historical Jesus is largely the creation of imagination. It seems to me that the demand for exact proof is unreal. The important ideas are the humanistic concepts of compassion, justice, equality and caring which are supposed to have been taught by Jesus. I have no quarrel with these ideas, indeed they have always been a necessary part of humanity. The person of Jesus, historical or not, is incidental to these humanistic qualities.

All Biblical references are quoted from the King James of England authorised version. Each chapter has a central theme and can be read separately, yet together they supply the principal reasons which drove me to declare. To Hell With God.