Discussing the so-called "God" is such a sensitive topic because it involves almost every aspect of any Christian's life. Speaking negatively about him always triggers anger in most believers. Those who speak badly about "God" are often regarded as blasphemers, and it is said that sooner or later they will face the fury of the "God" whom they blaspheme. Some would take an extra step and pray for mercy for anyone who speaks badly about "God," believing that they do so because they are out of their minds and "don't know what they are doing."
When I was a believer in the "God" of the Bible, I used to feel sorry for those who believed there was no "God." I would earnestly pray to "God" that he would forgive them and reveal himself to them "that they may know him, the only true God." At first, I did not try to think about what had brought them to that conclusion. I would only assume that it was the devil who had deceived them and that they were spiritually captive, needing a savior to break them free from the chains of the devil.
All of these beliefs—that "those who speak negatively about God will face the wrath of God," that "they are blasphemers," and that we should pray "that God may have mercy on them"—all originate from the Bible as read and understood by different individuals. For example, the Bible talks about judgment day, on which all who did contrary to what "God" instructed will face the consequences of their actions, including those who denied "God." Also, the Bible calls those who say there is no "God" "fools." There are also different occasions in the Bible where those who denied or were against "God" faced some kind of judgment.
My reasons for not believing in the "God" of the Bible stem from my diligent devotion and study of the Bible, from logic and reasoning, and from my personal spiritual experience. I was a very devoted Christian and a very spiritual one, but there came a time when I needed to strengthen my relationship with "God" and to know him better than I had known him before—to understand what he wanted from me, to have a strong personal connection with him, and to please him. It was during this time that I came to my senses and realized that the Bible is one big contradiction, and that this would only be understood if reason and logic were applied, and by closely analyzing our lives—the good and the bad moments—with a clear and unbiased mind, a mind that does not lean on any religious dogma or pre-established beliefs.
There were some questions that I used to ignore when I was a believer. Questions such as: "If God knows the end from the beginning, why did he create Satan when he knew he would sin?" "If there is nothing too hard for God, why didn't he prevent the devil from sinning? And why didn't he prevent Adam from sinning?" "If God is love, why does he allow pain and suffering?" These questions are very crucial and shouldn't be ignored. I have noticed that most believers do ignore these questions because they don't have answers for them. Most who attempt to answer say that "God is not a dictator, so he gave his creatures free will to choose." But this response only raises more questions: Why did he create this will in the first place if he knew it would only bring problems? Why wouldn't he create a perfect being who wouldn't dare to sin, who knows not sin? Some theologians argue that free will is necessary for genuine love and moral growth, or that suffering builds character. But if "God" is all-powerful, couldn't he achieve these same ends without the immense suffering we see in the world? And if he values free will so highly, why will he eventually create a world where sin is impossible?
It does not make any sense for someone for whom "nothing is too hard" to create a creature who will end up suffering just because of "sin." An "all-powerful" being could not prevent sin from entering the world and could not create a creature who would never know sin. This does not make sense. A "God" who "knows the end from the beginning" knew that the creature he was creating would sin and that sin would bring so much suffering, and it would cost him "His only begotten son," yet he ignored that fact. He knew that sin would be so bad that it would tear him apart, that it would destroy his connection with the creatures that "He loves," that it would take years to destroy it, and that it would cause so much pain and suffering to the creatures "He loves." Yet, he proceeded with creating. What kind of a "God" is he? Does he sound like an "all-powerful God"? Does he really sound like a "God who knows the end from the beginning"?
It is written that "God will destroy sin," that he will make an utter end to sin, and then there will be no more sin, and the saints will live forever in a world with no sin. That means "God" will make it possible for sin to end, and there will be no possibility for it to come again. If this will be possible in some days to come, why was it not possible in the beginning? Why didn't he make it possible for people to live without sin when he was creating the world? If "God" is capable of destroying sin and making an utter end of it, why didn't he destroy it at the beginning? Some say that the future sinless state will be different because it will include beings who have chosen righteousness through their experience with evil—that this knowledge somehow makes their goodness more valuable. But this argument falls apart when we consider the cost: countless generations of suffering, pain, death, and evil, all so that the final generation can live in a world that "God" apparently could have created from the start. Is the "character development" of some really worth the eternal damnation of others? Or if by destroying sin it was meant "restoring the world to its previous state before sin," then wouldn't there be any possibility for another angel to go against "God" and bring sin again since they still have free will, and the circle of events repeats?
There are also some events in the Bible that make many doubt the love of "God" for the creatures he created. For example, in 2 Samuel 12:11-14, "God" punishes David for orchestrating Uriah's death and taking his wife. First, the innocent child born to David and Bathsheba dies. Then "God" declares: "I will raise up adversity against you from your own house; and I will take your wives before your eyes and give them to your neighbor, and he shall lie with your wives in the sight of this sun." Now, is this even fair? Why would a loving "God" let innocent people—the child, the wives—be punished for the sin of another? Why didn't "God" punish David directly without inflicting pain on his innocent wives in front of all Israel? Is that an act of love? There are so many other actions done by "God" that I believe are not the actions of love. He let the people he "loved so much" suffer in slavery for generations. He ordered the complete destruction of entire cities, including children. He killed the firstborn of Egypt to prove he is "God." This looks like a hypocritical God who in some places says he is "loving and kind" while in other places he commits actions that are not of love and kindness.
Another reason I do not believe in this "God" is that most of the things that are said about him and that people claim he said cannot be experienced, and according to my experience, they do not exist at all. For example, in John 14:16, "Jesus," who is the son of "God" and who is often claimed as "God" (which does not make sense), says, "And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another comforter, that he may abide with you forever." In this verse, it is the Holy Spirit who is the comforter. Now, I used to believe that every believer can receive the Holy Spirit when they asks earnestly, and in fact, that's what is written in the Bible in many places in the New Testament, and the early believers "received the Holy Spirit." But according to my own experience, this is not true. I really prayed to "God" honestly when I was a believer. I would fast, pray at night just to receive the Holy Spirit, but this promise and many others proved impractical. I know some might say that my lack of experience doesn't disprove the Holy Spirit's existence—just as I would say their positive experiences don't prove it. But here's the broader problem: believers have wildly inconsistent experiences. Some claim powerful spiritual encounters while others, equally devout, experience nothing. Some pray for healing and recover, while others pray just as fervently and die. If the Holy Spirit were real and active, we would expect more consistency. Instead, the pattern of religious experience looks exactly like what we'd expect if people were interpreting natural events through a religious lens rather than encountering an actual supernatural being.
I came to realize that we do not need an external power of the "Holy Spirit" or "God" to have morals, to love, or to have kindness. It's all within our abilities; it's our decisions. So, I stopped praying to "God" for the Holy Spirit. In fact, I stopped praying for anything because that "God" doesn't exist.
I know many say that there is a "God" because their lives are successful, that when they were at their lowest, they prayed to "God," and he opened the "way," and things were fine. I think people tend to attribute their success to "God" because their minds lean in that direction and they are taught to believe in "God." But if we closely analyze our lives without any religious belief, we will realize that "God" has nothing to do with our lives. He has nothing to do with our success, our failures, our highs and lows, and he does not exist.
I think many say that "God is good" because they got their dream job, they overcame some challenging days, they were sick and got healed, and so on. Their "God is good" moments are all about them. But I think no one would say "God is good" if we would consider others and what happens in the world. The moment someone says "God is good" because they got their meal is the same moment someone else dies somewhere because of hunger. The moment someone says "God is good" because they were healed is the same moment someone else dies because of a disease that has made them suffer for years. How is this "God" good? Or is he good to some? I think selfishness is what influences the realization that "God is good."
In the end, my journey from devoted believer to skeptic was not born of rebellion or anger, but of honest inquiry and the courage to follow reason where it led. The contradictions I found in the Bible, the unanswered questions about an all-powerful God who seemingly chooses suffering over prevention, the failed promises of spiritual comfort, and the selective attribution of goodness to a deity while the world remains filled with inexplicable pain—all of these pushed me toward a different understanding. I no longer see disbelief as foolishness or blasphemy, but as intellectual honesty. I have found that morality, kindness, and love do not require divine command or supernatural assistance; they exist within us as human capacities we can choose to cultivate. While this conclusion may trouble those who still believe, and while I may be labeled a fool or blasphemer according to the very texts I once held sacred, I have found more peace in accepting reality as it appears to be rather than clinging to beliefs that never manifested in my lived experience.