Tuesday, October 31, 2017

Sophists for Our Own MoralIty

We think we are scientists discovering truth when we are really just lawyers who are arguing for positions we arrived at by other means, wrote Jonathan Haidt, and if you doubt this, he continued, just look around and realize we think this is the case with everyone else, and everyone else thinks the same thing of us.

We are NOT primarily rational beings, is the point Haidt is making, despite the attempt by theologians to addict people to the logical porn of philosophy while condemning all those who prefer sex to sophistry. Sex, in fact, is no less an addiction to the same endorphins released in our brains from arguing we are "right" about something, whether that something is God, our political positions, the superiority of our sports team, whether our pessimism is more warranted than optimism, and virtually everything else.

God, in this respect, is an idea that addicts us to our own endorphins as much as any video game or gambling addiction (which Pascal's wager capitalizes on), or even porn, sex, or heroin addiction, etc.

And yet, even as every other addiction we can think of, from drugs to opioids and so on, is considered to be a "disease," and thus a "vice," our society champions an addiction to God or a religion as the greatest virtue of all!

In this respect, religion and god are just ways of addicting us to the very same "organ" as every other addiction, even as it claims that being addicted to the one between our legs is evil, even though it produces all life, while claiming that being addicted to the one between our ears is the greatest good, even as our "beliefs" have started every war and driven us to create technologies that allow us to destroy the planet 100 times over, but has yet to find a cure for the common cold.

The Denial of Salvation

Humans who believe they will live forever after they die live in denial of their place in the universe, elevating themselves to an importance and power that is even greater than the entire universe itself.

That is to say, although humans are convinced they know enough about the universe to confidently claim the universe itself has a beginning and an end (yeah, there's no hubris in such an assumption), they are likewise convinced that they will live forever, in a state of either pain or pleasure, and all because they simply "believe" they will.

And in this assumption, humans elevate themselves to the status of a god, even as they condemn the "devil" for committing the greatest sin of all by daring to try and do the same thing. And worse still, all those who insist they will "live forever" claim they are only ever being the most "humble" by making such a claim.

In short, the belief in salvation turns every vice into a virtue, which is why Christians are so in love with a god who turned Sodom and Gomorrah into an Auschwitz pizza oven, and every virtue into a vice, which is why Christians are so in love with pretending to be "humble" by assuming they are "like god, knowing good from evil" - which is exactly what the serpent in the garden promised them their religion (i.e. The apple they eat every Sunday)would provide.


How Man Made God Into Man

How in the hell is it that "man," which is a material being, beleives he is "made" in the image and likeness of a "God" that said "man" insists is an altogether immaterial being?

Is a tree made in the image of an immaterial archetype of a tree?

Are not archetypes themselves wholly man made cognitive concepts, which we then project into the mind of a divine intelligence, that we simply assume shares all of the same concepts of beauty, proportion, logic, morality, etc, as ourselves, but only with an infinitly perfected sense of such things, that we can only hope to gleam (if we are good, for goodness sake) upon the death of the material meat prison we are all born into called our human body?

That humanity stands today armed with ever increasing evidence, and from every field of study, of just how stupendously wrong we have been about virtually everything we have ever known, or thought we knew, or "believed" we knew, does not for a second dissuade us from our convictions that we who are alive today are, without a doubt, absolutely right in our ideas and "beliefs."

That we see all the previous generations that have come before us as flawed and foolish, in other words, never humbles us to consider how the many generations that will surely follow us (if we do not destroy the planet, that is, or we at least make it to another one) will surely see us in the same way, but probably even far more so.

And perhaps the first question those future generations will laughingly ask, and perhaps by none more so than adolescent school children a thousand years from now, will be how the hell humans thought they had been made in the "material" image of an "immaterial" God.

To which the third grade school teacher will smile and reply to those giggling school children that, despite their science and technology, all of their reason and art, and all their genius and invention, the people who lived in the world in 2017, a thousand years ago, only really ever worshipped themselves,   in a projected image they collectively called "God."

In truth, the teacher will continue, "they learned no lessons from history but those that they could use to support their own "beliefs" and prejudices, their wars and their luxuries, their wealth and the poverty it necessarily depends upon and creates, because for all of their theologies and learning, all their sages and saints,  and for all of the different names they have used throughout the centuries, mankind has only ever worshipped itself, even as they have only ever "believed" they were worshipping "god."

Man, in other words, has always been it's only god. God is dead, in this respect, because humans turned god from the forces all around them, into a personified image of themselves. And rather then respect those universal forces, all of which worked unanimously to create them over the course of limitless time, they sought to reason their way to an eternal "salvation,"even as they murdered the planet that bore them, and everything else on it.





Monday, October 30, 2017

Addicted to Consumerism

Americans are addicted to opioids because America is addicted to capitalism. Or to put it another way, our drug addiction is a result of our gambling addiction. 

And both of these addictions are the result of our addiction to achieving "perfection," whether spiritually through our "beliefs" about what it means to be a "perfect" child of God, exemplified in our quest to be ever more like Jesus (I.e. a quest to, like the devil, be like god), or physically through Botox, drugs, and plastic surgery.

And addiction, after all, is a disease.

Our quest for perfection is not only the source of our divisions, however, but likewise our greatest source of shame, while our flaws are often what unite us the most, because they prove that we are all only human.

Sunday, October 29, 2017

God isTrump & the "Wicked" Deserve to Fry!

It has been said that if the God of the Bible existed, it would be the most horrible thing we could ever imagine.  That's certainly what one discovers from reading the Bible!

Hell, just look at what he did to his own son, what he did to the world overall with a flood, to countless other of his "children" through plagues and famines, and even his own "chosen people" during their exodus from the Pharaohs of Egypt!

I mean, can anyone really blame them, after being lead around the desert to die for forty years, for losing faith!? And for all those who did, Moses slaughtered them mercilesslely at yaweh's behest. Hell, just think about the prospect of having created an eternal "hell" in the first place, whatever it may be.

In truth, the god of the Bible most likely murdered all of the other gods like a Stalin or an Al Capone, just to rule the universe so he could torture all those who dared to tell the truth about just how much of a monster he really is, much like any totalitarian psychopathic narcissist would do who needs people to love him as much as   Donald Trump.

It's just ironic that anyone who is NOT a Christian can read the Bible and clearly see this, while only a Christian can read the Bible and, despite all of the bloodshed and horror it contains (which has only been surpassed in spades by Christians after Christ), come to the exact oppose conclusion from every other person on the planet.

Sure, the Christian will admit, God had been horrible to people in the past, like the inhabitants of Sodom and Gemorrah, to name but one example, but that's because those people all deserved exactly what they got.  Such compassion and jugentalism is how the Christian justifies the genocides committed by their God while believing  they themselves would never be deserving of such a fate (even though they argue that all of humanity is equally guilty of murdering Jesus).

For them, god is great, and anyone he either kills via disease or drought or famine etc, or has been killed by his "chosen people," somehow deserve to die horrible deaths.

Just see how they feel about it all when He decides it's their turn.

Wednesday, October 25, 2017

The Great Paradox of the Intransigent Christian

If one reads of the "intransigence" of the Pharaohs when dealing with "God"s people," and the Pharaohs unwillingness to ever consider a different point of view from his own, it is one of the great miracles of faith that this "intransigence" is condemned by Christians as the greatest vice, even as the same Christians far exceed such "intransigence" as their own greatest virtue.

If a Pharaoh refuses to change his mind, in other words, it's a sin, but when the Christian is even more obstinate in their refusal to change their mind, despite overwhelming evidence, even to the point that they are willing to die before they would ever consider their "beliefs" are only as human as they are,  the Christian counts such adamant obstinacy as the highest virtue and proof of their "faith."

That the Christian has no evidence for their "beliefs" but pure emotion, buttressed by reasoning grounded in a bloody book called the Bible, is of absolutely no consequence to the Christian, of course. 

Put another way, when the Christian is more obstinate than the devil in their refusal to accept ANY evidence that their sacred "beliefs" are in fact the very opposite of truth, they are applauded as "saints" for doing so, even as they condemn anyone else for daring to do the same thing about Christianity, through the sin of trusting their own sense of skepticism. 

The Christian is right, and they want the world to know it and stop asking questions, while the world is wrong, which the Christian knows infallibly because they're on a mission from God.

Our Unending Shame

Psychiatry is doing to the human mind what Capitalism itself is doing to the whole world.

While the latter addicts people to products they don't need, destroying the complex biodiversity of the environment that the capitalist neither understands nor seems very much to care about, in ways that are only leading to ecocide, so big pharma is doing the exact same thing with our minds, addicting people to drugs they don't need while disrupting the hyper complex system of the human mind - which is as much matter as it is pure thought and emotion - in ways that only lead more and more people to suicide.

Our hubris about our own intelligence only puts every god or devil to shame.   

Tuesday, October 24, 2017

The True Detective?

If you saw the HBO series, True Detective, you saw a show about a family of satanic worshiping Christian pastors engaged in raping and murdering children. It just so happens the story was largely true to a case that happened in Louisiana about ten years ago.

In the following video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5JkBs4lJak

A pastor confessed to engaging in satanic worship in the upstairs of his church, when he and others engaged in child sacrifice and drank the child's blood.

It is these kinds of stories that scare "Christians" into "believing" in the Devil, and out of that fear, turning for protection to a "belief" in a "father-figure" in Heaven.

It just never occurs to such Christians that the only people who would ever do such a thing are no more delusional in their beliefs than Christians, who not only engage in the commemoration of the very same sort of act every Sunday by reenacting it (with Catholics believing they are drinking Jesus's actual blood, through a process called "transubstantiation"), but who have relied upon their beliefs of about race so often preached by religion to lynch and burn people over the centuries in droves, and often with both "amusing" their like-minded audiences in the very same way. And by "amuse" I mean hypnotize.

Nor does it occur to them that every murder is a kind of human sacrifice, for either the pleasure of a god or a serial killer. Even the animals we kill are sacrificed for our own survival, assuaging our guilt by blaming it on the demands of a god.


In this sense, the two are really just worshiping two versions of the very same God, the same way the American voter "worships" the very same political party every year, by voting Democrat or Republican, and why Columbus came to the new world for god and gold - both of which are equal in power.

What's interesting is that the pastor in the real crime admitted to having improper thoughts with his own daughter when she was a baby, thoughts which the Christian would likely attribute to the devil or his minions.

For the atheist, on the other hand, the "devil and his minions" are simply the advertisers who spend billions of dollars every year to make billions more, whose sole job is to sell us whatever they're selling as if it were our religion, and the fruit from the tree of knowledge.  






A Christian Nation?

The only thing Christian about America is that we crucified 20 million natives to take their land and divide it up like the Roman soldiers divided up Jesus's garment at the foot of the cross, and helped ourselves to enslaving 12 million Africans because the Bible said we could.

And "the Bible said we could" trumps "the devil made me do it" every time.

The Trouble with Christianity and How to Fix It

I and other atheists spend a great deal of time trying to explain why Christianity (and Islam) are simply the devils way of retarding all human understanding through religion. And Christians spend a great deal of time defending their "right" to believe whatever the hell they want - so help them God!

First, atheists must accept that the Christian is absolutely correct in that they indeed have the right to believe whatever the hell they want. That right is the very heart of liberty, after all.

But this is the problem for Christianity, because Christians simply refuse to accept anything that resembles "truth" that happens to contradict their sacred "beliefs," even to the point that they believe it is the highest virtue of all to die as a martyr rather than admit that there could be a difference between the two.

Hence, the trouble with Christianity is that it seeks only to impose its "beliefs" as the "truth," no matter what anyone else has to say about it. And that's why people are leaving it in droves, except for those who depend on it for emotional comfort as the world sinks into greater strife and misery like the Titanic into the North Atlantic.

But all Christianity has to do to be relevant in the world again, is repent of its medieval backwardness, "die to self," as it's Bible says, and dare to seek to the truth, and nothing else, rather than only ever trying to impose it's superstitions on the world, out of a fear of being thrown into hell by their "loving and merciful" God if they do not.

Father Barron: Liar Par Excellence

The reason I HATE some Catholic priests (some are great, however) is because they either deliberately and knowingly LIE to convince people that their "beliefs" are "true," or they simply refuse to admit that they are presenting their "flock" with biased and highly questionable reasoning and interpretation of evidence, which is often either the simplest of all possible explanations or is simply dead wrong. So even as they claim to ONLY ever be pursuing "truth," they make a mockery of the entire enterprise, just to save their job. Take the example of Fr. Robert Barron.

I just watched a clip on Word On Fire with Fr Robert Barron. Don't get me wrong, Fr. Barron is a likeable, affable, intelligent Catholic priest who follows his vocation perhaps to a fault, and all to convince the world, or maybe just himself, that science cannot prove, nor should it ever try to prove, that God does not exist. The problem, as Barron sees it, is that science cannot find God because God is not a scientific being. Science can only illuminate for us  the what, while the "why" is reserved as the playground of Philosophy and Religion.

There are definable differences, obviously, between science, philosophy, and religion. Science is the means by which we try to know and understand what our universe, and our reality, actually is. Philosophy and Religion, on the other hand, are attempts to understand what it all means. In other words, philosophy and religion simply interpret what science discovers. But the "meaning" is exclusively our own, since no matter how much people like Fr. Barron reference some "holy bible" or a "god," there is no evidence that we are doing anything other than manufacturing "higher meanings" all on our own.

The difference between philosophy and religion, then, is that the former tries to arrive at that meaning by continually shedding the skin of its predecessors, while the latter often tries to do so by trying to put it back on. One tries to prove previous "traditions" of thinking are wrong, and why, while the other only ever works to preserve those "traditions" and ideas as right, even to the point that people are willing to die (and more often even kill) to preserve those traditions.

 But the ways of yesterday have never been adequate to understand or even remedy the problems of tomorrow, for such traditions and ideas simply ignore the exponential changes that accompany the evolution of human understanding and technology. 

 To use another analogy, think of the family. Both philosophers and theologians can be thought of as families, who pass down and inherit from their fathers (and mothers) the DNA of their ideas and arguments. But philosophy is more ravenous and religion more reserved.  Philosophy will eat it's young after sharpening its teeth on the bones of its elders, while religion often tries to nurture its young by protecting its elders. Indeed, philosophy is a cannibal while religion is a vegetarian. Philosophy is liberal while religion is conservative. Or, to use a Biblical reference, Philosophy is Cain and Religion is Able.

   Fr Barron mentions the Greek phrase, "ex nihilo nihil fit: which means " from nothing comes nothing." This is an expression first argued by Parmenidies, according to Wikipedia. The Roman poet Lucretius also used a similar term in his work De Rerum Natura (On The Nature of Things). Wikipedia explains that "this term is associated with ancient Greek cosmology," and was not just "as presented... in the opus of Homer and Hesiod, but also in virtually every philosophical system - there is no time interval in which a world didn't exist, since it couldn't be created "ex nihilo" in the first place."

 While Parmenidies accepted this idea as true, Lucretius rejected it as false. Many Christians have, and continue to, rely on this argument as the backbone of their reasoning for faith. But today, there are cosmologists,  physicists, and even Christian theologians who actually agree more with Lucretius than Parmenidies.


REASONING FLAW IN EX NIHILIO CREATION:
Here's the first problem, as I see it, with the Ex Nihilio Creation Arguments that Fr. Barron seems to ignore or miss altogether: if the idea that "nothing comes from nothing" is an absolute law that somehow proves, or at least suggests, that God created everything, than where did God come from? If God was eternally there, as many Christians often reply, than whatever God "was" was there eternally as well. And if whatever "was" God was there just as eternally as God was there, how can we tell the difference between the presence of "God-like stuff" that was not God and God? Another way to put it is, how do we get from the idea that "something" created the universe from nothing to the idea that that "something" must of been God? And if nothing comes from nothing, than God could not have come from nothing, nor could he have created the universe out of "nothing" per se, both he and the universe would have to come from something.

But if we argue that God is the exception to the rule of Ex Nihilio nihil fit, and that indeed He (God) could create everything from nothing, then we are admitting there can be exceptions to the rule of Ex nihilio nihil fitt. Yet what we don't have is an explanation for why Fr. Barron is willing to accept a religious explanation that contradicts the rule he defends, but rejects numerous scientific explanations that defend the rule he willingly contradicts?  And if there is at least one exception, as Fr. Barron is willing to accept, why can't there be others?


SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENTS AGAISNT Ex Nihilio Creation
  In addition to the theological arguments agaisnt an Ex Nihilio Creation, there are some scientific explanations that propose that "everything" did not in fact come from "nothing" as Fr. Barron suggests.  One explanation is the Zero energy universe,  while another is called "quantum fluctuation."

 The Zero- Energy Universe  is "a widely supported hypothesis in modern physics ... which states that the total amount of energy in the universe is exactly zero." This is the only kind of universe that could come from "nothing," argues this hypothesis. "Such a universe would have to be flat in shape, a state which does not contradict current observations that the Universe is flat with a 0.5% margin of error."

 A "zero-energy universe" is a universe in which the amount of positive energy in the form of matter is exactly canceled out by the negative energy in the form of gravity." The FREE LUNCH Interpretation of a zero-energy universe says the negative gravitational energy that contracts is balanced with the positive energy that expands. The idea is that these two energies are constant and opposite, and thus "inflate" a flat universe. Such a view has been considered to be consistent with astronomical observations.

Additionally, there is also what is called a "quantum fluctuation." In this idea, "A gravitational field has negative energy. Matter has positive energy. The two values cancel out provided the universe is completely flat. In that case the universe has zero energy and can theoretically last forever"

Lastly, there are some Cosmological arguments suggested by "physicists Paul Steinhardt (Princeton University) and Neil Turok (Cambridge University), who offer an alternative to ex nihilo creation. Their proposal stems from the ancient idea that space and time have always existed in some form. Using developments in string theory, Steinhardt and Turok suggest the Big Bang of our universe as a bridge to a pre-existing universe, and speculate that creation undergoes an eternal succession of universes, with possibly trillions of years of evolution in each. Gravity and the transition from Big Crunch to Big Bang characterize an everlasting succession of universes.
.
These ideas do not prove there is no God, nor do they prove that everything did or did not come from nothing. They only show that there is more than one way of looking at the question of "where did everything come from?" and that we can answer that question without necessarily having to jump to the conclusion that God did it in the conservatory.

All of these ideas, as well as the ones that follow, can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_nihilo
And as always, I encourage readers to look deeper, and dig further, into what we believe.

THEOLOGICAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST EX NIHILIO CREATION

In addition to the scientific arguments above, there is also opposition within modern Christian theology.
Thomas Jay Oord (born 1965), a Christian philosopher and theologian, argues that Christians should abandon the doctrine of creation ex nihilo. Oord points to the work of biblical scholars, such as Jon D. Levenson, who point out that the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo does not appear in Genesis. Oord speculates that God created our particular universe billions of years ago from primordial chaos. This chaos did not predate God, however, for God would have created the chaotic elements as well. Oord suggests that God can create all things without creating from absolute nothingness.
Oord offers nine objections to creatio ex nihilo:
  1. Theoretical problem: One cannot conceive absolute nothingness. (Indeed, Fr. Barron simply assumes two things when he uses the word "nothing".
    1. That everyone knows, and agrees, on exactly what "nothing" means
    2. And that "nothing" means exactly the same thing in our existence of time and space, as it would in every other possible existence, even those without time and space.
  2. Biblical problem: Scripture – in Genesis, 2 Peter, and elsewhere – suggests creation from something (water, deep, chaos, etc.), not creation from absolutely nothing.
  3. Historical problem: The Gnostics Basilides and Valentinus first proposed creatio ex nihilo on the basis of assuming the inherently evil nature of creation, and in the belief that God does not act in history. Early Christian theologians adopted the idea to affirm the kind of absolute divine power that many Christians now reject.
  4. Empirical problem: We have no evidence that our universe originally came into being from absolutely nothing.
  5. Creation-at-an-instant problem: We have no evidence in the history of the universe after the big bang that entities can emerge instantaneously from absolute nothingness.As the earliest philosophers noted, out of nothing comes nothing (ex nihilo, nihil fit).
  6. Solitary power problem: Creatio ex nihilo assumes that a powerful God once acted alone. But power, as a social concept, only becomes meaningful in relation to others.
  7. Errant revelation problem: The God with the capacity to create something from absolutely nothing would apparently have the power to guarantee an unambiguous and inerrant message of salvation But an unambiguously clear and inerrant divine revelation does not exist.
  8. Problem of Evil: If God once had the power to create from absolutely nothing, God essentially retains that power. But a God of love with this capacity appears culpable for failing to prevent genuine evil.
  9. Empire Problem: The kind of divine power implied in creatio ex nihilo supports a theology of empire, based upon unilateral force and control of others.
In addition to these nine objections by Oord, there are other contentions from Jehovah's Witnesses, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and Process theologians. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_nihilo


Nor are such objections limited to Christians. The Vedanta schools of Hinduism reject the concept of creation ex nihilo for several reasons as well. For example:
  1. both types of revelatory texts (śruti and smṛti) designate matter as eternal although completely dependent on God—the Absolute Truth (param satyam)
  2. believers then have to attribute all the evil ingrained in material life to God, making Him partial and arbitrary, which does not logically accord with His nature
The Bhagavad Gita (BG) states the eternality of matter and its transformability clearly and succinctly: "Material nature and the living entities should be understood to be beginningless. Their transformations and the modes of matter are products of material nature

So it is not just atheists and scientists that disagree with Fr. Barron. Even in Fr. Barron's home turf of religion there is disagreement with, and arguments against, the idea of Ex Nihilo, Nihil fit.

CONCLUSION:
Although these arguments do not necessarily prove who is right or wrong regarding this idea, it does prove that Fr. Barron is breaking his own rule. That is, for Fr. Barron, it is not that "from nothing comes nothing," but that "from nothing" comes his idea of God. The "nothing" that Barron says can produce "nothing" has in fact produced an idea, and that idea then fills the "nothingness" with itself. Fr. Barron, like countless others, then gazes upon that idea until he falls in love with it, never realizing it was merely a reflection. In this way, the Theist becomes Narcissus, and simply falls in love with himself.

In the end, I can only guess at the meaning of the reality around me, which is all that anyone can  do. And this piece is not to show that Fr. Barron is flat wrong, so much as to those the ideas he touches upon are far more complicated, interesting, and unsettled, than Fr. Barron would lead us to believe. As such, the only defense we have against deceptions of every kind and degree, is to think for ourselves.  And for anyone who took the time to read this, I certainly hope you will do just that.

Man is The Only God in the Universe

Europeans have conquered every neighboring country in the world over the last several thousand years, due to having little or nothing of raw materials of their own with which to build wealth. From Alexander the Great to Christopher Columbus, the superior "intelligence" and genetics, or what could be called "beliefs" and biology" of Europeans, has only ever been exported to the world through the commodities of  power and enslavement.

The "white race" has not only concocted science based lies about its own biological superiority, it has likewise concocted religious based lies about its own spiritual superiority as well, which it has demonstrated to the world with more brutality and death than any army of demons could have dared to dream.

 And now that we have thoroughly destroyed the oceans and every other species, enslaved and slaughtered each other for the superiority of our religious, scientific, economic and political beliefs,and convinced ourselves we had no choice in any of it, we have decided to explore the universe itself.

But there is no doubt that we will only do to whatever other life forms we ever find in the universe, whether on other planets or even in other universes, exactly what we have done to all forms of life in this universe, including our own.

We treat everything and everyone who does not look like us, or think like us, worse than Christ himself, and all while professing to be scourging and crucifying every other living thing, for Christ.



Monday, October 23, 2017

Ooga Chaka

It never occurs to people what the "original sin" was, exactly, in the garden of Eden.

They simply assume it must have been the disobedience of Adam and Eve. Only it wasn't.

The original sin is gold, or what we refer to as "money."

This is why Cortez told the natives of South America he was suffering from a disease that could only be cured by gold. His "disease" was the very same as King David: greed, and the quest for power.

Christianity, then, has always only ever been the means of convincing millions of others to help the cleverest and most ruthless of us all, to get that power, by convincing the masses that they are all "on a mission from God."

And human sacrifice has only ever been about keeping that control. Because people never follow beliefs, they only follow feelings, which is why god is both the ultimate source of love, and thanks to hell, the ultimate source of fear.

Christians then, are simply "stuck on a feeling" while being, thanks to their own endorphins, "high on believing."

Ooga Chaka Ooga Chaka Ooga Ooga Ooga Chaka

In The Image of God

Most Christians think that Jesus being crucified amounted to the murder of God.  And maybe that's true, but just not in the way they think.

Christians insist that God became man, rather than the fact that man turned "God" into an image of himself, and in so doing, murdered "God" by reducing such an abstraction to the lowly limitations of a man.

We do not respect the son, or the earth, or the streams from which we crawled out of. We do not respect the seasons, walling ourselves off in heated and air conditioned houses.We do not respect the rain, covering ourselves to keep from getting wet.

We do not respect the food we eat, which gives us life, all of which is tainted which chemicals of every variety and imprisoned and slaughtered without a second thought.

We are not guilty of the murder of God because Jesus was nailed to a cross, we are guilty of murdering God by murdering each other for a "god" we created in our own image - an image, we tell ourselves, is the image of God - and absolutely everything else. 



the shadows on the wall

The true believer never doubts that their belief is alone the best evidence of thing they believe, even though, for the most part, it is really the only evidence they have.

But this is no different than a child's beliefs in tooth fairies, Santa Clause, or even that adults in general have any idea what they are doing or talking about. That the child discovers with age the equal falsity of the latter three does not dissuade them from a belief in God, however, even though their "belief" in said "God" came from those same adults who had lied to the child about practically everything else.

In addition to this inability to accept that we have simply been duped on every level, and by everyone from our parents to our priests to our politicians and school teachers, is our inability to accept that we are likewise only lying to ourselves in our desire to "believe" in one god or another, from economics to politics to religion to power to fame and fortune.

So we imagine a perfect human being, that is so perfect in fact we conclude he must be a "god," that we call "Jesus," (who Conservatives insist we are all responsible for killing, even as they deny being any more responsible for racism today than they are for slavery in the past), and act like the devil in trying to force everyone to live up to our own imagined idea of who we think this person was, and who we always imagine believes all the very same things that we do.

This image, however, is not God, it is an idea of God, that cannot be demonstrated to be any more accurate an image of what that God may actually be like, than that such a "God" can be demonstrated to exist in anyway, shape, or form. Hence the image is in our mind, since we cannot demonstrate otherwise.

The question then is whether our mind acts like a spiritual radio, connecting to the faint transmitting will of a "God," or is simply imagining that it is.

The only evidence for the former interpretation then, is a book, which they call the Bible, and all of the other people who have chosen to believe, like themselves, that such a "belief" is infallibly "true." They would deny this, of course, if the "god" being argued over was Zeus or Osiris or even Caesar Augustus. So it is not just that they "believe" they know the will of this God, and apparently better than anyone who disagrees with them about what the "will" requires, but they also know this God on a very personal basis.

And that's why they know such a person as Jesus would never be one to run around calling himself Zeus or Apollo, any more than he would ever insist he was Napoleon Bonaparte or Caesar Augustus. And the fact Jesus claimed to have multiple personalities, claiming he was both father and son, and even a holy ghost, is in no way evidence he suffered from multiple personality disorder. 

Nor are the countless acts of horror performed in the service of this belief ever any evidence to the Christian that there "cult" of beliefs is more dangerous than the one started by Jim Jones or Charles Manson. It's only evidence there is something wrong with every other belief instead. In fact, Christians boast of many of those horrors without ever knowing it, whenever they insist "there are no atheists in fox holes," even though the atheist only ever takes this as the highest compliment of all.

 It is precisely this kind of thinking, then, that leads people to wear this indictment like a badge of honor, and rather than consider the implications, would rather rush off to kill and die for their own sense of morality, that they are convinced comes solely from a God. And often for fear of hell or having to live in the world we've all created for ourselves.

Nor is there a problem with a person choosing to "believe" in an imaginary friend, or father figure. But the claim that no one can truly believe in anything, including themselves, unless they too believe in this imaginary friend or father figure, is obviously untrue, considering the number of successful atheists in the world (despite atheism being the most despised of all other "beliefs," including the Judaism).

When C.S. Lewis said that "hell is a prison where the door is locked from the inside," he was clearly talking about how a "belief" comes to possess us like a demon, and convinces us that we are not only "like God, knowing right from wrong,"  but that we should never open that door, leave the cave, or doubt the shadows on the wall.


 


 

Washing The Apple of the Earth

The truth of humanity is not something the vast majority of humans are willing to accept, let alone even consider. To deny that truth, we therefore create mythologies that glorify us as the sole concern of the gods, and religions that demand their "beliefs" are the only real "truth,"  and anyone who denies this will not only be killed as a heretic, but can expect to spend eternity in a "hell" that makes the Texas Chainsaw Massacre look like the Mickey Mouse Club.

Civilization is largely a sheepskin, in this sense, whose wool is pulled over our eyes, to hide the fact that man is not merely a wolf to man, but to every other thing on the planet, and even the planet itself.

Imagine you had an apple, for example, and upon that apple you saw growing spots and blemishes that crusted over the skin of the apple. From this, you would probably conclude that the apple is rotting.

Now imagine you are a "god," or some "being" that is much larger than ourselves, that looks at the earth as if it were that apple. Of all the different bacteria contending on that apple, the only one that creates encrustations within which it lives and works, the only one that uses technology to prey upon all the others so disproportionately and in such unsustainable excess (a good deal of which is simply done for sport), and the only one that gladly murders itself by the millions (and with its weapons, it will one day be billions) for the sacred nature of its "beliefs" and it's own identity, are humans.

The great flood, in this respect, was just 'god' washing the apple.

Sunday, October 22, 2017

Soylent Green at The Red Wedding: Business is War & War is a Business

If you have ever seen the movie, Conspiracy, about the Wannsee Conference where high ranking Nazi and German officials, many of whom were Christians, met to discuss "the final solution of the Jewish question," and Margin Call, about the financial meltdown of 2008, you may notice that the movies are about basically the very same thing.

White men (mostly, although Demi Moore is present in Margin Call, but she is white), sitting around a table, discussing who they are willing to sacrifice in order to triumph.

True, one is talking about the Jews and the other is talking about money, but it is precisely this difference in the language we use to describe our conventions - for both the term "Jew" and the term "money" are mere human conventions, for the most part - that allows the second one to result in a far greater loss of life, and without a single person going to jail for it. In another sense, both are simply making soylent green.

And if you've ever seen Stanley Kubrick's   "Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love The Bomb,"  you may realize that that movie is likewise a comedy about what Eisenhower described as the military industrial complex. It's a comedy because it cost far more lives than both of those movies combined. And the only reason we laugh is because far too many of us depend on it to protect us of that convention we call "the enemy," and even more depend upon it for a job.

It's basically the Last Supper for countless people, in other words, in absentia, with the people at the table all being Walder Frey, and all the Starks being hidden behind the convention of labels or money, reduced to numbers, and applauded as they pile up.  The difference is that one had to use paper while the other does it more efficiently with computers, software, and complete deniability.

And both were reassured using the same language that Heinrich Himmler used to reassure SS leaders, and Goldman Sachs VP Lord Griffths, used to defend bonuses being given to Goldman Sachs employees in 2008, that they were all "decent" people "who were serving the greater good"


Such is the nature of power, however, that it “always thinks is has a great soul and vast views, beyond the comprehension of the weak,” as John Quincy Adams once wrote, “and that it is  doing God’s service while it is violating all of his laws." I mean, if we are all called to "be like God," then what greater way to do that then by treating all those who "blaspheme" his holy name the same way God treated Sodom and Gomorrah. (That would certainly explain the ovens, anyway.)


It's the difference between treating the former like Albert Speer, in other words, and treating all the others like Araki Eikichi; and by the very same people, both times!*

But as Justin K. McFarlane Beau once wrote, "A stark truth, is seldom met with open arms."

Just ask Walder Frey.


____________________________________________________________________________
 * see: Princes of the Yen

Christianity teaches people to believe that the best in life comes only after you die.