The Antichristian Phenomenon

Supposedly you want to promote something, a new ideology, and you want people to follow it for you to become powerfull. What do you tell them ? You camouflage this quest for personal good into something “universally good”. You make sure people don’t find out the real aspects and don’t get a glimpse of the complete picture, you offer them only fragments of what you wish to promote, like when doing a comercial for a movie and showing only scenes with a lot of action or explosions, when the overall movie is so bad that you fall asleep after just five minutes of it. You rely on mass ignorance in order to promote it. Ignorance leads to blind following, the second weapon.

However, ignorance and blind following  alone are not enough. There would still be a lot of people who would find it totally unnecessary to adhere to what you’re promoting, or would simply feel that your ideals are not good enough for them. That’s when you introduce the number one weapon of all- FEAR.

In the case of religion, fear is most perversely used than in any other domain. If an oppressive government threatens you with the police, you still have a few options open to escape and you know for sure what you are dealing with. But in the case of heaven and hell you don’t know what you are facing. To believe in these two concepts means to adhere to the first step of being hopelessly enslaved, from the mental point of view.

To believe with strength that a god who is supposed to be good and tolerant will, however, send you to eternal punishment for not following him is something that will make your existence miserable. Each time you do something considered by the bible as “sinful” you will start having remorse, you will start regreting, you will start feeling the need to “confess” your sins to the Lord.

This is where the church (aka consultant and mediator in divine problems) comes along. You will go to the church, you will kneel before the priest, you will drink a drop of wine from a little spoon, you will kiss the cross, and you will stand in the middle of the church, head down, eyes closed, feeling of humility greatly impregnated in your mind, and you will beg the Lord, your God for forgivness.

In other words, you will adhere to a masqeurade, 2000 years old. There is something quite incredible when you see an educated, intelligent person, kissing the cross, kneeling before a wodden figure and talking to himself. As strange as it may be, the majority of  globe adheres to such ritual, no matter if it is called Christianity, Islamism, or whatever other religion.

Still, why would people, even intelligent ones sometimes, rather believe some words written about 3000 years ago about a god creating the whole world in seven days, the light before the sun, the plants before the sun, and other such absurd things, rather than studying and, at least, partially accepting more elaborate theories, such as Darwin’s ? While i don’t consider the scientific theories as holding the absolute truth and I admit they are incomplete, they are still more plausible than any creationist theory existent. So why do people would rather believe them? There is only one answer: Fear of hell!

Since christianity is usually taught at a young age, the image of eternal suffering impregnates very well within the mind of a child and has a very high chance of remaining there for the rest of one’s life. Christian teachings are centered on the concept of hell and eternal punishment. I can remember when i was 2nd grade and attending religion in school (which was, and still is today, compulsory), I can remember how the teacher always spoke and threatened us with how we’ll be tormented forever if we fail to follow and do the biddings of Christ. When she quoted the bible, she always gave examples such as the story of Lasarus, or various other quotations from Christ, speaking about eternal punishment. I can remember we were all quite scared when hearing such things. No one had the courage to even ask a question about Christ’s doctrine. I also remember seeing a priest in church talking about punishment in hell. He was a very good speaker and the crowd was very impressed and shaken by his words. I also attended various services in church, such as wedding, baptisings and funerals, and i can say (at least that’s how it is in orthodoxy) that there isn’t a single such ritual that doesn’t contain at least one refference to hell, punishment, and what will happen to the non-believers. Also, try reading the gosspel of Matthew and count the number of times Jesus repeats the words “weeping and gnashing of teeth”- as a refference to hell.

Indeed, the prospect of eternal punishment must be repeated as many times as possible, because without it no one would care about Jesus and christianity. It is the very foundation of this belief. That’s why people find it easier to question any scientific theory, but not the “holy book”. Because Darwin, for example, did not threaten with eternal punishment those who questioned his theory.

Christianity does, and even asking questions about it will send you to hell. Which brings us to the second tool of religion- ignorance.
Only blind following is acceptable in the eyes of god. Studying, asking questions, searching for answer is heresy, and is punishable by eternity in hell. We will find out that many of those who call themselves “christians”, believe in Jesus and even go to the church, did not read one word from the bible which is supposed to be the book that holds the ideology which represents them.

The words “believe, don’t search” are quite often used by these people when talking about religion, words also taught in churches and during religion classes. These three words represent the most disgusting example of ignorance. And it is this kind of ignorance that kept the church on such an important position these 2000 years.

There was a period in the middle ages when you risked being burned on the stake even for holding a bible in your house. The same period when, in church, the priests held the divine service in latin, a language known in those times by a few priviliged who had the chance to an education- that is the agents of the church. Blind following is the key through which the church became the most profitable bussiness in human history. That’s why theologists want the rest of the people to remain totally ignorant. Why read the bible? As long as you believe in god you’ll go to heaven anyway. Just do what we tell you to and you’ll be fine. Almost all the people i know (myself included), after reading the bible rejected faith as complete nonsense. With the new information we posses, there are clearly a lot more chances to become an atheist after reading the bible, than become a christian. That’s why blind following and ignorance, along with fear, are vital to keep religion, and the Church Inc. going.

However, i do believe that their numbers are decreasing with every passing year and it is becoming very hard to keep people ignorant. Fear still remains the most efficient tool that keeps them going in this struggle for survival. However, like all religions, the abrahamic ones will fade with time. It is inevitable.

So, what is the actual Holy Trinity? God, Son and Holy Ghost ? No way ! Fear sits where god’s throne is supposed to be. Blind following was sent to us to help us avoid the punishment that fear is preaching. This is the true Son. And instead of the Holy Ghost we have Ignorance. I can hear it preaching to us every now and then. Whispering words such as “believe, don’t search”.

Welcome! If you're new here, before you open your mail program to fire up a nasty email, you may want to first read our FAQ to avoid being ignored. If you like the content, we hope you will to subscribe to our RSS feed. Stay open minded!
If you don't like the content of this website on the other hand, kindly fuck off.

Friedrich Nietzsche wrote in his “Thus spoke Zarathustra” that “God is dead! And we have killed him!”. While I admire very much Nietzsche’s philosophy, I think we should dig even further into this matter. We never put a finger on God, our hands are clean! God committed suicide ! He’s dead, by his hand!

I won’t bother with the Old Testament, when he was just a tribal god, similar to so many others, and “inspired” by the other gods “who didn’t exist”. Let the Jews worry about that. I’m talking about when he was “promoted” to a universal god, for all human beings. Suddenly he changed his old ways and decided to use other methods. He appeared to us in the form of a bastard son and made his new rules heard. Now the whole human race became his “chosen ones” and bloodshed , mass exterminations and crushing the infidels were no longer required. Suddenly he spoke of love, peace and tolerance between people.

Jesus (as he is portrayed in the Bible) appears as a peaceful, passive being, devoid of any pride or ego. He asks us to love our neighbour, to love our fellow humans how we love ourselves and to grant permanent forgiveness to those who hate, hurt or do us wrong, no matter how much wrong. We always have to forgive and never resist when we are attacked, insulted or beaten.
Also, the rules about chastity are even more tightened. Now, not only sex before marriage or cheating on your partner is sinful, but even looking at someone of the opposite sex and secretly desiring him/her will be treated as a deadly sin. The same will be said about verbally insulting someone and calling them “fools”. This is God’s new ideology that we must follow in order to achieve eternal happiness. This ideology brought by Jesus is more than just an ideology. This is what God represents. This is God.

But then we see how God inflicts wounds on himself when, just chapters after he told us not to call people “fools” he does so himself. He goes even further when he attacks the merchants selling things in the temples. His passivity and friendly attitude suddenly changes, and doing so he put another nail in his own coffin. If Jesus was the wisest man alive, why didn’t he use his infinite wisdom in order to peacefully convince the limited minded merchants to leave the temple ?
Tolerance is abandoned again when he calls those who do not listen to his teachings “vipers and vermin “. Where has “love thy neighbour” gone? Surely no one speaks this way to his neighbour when he loves him, right ? Even when he does something wrong. But Jesus seals his fate, as God, when he calls for eternal punishment in hell for the infidels, who do not follow him. Rightful and goodhearted actions are deemed nothing without faith in Christ. Without this faith, we all go to hell. This is the moment God renders his ideology obsolete. This is when God committed suicide. He is the one who asks for unlimited forgiveness, but he is also the one that offers unlimited punishment for limited sins done during a pathetic lifetime of few years that don’t even matter in the whole context of history.
It is obvious that God cannot follow his own rules. His words are contradicted either by other words or by his actions. If one who does not follow these rules deserves eternal death and God himself cannot follow them, he sentences himself to death: He commits suicide. We are innocent. As such, his ideology is rendered pointless and useless to us.

But even after his suicide, God still has followers. They call themselves “Christians”. but what is a Christian ? Nietzsche wrote in “The Antichrist” that the only Christian in human history died on the cross. Again, I go even further and say there was never such thing as Christian, since no one ever followed the rules required by the suicidal god to achieve this title. If we go on the streets and ask 1000 people the question “what is a Christian and what does it take to be one?”, it is guaranteed that we will get exactly 1000 definitions. The truth is that after God committed suicide, the people performed an autopsy on him and dissected him, each taking a part, the one that suits him/her best. We will find out that some don’t consider sex before marriage or sexual lust a sin at all. When we bring to them the lines quoted above, they either say that they are not important or they are just a figure of speech. To some, who consider themselves fundamentalists, they don’t find anything wrong in rejecting atheists and people who don’t believe what they believe. Or, why don’t we try hitting one of these Christians in the face. Will they be real Christians and turn the other cheek, while, perhaps trying to talk to us rationally, or will they do like a “mere human” would and hit back?

Also, who actually believes in this shallow, senseless emotion called “love for everybody”? Do you really think someone actually experiences this “love” for everyone in the world ? No! Some of them might have the guts to say something like this. But they are just words. They couldn’t care less if 2 blocks away there was a car accident and some people died. But what about loving Christ more than your wife/girlfriend/mother/father etcetera? Does anyone even think of Christ when they are with someone they love? Christian teachings are very incompatible with human personality, that’s why no one can follow them. Like I said, the only thing Christians can do is take God apart and reassemble him in the way they choose.

Let’s face it, for every “Christian” there is a Jesus who fits their own interests and interpretation. There are orthodox Christians, catholic Christians, protestant Christians, Jehova’s Witness Christians, and another million kinds of Christians, but no actual Christian. There never has been.

Stephen Law has thoroughly pwned the little ignorant theist who was certain he’d proven that god exists. Only he was doing it using circular logic and unargued premises.

I was a bit surprised that this site even existed anymore, as anyone with even a passing familiarity of philosophy or logical arguments can punch holes through the kind of logic employed there. Indeed, the Antichristians took much pleasure in skewering the silly arguments presented therein more than one year ago when it fell to our attention.

Unfortunately back then, Sye (AKA Canuckfish) did not stick around to argue his point, although we’d have certainly been less challenging than a professional philosopher like Stephen.

Nevertheless, reading the discussion was…cute. Like watching a 12-year-old trying to play chess against Kasparov. You can’t help but cringe at the bad moves and laugh when the former insists that “moving the rook diagonally is correct”.

Anyway, head over. Have a laugh. Nothing else is going to change anyway since the theist in question seems incapable of comprehension, no matter how excplicitly he’s been proven incorrect.

Perhaps later on Stephen might wish to take on the Crossexamined blokes who seem to employ similar arguments (Logic cannot exist without God). They’re still pathetic in argumentation but there’s more, lets say, “fish to shoot in the barrel”

I knew my first post would be considered fairly aggressive by some, so I’ve decided to explain in further detail what I mean when I say to combat religion. Unlike religion I have no problem spelling out what I mean. I’m not going to use vague metaphors like the Bible that engenders people to come up with some bizarre notion that you need to use the Bible to interpret the Bible. If you need to “interpret” something that’s stated clearly then the original statement wasn’t made very well at all.

Okay, when I say we need to combat religion, defend ourselves, etc. I don’t mean we necessarily have to physically combat them. I am not Gandhi and I don’t believe in pacifism, nor do I believe in turning the other cheek. What I do believe is needed is a clearly defined retaliation protocol. Well what does that mean? Basically it means we’re not the first to strike. Nor should we have to be. As soon as a Christian visits physical violence upon any member of us they are simply showing their abhorrent hypocrisy in full. If they truly believe they are working for “peace” via war, or being a loving being as they say their God is, they are hypocrites. They have just committed an act of violence to support their idea of love, last time I checked that doesn’t mesh well.

But like other pacifistic approaches does that mean we don’t have a right to defend ourselves? Of course not. I fully believe everyone has the right to defend their person and does not need to kneel in supplication to another (well, unless you really want to). Most people like power and like standing above others, but that doesn’t give you a right to force anyone. So I say we should be able to follow the tenets of physics that say “for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.” So if someone punches you in the face, it does not give you the right to kill them immediately, I say it does give you a right to put them out of commission until they stop hitting you though. Why am I saying all this? Because I fear for my personal well being from extremist religious sects or persons. I don’t think anyone should have to be afraid because of something they believe, especially when it’s not visiting violence upon other people. I know some people say that violence doesn’t solve anything, and they’re right. Fighting doesn’t make a problem go away, but the reality of the situation is that some people will resort to violence. So what is the best course of action for the attacked?

I think if the righteous choose to enact violence it should be them who does it. We should stand above them and combat them on an intellectual level. I personally see no need for violence; I think it is the action of a petty and base person that resorts to such as a response to a comment regardless of how ignorant or intellectual. I think the greatest weapon our group has is our intellect. We should harness that power and focus it more than anything else. Our knowledge is both our sword and our shield and that’s what separates one side from the other, as far as I can tell. While most religious people have knowledge of a single text (usually they don’t even have this), we will pull from myriad sources.

Yes, this is a sort of elitism, but only because there is a tragic divide in understanding. It is not elitism in the pure sense because we are not hording our knowledge just for ourselves, we want to share it! We want all of humanity to be informed on a great number of topics, not just one. Information and ideas are the greatest threat in any struggle. Communication between groups is of the utmost importance and the reason I fear that violence is a likely response is because they cannot see things from our perspective. Sure, some of the religious believers certainly can, but there is a great deal out there who cannot. These are the people all should fear. This leads to war and war is not always a beneficial outcome. I welcome any comments on this concept, I know it may seem somewhat harsh, but I think it is a realistic perspective on the situation.

Just within the past few days I have been approached through comments by a Christian by the name of Brian who has a few bones to pick with my budding “Debunking Christianity” series. The comment replies became too lengthy and detailed to maintain a good comment-debate, and he expressed interest in using email as our primary form of communication. My problem with this was that it would take a topic that I would like to remain public and pulls it into the private domain, so I asked his permission if I could post our email exchange in article format for outside opinions on both sides.

This first part includes our original long comment debate, the second part will be our first email exchange. I do not know how long this debate will be or how frequent as we are both busy people, but I will be sure to make an article for each exchange so anyone who is interested can follow and contribute.

(more…)

Hello all loyal readers! Its been quite some time since we’ve posted here, me especially. I have been quite busy for a long time, but fortunately, I’ve got something to post tonight that I’m quite proud of; the Philosophy paper I took the polls in the last.fm forum to write.

Since I already wrote an article on the topic of “Satan” and “Evil”, this Debunking Christianity serves more as an extension of that article than a new topic. Sadly, I did not get a chance to address Satanism due to time constraints and a stolen laptop.

For those who didn’t see the last.fm poll the assignment was this:
The class split into “forum” groups, which each chose a topic and took a pro or con side. Then, using a philosopher we studied in class (Oops, it appears I didn’t; Nietzsche was surprisingly not discussed. Didn’t effect my grade though), support your side of the debate. Then present it orally and open discussion to the whole class. Unfortunately due to time constraints, my forum got no discussion. I didn’t even get to finish my talk… But oh well; here’s the paper, in MLA format with sources cited and referenced for your researching pleasure. Perhaps there will be more opinion and discussion here or on the last.fm boards.

Enjoy!
–Anath

(more…)

In this article I will analyse the attempts to attain knowledge or “truth” of various systems who claim it. Afterwards, I will examine these systems for their merit and their danger. When it comes to truth, there are three systems who claim to have some of it. There is science, there is philosophy, and there is religion. Because this is an analysis, I will try not to favor any of these three and stay objective.

(more…)

As of late, I have been watching lots of documentaries and videos on the internet concerning religion. I have found that some atheistic groups have defined their own ten commandments. Some googling will result in many different variations on this moral code. I think christian claim that you need religion to have a sense of morality has sparked the postulation of these “atheist’s ten commandments”. Of course, this is a misconception, but to define your own Ten Moral Biggies is the wrong approach to sort this mess out.

Let’s first sidetrack a little and have a look at what the christians are on about. They often refer to the bible as the book of absolute truth and thus also absolute moral code. And exactly with the “absolute”, they’re quite wrong. As much as they like to think so, the bible is not very consistent about its ideas of morality. For moral guidance, most christians will only refer to the ten commandments. Does it not strike you as odd that the only morals in a book written over hundreds of years, would only have ten lines concerning morality? Can these ten commandments be applied to every situation and supply an answer as to what is the right thing to do? No. The ten commandments are only a fraction of what can be found in the bible. What about these guidelines?

The book of Deuteronomy is very clear about dealing with people who served or wish to serve another deity.

Deuteronomy 12:2-3: Ye shall surely destroy all the places wherein the nations that ye shall dispossess served their gods, upon the high mountains, and upon the hills, and under every green tree: And ye shall overthrow their altars, and break their pillars, and burn their groves with fire; and ye shall hew down the graven images of their gods, and destroy the names of them out of that place.
Deuteronomy 13:9: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.

And how does the bible prescribe us to deal with one who blasphemes against the name of the christian god?

Leviticus 24:14: Bring forth him that hath cursed without the camp; and let all that heard him lay their hands upon his head, and let all the congregation stone him.

There are numerous examples of the death penalty in the bible, as well as selling your daugther and the shame of long hair on a man. You can’t be cherry picking what moral rules to adhere by and which not, if you insist on your holy book being one of absolute truth.

What I am trying to say is that morality can not be absolute. “The moral thing to do” depends on many factors like culture, situation and even your own personality. It is very hard to define a certain moral rule that is universally applicable, because you need not have much imagination to come up with a situation in which the moral thing not to act according to the moral rule. And if you do succeed, why would you insist that everyone should take it into comtemplation? Of course, there are some concepts (like not allowing the taking of another life) that are quite universal, but this does not mean they are absolute truth! Good and bad are mere concepts by human minds. These concepts are used in legislation to keep an eye on the public and prevent chaos. This is not a matter of divine righteousness, but a matter of governing people.

So why are there the ten commandments, and why are there exactly ten? Do you not think that people are perfectly able to decide for themselves what is wrong and what is right? Would you not allow even this freedom of thought? Why are there not nine commandments, two, or fifty-seven? It is silly to think there is a limited number of moral rules. Again, I urge you to always make up your own mind. There is absolutely no need to write down a moral code. You have this nifty little thing called a brain that is always at the ready for any query. In every situation that calls for a moral decision, balance all things on the scales of reason and make your decision. It’s a silly idea that you would need to contemplate a writing and see what rules apply in this precise case.

Alright, let’s sum this all up. Morality is not absolute, not christians’, nor atheists’. It is a matter for you to consider every single time it passes you on your way. Remember, morality is part of philosophy, wherein lie no answers, but only a few options and a huge stage for you to play your own act.