The Antichristian Phenomenon

I have been reading many debates between irreligious and religious people concerning the argument of intelligent design. These debates, from what i have seen, are endless, because neither side has the sufficient arguments in order to finish off the other. And so, these debates go on, but with the religious side always having a moral advantage, because of the incapability of the others to disproof their claims. Before i start explaining further, it should be noted that when i’m referring to “religious” i mean the supporters of the three dominant religions: christianity, islamism and judaism. Since i live in a christian environment, i shall use the word “christianity” as a key-word for all three religions.

So what does this trick consist in ?

I have to admit that this is a very intelligent trick, but it has two edges. By doing this, the christians take the fight directly into the “enemy territory”- that is science. They actually try to turn the tables on non-believers and use science-the all-time arch enemy of religion- in order to prove the existence of the christian god. However, there is also a second perspective to this strategy: by doing this, they admit themselves that their “holy book”- which is supposed to hold absolute truths and offer irrefutable proof of its claims- does not actually do that and is inconsistent. However, few people seem to notice this aspect, and, by and large, the christian offensive is succesfull. By taking the debate to the scientific field, the talks could go one forever, because, as i previously admitted, science, despite the progresses made, is still incomplete and does not offer all the answers we need in tracing our origins (and probably never will). Despite the overwhelming evidence for the scientific theories, they are still not proven in all of their aspects. Thus, this climate creates the perfect ground for christian intelligent design argument.  Of course, their arguments are just speculations, but they are intelligently crafted, thus making them extremely hard to reject. For a few refferences you should check the following http://www.antichristian-phenomenon.com/db0/evidence/ , paying particular attention to Brian’s responses in the comments.  Also, if you want, here is another http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/ifyoucanreadthis.htm .

Unfortunetly, many irreligious fall into the trap of debate on such grounds, and this only makes the situation worse. The christians always come up with arguments (i repeat, even if they are just speculations), thus making them look good, and keeping the possibility of truth in religion, wide open. Worse, some opponents to these claims run out of arguments to support their cause, mainly because of not having a particularly wide knowledge concerning science and biology.

I, myself, admit that i don’t shine in the scientific area, and biology has never been my favorite subject in school. Besides basic knowledge, i can’t really keep up in a scientific debate about biology (astronomy maybe) .

However, their intelligent design argument must not be attacked by discussing biology and the validity of scientific theory. We must take the fight back to their own territory.

Preparing for the counterattack

So what’s wrong with this argument ? Well, in order for it to be succesfull and to make them reach their goal- that is to prove the existence of the christian god- at least two things should be valid:

1. The bible theory about creation must be valid and plausible in the context of the knowledge we posses today
2. Their scientific claims, about intelligent design to be true.

While they have not proven by any means the second point, let’s, for the sake of the argument, admit it possible. After all, as an agnostic, although i reject the claims of every known religion on earth, i accept the possible existence of superior intelligence, and superior beings, that we, as limited beings cannot perceive. So let’s accept the possibility of intelligent design. Does this point towards the christian god ? By all means NO ! Let me give a simple example as to why not:

Let’s suppose a random woman, from the street, goes to a five year old child, whom she never met, and says: “I’m your mother, therefor you must obey me !”. And the child says: “I don’t know you, you’re a fraud and i don’t obey you”. Then, the woman starts giving the child scientific, biological arguments, proving that every child comes from a mother, concluding, as a result, that she is his mother and he should obey her.The christian argument is by no means better than what that woman said, which proves that their intelligent design argument is not only baseless, but also extremely stupid. In order to make it count, they have to prove that the bible creationist theory is without error and is completely valid. Well, let’s take a look at it (just like that woman should prove- via DNA test- that she is the rightful mother of the child).

Beating them back to their own grounds

The creationist theory has been discussed countless times, but just for the sake of it, i’ll add one more to that. The christians (again, i must point out that i am also referring to the other two religions) claim that their “holy book” is unique, without error, and holds the absolute truth, that no other book holds.

We will prove that the bible, in many points, copies the ancient summerian and babylonian legends (among whom the jewish people lived), and that with our current knowledge of the universe and of our planet, they are no more than a simple ferry-tale. I will also refute their desperate arguments to make their book seem valid.

An analysis of the seven days of creation

First day

And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.  God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. God called the light ‘day,’ and the darkness he called ‘night.’ And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

What light ? Where did this light come from ? Where are the astral objects (stars) that produce this light ? It is clear that the author did not have the slightest idea of where the light actually comes from.

Second day

And God said, “Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water.”  So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so.  God called the expanse ‘”ky.’”And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.”

According to this, the Earth is surrounded by water. This is clearly taken from the old sumerian legends (that appeared aprox. 2000  years before the biblical myths did) according to which this world is surrounded by an infinite ocean of water. Almost all ancient peoples imagined the primordial chaos as a limitless realm of water. The bible is no different. Of course, we have proven that there is no water in space, just perfect vacuum. Again, the “creation” of this day is proven false.

Third day

Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

Again, i ask: where the hell is that cursed sun, to produce that light energy, so that the plants can initiate their photosynthesis without which they are unable to exist? Of course, the christians will say that god can do anything and that he could have made them resist one day without sunlight. But then, why didn’t he leave things like that, so that the plants would never need solar energy ? Or why didn’t he create the sun before the vegetation ? Oh, let my guess “the Lord works in mysterious ways”……aaaa…right…

Forth day

And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

So we finally have some stars. And a moon. But he says that he made them in order to separate day from night. But let’s take a look at the first day. Didn’t he do that already ? God clearly suffers from a serious amnesia. Oh, and the stars were created to assist the inhabitants of a tiny, ignorable planet, in the whole context of the universe. And all these stars, that develop in millions of years, created in one day.It is clear that the author had only an abstract notion of space and stars. He thought they were a couple of hundred tiny things up there, that helped them during the night. Not some celestial bodies, that are billions of light years away from us.

Fifth day

And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky.” So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. [...]

Comment: Nothing interesting here. I’ll give god a break this time.

Sixth day

And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind.” [...] Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth,  and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

Of course, from now on, everyone knows the story of Adam and Eve. How Adam named every animal existent on Earth (quite a busy bee- but what about the still undiscovered species ? he forgot some! how will we name them?), how god created Eve from Adam’s ribs etc. However, the interesting thing here is that god said he will create man in his image. The christians claim that their god is perfect. It is obvious to everyone that this world, along with our race, is entirely imperfect. How could god, if perfect, create something imperfect ? They say that it’s man’s fault, because by our sins we became imperfect. But how can something perfect become imperfect ? If we were perfect, than there was no possibility of mistake. So it means we weren’t perfect to begin with. So, again i ask, how can something perfect create something imperfect ? One more bullet in the intelligent design.

Seventh day

By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.

“A subject for a great poet would be God’s boredom after the seventh day of creation.”- Fr. Nietzsche

The “one million year day” argument

Of course, with the new discoveries, the christians had to “adjust” their religion and standards a little so they tried to create puerile and comical explanations. Such is the case with the explanation that the biblical “day”, in which god created another element of the universe is not the 24 hour day we commonly refer to, but actually an entire aeon, of millions of years, because god exists outside our solar system, so he had nothing to do with our perception of time. Let us quote the first words, that open the bible, shall we ? “God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.” Well, i agree that they didn’t perceive the day as having 24 hours back then.For them the day began at sunrise, and ended at sunset. Also, the bible says Adam died at the age of 930 years. Yet, he was created in the sixth day. Shouldn’t he be something like 2 million years old at the point of his death ? I rest my case.

Other myths in Genesis or the bible in general

Man’s creation from earth: According to Babylonian legends, man was created from earth,  and Kingu’s blood.

The stars: In Babylonian myths, Marduk managed the evolution of the Moon and of the Sun, divised the year into 12 parts and “drew”  upon the sky the stars, into Zodiac constellations. Notice any simillarities ?

Satan’s revolt : The christians claim that Satan initiated a revolt against God, in order to bring his reign to an end, and 1/3 of the angels were with him. Following his defeat, Satan was cast down from heaven, along with his rebel angels.

According to Sumerian and Babylonian legends, Tiamat and Apsu gave birth to Anshar and Kishar, who, in turn gave birth to many more gods, including Marduk. They enslaved Tiamat and Apsu. Apsu decided to punish them for this, but he was killed. The ancient gods, displeased with how Tiamat handled this situation, with the lesser gods dominating them, dared her to initiate a revolt. She put Kingu in charge of her armies, but they were defeated by Marduk, who later became the supreme god. Kingu and Tiamat are considered, by the babylonian legends, to be demons. The two of them, along with all of the demons who sided with them, were sent to live in the underworld kingdom of Ereshkigal (the land of the dead aka hell- in christian tradition).

Of course, revolt is present in every story and are inspired by the politics going on in our world, the rebellions, the dethroned leaders etc. Sumer legends and the bible are now different . The only difference is that here Marduk is more in Satan’s than in God’s position, since he was not the primal creator to begin with. Of course, he was the protector of Babylon, so, for political reasons, since Babylon ruled a vast amount of lands, he had to prevail, right ?

Noah and his ark: We all know the story. Almost in every ancient mythology there were floods, droughts and all kinds of “punishments” inflicted by the gods, when there were actually bad years for agriculture, famine, and some rivers or seas flooded their surroundings (natural disasters that happen quite frequently nowadays too). As an example, we have the story of Atrahasis, of ancient Babylon. For some reasons that i am not going to develop, their gods wanted to destroy the human race with a flood. One god- Enki- who had a sympathy for humanity and in particular for a wise man- Atrahasis- wanted to save at least him so he ordered the human to build an ark, take his family and a pair of each specie of animals and stay there until the flood ends.

The tower of Babel: Babylonians used all sorts of people from different races to work on their constructions. Of course, they spoke different languages. So much for the bible explanation that god mixed their languages so they would not finish the tower thus preventing them from reaching the heavens. Oh, by the way, why didn’t he stop our space program than ?

As you can see, the Genesis is irrelevant, false and inspired by the “pagans” that “god” wanted to destroy.

A common-sense question

Seeing the similarities between these theories, and the fact that they were born long before the first words of the bible came to life, why must we regard them as simple myths, but the bible as the words of god ? Why is this Jehowa more special than Tiamat, Apsu, Ishtar, Anu, Enlil, Marduk, Kingu and any other deity invented by man ?

What about the author of Genesis ?

Well, for that age, he was one of the wisest, the elite of his society. He gathered stories and information provided by other peoples and races and drew his own conclusions about what he thought was right regarding the earth and its creation. He was ignorant about the universe and the world around him, but that’s because he didn’t posses the information we do. The old testament is an interesting mix of mythology and history. What makes me angry is that this mythology has been presented as “the words of god, the absolute truth” for so many ages and it still blinds people to this day. It is quite incredible that this creationist theory is regarded as valid, even today.

Conclusion

I have proven in the first part of this article that the christian argument of intelligent design, even if one way or another proven as true, it does not lead us to believe that the christian god is real and that he created the universe and the earth. For that, the book of Genesis needs to provide irrefutable arguments and evidence for it. And, as i had analyzed, the explanations and theories offered there are, for our age, more than childish. Also, i have pointed out its similarities with so many other myths that were spread across the world, long before the book of genesis and the christian god were mentioned.

Thus, it is clear that the christian god is no more than a tribal myth, a man-made legend. Trying to prove through science and biology the existence of god, in the context of Genesis, is more than comical and has nothing to do with common sense and logic, only with pipe dreams created by the ones who try to hold on to ancient and dying beliefs.

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.

I know everyone embeds xkcd all the time but I just couldn’t resist doing it this time

Heya! Blue Linchpin here. This isn’t so much an essay as letting you all know about something, and a call to action.

Google recently created Google Knols, an alternative to Wikipedia which will likely soon eclipse it, as Google Knols has the advantage of being created by the most widely used search engine. Already there are a great amount of wonderful articles, ranging from what do to when your bowels erupt (seriously!) to medical information on anorexia and cancer, to incoherent rants by religious fanatics. For the most part, its articles are almost all medical or religous, a strange mix.

And it’s that last type of “knol” that really gets me. Here we are, being presented by a great tool in beta that gives anyone and everyone a voice while allowing for ratings of articles so the crap can get filtered out. Depending on your preference, Wikipedia might be better, Knols might be better, or both might be pathetic. But it’s obvious that Google Knols will become widely used in the future, as it is a wonderful tool. The problem is that it is already being used for religious propaganda presented as articles. For example, there is one Knol user, a Christian church, who has been publishing articles via Knol disguised as helpful information about childcare, parenting, marriage, couples advice, as well as more obvious hatefilled bullshit. Some of these articles start out with stories or good advice, then down the line start babbling on about God. (As a side note, there’s a ridiculously idiotic writer on Knols who’s claiming some pretty silly stuff, like an article about liberals that has basically all the information about conservatives, only ‘conservative’ is replaced by ‘liberal’…d’oh!)

While most articles are written by conservative Christians and are simply rants against liberals, abortion, atheists, etc, Google users have been fighting back a little by denouncing these, but they aren’t being removed and no one (besides your favorite person, me!) has been fighting back by writing articles of their own, voting, or reviewing the propaganda.

So if you’re bored or interested, please head over and help out. Google Knols will certainly be getting a lot of viewing and coverage in the future, and possibly become the new Wikipedia: so it’s important not to let ranting, fanatical Christians take over a source of knowledge.

P.S., my profile on Knols is here, you can find the articles I’ve written or am working on there, as well as horrible articles I’ve reviewed. I could use some help!

Love, Blue. <3

This is in response to all of the chatter going on recently related to PZ Myers, that kid who took a Catholic cracker, and general hostility by the atheist community towards Christians. Here’s my opinion.

And it’s a difficult one to figure out. What good is being skeptical and intelligent if we stay silent because we don’t want to offend someone? But will our speaking out help anyone if it is hostile to the point that it drives religious people who are doubting their religion away?

As someone who recently wrote on how damaging hostility can be to someone who is new to a (especially outcast) idealogy or lifestyle, I can certainly attest who how a Christian would feel in a similar case.

Imagine a Christian in a similar position to mine, only worse! They’ve been lied to their entire lives, they are starting to realize, slowly but surely, what a scam religion is…they are seeing how hypocritical it all is and starting to venture, afraid, into the world of atheism. Poking around in blogs. Lurking around some forums. Reading about atheist activity and groups. All the while, looking over their shoulder and terrified, wondering if they might go to hell for doubting God, what their families will think, what their loved ones and friends will think, whether or not they are still moral, what’s wrong with them, do they need help…it can be terrifying.

And then they see some things that only reaffirm their fear: atheists committing acts that, to them, are atrocities, atheists being shockingly rude and cruel to them and other Christians, etc. It will do nothing but drive them back to the “safety” of their religion, unless they really have had their eyes opened and know that the actions of others do not change what is true and what is not true (like I did).

But then…on the other hand, being silent hasn’t exactly helped atheists throughout history. If anything, it has made us weak and easy to prosecute and weed out. Silence will kill us. If we do not speak out, if we are not active, if we do not loudly declare our defiance, we will be quickly forgotten. We must always be considered, by politicians and by the general populace. We must show ourselves as an example that we are Americans and we are not religious, and (not but) we are good people–we are the better people because we choose to act as good people through personal choice and not through fear and indoctrination.

And why do Christians deserve special rights not to be offended? Across the decades they have burned us alive, they have torn away our “God-given” rights, they have screamed for us to get out of “their” country, they have forced their religion down our throats and refused to respect us. Should we give them anything better than they gave us? Is our right to free speech worth any less than theirs? No. If anything, it is worth more because we aren’t insane, but that’s beside the point because regardless, everyone has the same rights to free speech.

So in the end, I think its very important to be loud and proud, and exercise our rights as humans to speak freely. We have every right to “desecrate” their symbols and criticize their leaders, just as they have every right to do the same to us.

The trick is to be respectful. Make fun of their words, their beliefs, their symbols, their leaders, but be careful if you make fun of them. Hold your arms open for doubters and show genuine kindness and honesty, not hatred. Was PZ Meyers justified in his desecration of a “sacred” little cracker? Yea, he was. It’s just a fucking cracker, and he was making a point, which is his right. He wasn’t personally attacking anyone, it was just as ridiculous that anyone got angry over him or the cracker incident as it was that Muslims got angry over the comics. People are deserving of respect, not beliefs. Maybe somewhere, somehow, a Christian is seeing that. And maybe there’s another who was starting to see the light of atheism, but is so easily swayed that such an incident changed their mind.

Either way, respect towards others is necessary. Respect towards symbols of an abusive, racist, sexist, hateful, insane idealogy is not.

It is done, your holy saviour is defeated once more, and even the ultimate might of your omnipresent and omnibenevolent imaginary sky daddy was not enough to stop this truly evil deed.

Where is he Christian?! I ain’t seeing jack shit.

But we all know that nothing is going to happen and you know it as well. It is why you think you need to act and show your outrage. Your god cannot defend himself because he does not exist, so by this act going unpunished the seed of doubt it further planted within you.

Debate all you like about whether or not your religion is the right one, Christians. But it has no place in politics or in any intelligent society.

The fact of the matter is that, and even Christians will admit this, that Christianity and in fact all religions rely on a specific lack of evidence and accept it as fact. Say what you will about any scientific theory, the fact remains that science and intelligent thought demands at least some evidence before accepting a theory as fact. Religions are the only “scientific theories” to have ever been accepted as fact by a large group without any evidence. These “theories” are the only ones to have ever been accepted as somehow explaining why you should live your life a certain way, and they are the only “theories” to have ever demanded anything simply by being accepted.

It’s been said many times before by those more eloquent than I that believing something without proof is insanity. And it is.

From birth, Christians, Muslims and other religious folk are trained to believe without proof. This is a fact that we all know. How then, in an environment where citizens are expected to make intelligent, world-changing decisions while they vote, can we accept religion as a factor? How can we accept the fact that the vast majority of our voters are willing to believe things without any proof, when we don’t let the insane vote (I think)? Does attaching religion to an insane belief really give it credibility? If the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster became a powerful and wealthy group, would Pastafarians be allowed to dictate the politics of the nation? Christians can believe whatever they want but they need to accept the reality of the situation, that this is not a Christian country and that they rely on faith and not evidence, and evidence is what is needed.

This country is run by Christian law, or at the very least was and Christians are still trying to run it according to Biblical law. Christians cite the Bible for all of their political beliefs, and Christians make up the majority of this country, and many feel Christianity is the only religion that has a place here. It is perfectly fine in the views of these people to discriminate against non-Christians or even refuse service based on their beliefs, yet something as simple as taking a tiny rice paddy is a hate crime.

Does this ring a bell anyone?

Don’t Christians think that we have to go and kill people in the Middle East like Iran and Iraq because they are ruled by fanatic religious law? Isn’t that exactly what Christians want?

I’ve decided we need some reviews here and there on this site, this is my first one for “Letter to a Christian Nation” by Sam Harris: (more…)

Culture’s definition is loosely connected to real life and elusive at best. People who have been assigned to watch over what some people think is culture are being criticized by thousands. I’m part of a culture. You are part of a culture. This website is part of a culture. What culture? Cultures are being added to the big soup of multicultural madness faster than you can decide whether you want to be a part of them or not. Politicians speak out about “our” culture. Things like subcultures arise from the masses of people resisting the very concept of culture. Culture nowadays is a broad term used to define everything two people and their dog take part in. The attention we give to culture is a cultural phenomenon. To quote the mighty wisdom of Wikipedia here: “Cultures can be understood as systems of symbols and meanings that even their creators contest, that lack fixed boundaries, that are constantly in flux, and that interact and compete with one another“. There, a definition. What good does this do? A definition can’t get much more tolerating than this.

But, some really interesting aspects of culture can be derived from the definition. Culture is progressive, liberal even, in nature. It’s never static, not for a second. Culture is constantly evolving into something new. Visit deviantART and watch culture evolve in real-time. Culture is not a static definable object, it’s an everlasting process of creation fueled by creativity and man’s hunger for something new to identify himself by. As long as people are communicating with each other, this cultural process will thrive. There’s no need for anything else, just communication between people. If a person stands out by doing something different, and is successful in his attempts, people will mimic the abnormality until it becomes normal. When the numbers grow you can start defining certain branches of cultural development, each of them going it’s own way evolving further into something completely new. Even if you take a closer look into one of these branches you’ll discover a finer grain of subcultures. The branches will collide and interweave over time, split up again or merge with other branches. They don’t know about physical borders, the influences between branches are only limited by the amount of communication between them. The process of cultural development is a complex and highly dynamic one. There’s no way of telling what will change tomorrow.

And now, all of a sudden, cultural preservation pops up. People start defining culture as something static, as an object, instead of the process it really is. They see the process as a threat to the object they’ve defined. This cultural snapshot is usually the culture these people are comfortable with, and most likely the culture that provides them with great power. They take an aggressive conservative stance against culture and provide people with their static, crippled substitute for culture. They’ll do anything to preserve their position in culture, even if it takes culture itself down in the process. Culturally different people are looked down upon and oppressed. The cultural placebo is force-fed into the mouths of the innocent at gunpoint. The non-conformists are beaten into obedient good citizen. Cultural developments are set aside as evil, it’s practitioners as terrorists. Even the last cultural strongholds are raped by abusing tentatively free media to spread the conformist’s message into the homes of millions.

Sounds familiar? It’s the Christian way of doing things. Hijacking culture to stop it from evolving, to stop it from being what it actually is - an everlasting process. They have been quite successful at it too. The American elections are the latest prime example of the immense success of the Christian anti-cultural influence. Many of the hot topics during these elections are Christian ones, topics that aren’t even that important in the grand scheme of things. I see the effects in my own country, the Netherlands, too. Politicians on the conservative right of the political spectrum are talking about conserving our identity and culture. Opposers, among whom our crown princess Maxima, are mocked because of their criticism. The reduction of tolerance comes at a price. Two anti-culturalists have been killed and terrorist threats have never been so real. Politicians can’t walk across the street without fully armed bodyguards at their sides to protect them from the very thing they preach - forceful preservation of culture.

You see, cultural preservation isn’t just about the five hundred year old church around the corner that has to make way for a new mall. It’s a tool used by the powerful for preserving their power in a virtual substitute culture. The cultural preservation most people are familiar with, that of property ownership, is actually basically the same thing. Churches, especially Christian churches, often don’t have to pay taxes. Christian initiatives are subsidized and tax money is spent on preserving their places of worship, just because it’s of cultural significance. I do wonder though, why every church is treated like it’s historical influence is great enough to save it from demolition. Even in these times of heavily reduced church attendance. It seems the Christian influence upon the western culture has made it’s dominance stick, which is worrying, to say the least.

So what about it? What can we, the youth, do to save culture? The answer is quite simple, we should keep on doing what we do best. Non-conformance is the only way to save culture, pubescent behavior keeps it from dying altogether. So if you’ve got kids, and they’re rebellious, be proud of them. They are the real preservers of culture.

There’s been some talk of atheist movements and how they might work or be organized. I think this is a great idea, and the more push there is for the atheist agenda, the more sane our world will be. I wanted to write a small essay of sorts on how an atheist movement might be accomplished as well as ask for feedback from other writers and readers here at Anti-Christian Phenomenon. Serious change should be the on the minds of every active atheist or anti-theist, because the religious institutions of the world will never stop until everyone else is under their control. Beware, it’s a long albeit badly written, and very much thought out, at least I hope it is. Again, I’m looking for feedback and serious discussion.

Let’s address some serious questions. (more…)

Let’s try seeing Christianity through different eyes, how it really is.

Christianity, Inc. is the single most powerful, wealthy and influential corporation in the world. It enjoys a ‘religious’ and thus special status in countries where it controls or at least has a hand in the government–in these countries, it is also given special status including exemption from laws like torture, child abuse, and in America, separation of Church and State. Those who subscribe to Christians are also given legal immunity to criticism and annoyance, and legal preference over anyone who disgusts them (homosexuality) or who disagrees with them (atheists, skeptics, agnostics, etc).

Christianity markets a wide variety of products, from placebo salvation, superiority, and wealth to books, music and video games. Nearly every idea or product ever created has been consumed by Christianity and turned into something profitable, including the Pagan holidays Yuletide, the Spring Equinox, and Samhain–turned into Christmas, Easter, and Halloween respectively, three of the largest moneymaking schemes in the history of mankind. Members of the corporation’s ‘club’ are expected to pay, at the very least, weekly tithes of their paycheck to keep their churches well decorated and run–many churches display such opulent wealth like giant screen TVs, stained glass, ceiling murals, and statues. The more impressive, the better. In fact, according to Avro Manhattan in The Vatican Billions,

“The Catholic church, once all her assets have been put together, is the most formidable stockbroker in the world. The Vatican, independently of each successive pope, has been increasingly orientated towards the U.S. The Wall Street Journal said that the Vatican’s financial deals in the U.S. alone were so big that very often it sold or bought gold in lots of a million or more dollars at one time.

The Vatican’s treasure of solid gold has been estimated by the United Nations World Magazine to amount to several billion dollars. A large bulk of this is stored in gold ingots with the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank, while banks in England and Switzerland hold the rest. But this is just a small portion of the wealth of the Vatican, which in the U.S. alone, is greater than that of the five wealthiest giant corporations of the country. When to that is added all the real estate, property, stocks and shares abroad, then the staggering accumulation of the wealth of the Catholic church becomes so formidable as to defy any rational assessment.

The Catholic church is the biggest financial power, wealth accumulator and property owner in existence. She is a greater possessor of material riches than any other single institution, corporation, bank, giant trust, government or state of the whole globe. The pope, as the visible ruler of this immense amassment of wealth, is consequently the richest individual of the twentieth century. No one can realistically assess how much he is worth in terms of billions of dollars.

Ironically, Christianity, Inc. has stated in press releases such as “The Bible” that its goals on Earth are, in addition to spreading the word of an imaginary figure named “God”, to help the poor. Christianity, Inc. has not responded to requests for comments on why it uses the world’s fortunes to fight homosexuality, abortion and in the past racial and gender equality instead of using the money for purposes such as feeding Africa.

Such hypocrisy is standard with Christianity–Christians often are against measures such as universal healthcare, peace, equality and tolerance listed as goals in their Bible. The corporation is also suspected of administering powerful hallucinogens to their consumers, leading them to see visions of faces in toast and to believe in irrational ideas such as a zombie Prophet, ‘Jesus’, an all-loving all-knowing all-powerful stalker in the clouds too lazy to do anything, and people with wings a.k.a. ‘angels’.

Christianity, Inc. is obviously a serious threat to the global society. I suggest mass layoffs.