The Antichristian Phenomenon

BBC News reports that “religion may become extinct in nine nations” and it seems to be pretty much in lieu with other studies that I’ve seen about religion – atheism is de facto hegemony, particularly in European countries. Even in USA, atheism is on the rise, as fewer and fewer seem to attend church over the years.

However, these kind of studies completely ignore the rising New Age movement, many with a strong flair of what people would classify as religion. Yes, if religion is defined as social movements that must have some sort of clergy and a holy meeting place such a church, then there is no doubt that religion in many Western countries is in decline (on the contrary, the opposite is happening in many Muslim/ex-Communist countries). But people should not count out the New Age movement. I tell you, in a couple of hundred years people will ask what atheism means, where the norm is to perform some type of yoga (particularly the one with the long and complicated name), suggest that the reason why people are ill is because of bad karma and ki levels and that god cannot be dead, since every man and woman is a god.

I often come across statements like the following: “Prove x” or “Prove not x” – most often in the form “Prove God exists” or “Prove God doesn’t exist” (I will be using this example throughout the article). I get a bit tired about this because people do not seem to understand when something can be proven, when it can’t be, what the restrictions of evidence are and when something is a scientific question or not.

Proof yields certainty within a formal system

There is no such thing as proof in the context of every-day life. A proof is something by which we can say something is definitely so, or definitely not so. This means 100% certainty. So how does one get 100% certainty? The history of epistemology, the philosophy of knowledge, seems to indicate that such a thing is impossible with one exception (See Descartes’ meditations) and that in all other cases there is always room for doubt. If that is the case, how can proofs exist, as they should be things by which we attain absolute certainty?

Proofs do exist, but you have to keep in mind that these proofs are derived in the context of a certain framework. Such a framework assumes basic rules and basic truths, from which more truths are derived. We call this framework a formal system (or a logic(al) system). More formally, we say that a formal system has a deductive system, consisting of the basic truths (axioms) and the basic rules (rules of inference). The formal system also has a formal language.

Mathematics as an example of a formal system

This may sound vague, so let’s just take the best example: mathematics. Mathematics is a formal system. Mathematics has a language: it has symbols (e.g. x), numbers (e.g. 1), and operators (e.g. +) and grammar in which these components can occur (e.g. 1+2=3, but not =12+=). Note that 1+4=6 is a mathematical statement, even though it is untrue (which can be proven!) – analogous to this is that “I eat ideas until I am born.” is a grammatically correct sentence, even though a non-sensical one. Mathematics also has a deductive system. This deductive system has axioms (ground truths) such as Peano’s axioms, which describe the ground truths for arithmetic. The deductive system also has inference rules; rules by which other truths can be derived from the ground truths. Note that the ground truths are assumed to be true; they can not be proven within the formal system.

Chess as an example of a formal system

A different and perhaps more appreciable example of a formal system is a game like chess. Chess has a language: these are not symbols like in mathematics, but the chess pieces themselves, and the playing board. The axioms correspond to the starting positions of the pieces. It also has rules for what movements are allowed for what pieces. A configuration of chess pieces can be said to be “grammatically correct” if it can be reached using the movement rules for the various chess pieces. If a configuration is found that can not be reached using the rules for chess, you can say that it is not a chess configuration, just like we can say that =12+= is not a mathematical statement. In this regard chess puzzles are completely equivalent to mathematical problems. Chess being a formal system is the reason a chess game can be described with a string of coded chess notations, and the reason why computers can play chess.

Back to the weird statements people make. When you read that somebody has “proven that God (does not) exist(s)”, you should immediately think the following things:

1. This person is talking about proof, so this person is using a formal system.
2. In this formal system, “God” is a formally defined concept
3. In this formal system, “existence” is a formally defined concept or attribute for formally defined concepts
4. Using the deductive system of the formal system, this person has shown that “God” has the attribute “existence”

But of course, that is never the case. These people confuse the context of the formal system with the context every-day life: e.g. the “God” concept within the formal system with something that exists outside of that formal system. When you are not talking mathematics or logic, chances are small your use of the word ‘proof’ is correct. That also means that somebody who is trying to convince you that God exists, you must not ask him to “prove it”

Evidence never yields certainty, but does not require a formal system

Evidence is very different from proof. Whereas proof gives you certainty about something within a formal system, evidence can never give you any certainty. It only assigns more certainty of the truth to that which it is evidence of. If there is a lot of evidence in favour of a particular idea, and little or no evidence to suggest the opposite, we should assign a large certainty that that idea is true. David Hume communicates this idea concisely in An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding when he writes “A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence”.

Scientific evidence

In a pursuit of understanding the universe, we are quickly moved toward scientific evidence. Scientific evidence is evidence for a scientific concept, and which is in accordance with scientific requirement. Eyewitness testimony is considered important evidence in court, but it is of no value in the scientific community, for reasons of possible bias and the shortcomings of human perception. Therefore, eyewitness testimony is not scientific evidence. This is largely understood, but that it can only pertain to a scientific concept is often forgotten. How often have you heard atheists demand for scientific evidence for God? I even asked for this myself, until I better understood the concepts I am trying to explain in this article.

“Scientific evidence for God” implies that “God” is a scientific concept. This is certainly possible, but depends entirely on what “God” means. I have never seen a clear definition of God, but I do often encounter attributes of this “God”. One of these attributes is omnipotence: the ability to do everything. There are various degrees of omnipotence that are argued over by theologians, but I’ll overlook this for the sake of clarity. I ask you: if God can do anything, what then can count as scientific evidence of God? The answer is either everything or nothing. In both cases, we can learn nothing at all. Omnipotence is an attribute that the domain of science can not deal with. If God has this attribute, then there can exist no scientific evidence for God, and it is therefore ignorant to ask for it.

Recommendations

So what to do? In short, this article argues that if people want to prove God’s existence, they must first define what “God” and “existence” are within a particular formal system. You can safely disregard any so-called proofs that do not explicitly offer this information. I have also argued that there can exist no scientific evidence for any being that is omnipotent. You can safely disregard any so-called scientific evidence for omnipotent beings. What are we left with? That is something for theists to solve. It seems that “God” is such an obscure concept that, if it possibly exists, it bears little to no resemblance to the entities described in various holy books. Until new information is released, I shall remain an unimpressed non-theist.

After c0nsulting a little with Waldheri I decided to edit this post properly to make it more cohesive and actually present the problem at hand in a more focused light. This article will deal with the problem of Christianity’s belief that God is an omnipresent being and how it contradicts Descartes’ argument of the seperation of mind and body and that Christianity is in fact, not a monotheism but a pantheism.

Anyway, let’s start off in the beginning with Genesis and the creation of the Earth:
“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”
Genesis 1:1
Nowhere does it say that God made “the heavens and the earth” out of any form of matter. This passage has in turn made the assumption that there was nothing in the universe before God’s Creation, as it is a “beginning”, before God’s Creation there was nothing. Obviously God, while omnipotent, cannot make something out of matter which doesn’t exist, so let’s just ignore that for a while and assume that it is possible that God can make matter out of nothing and that he popped the Earth out from his arse (we are in fact God’s diviniely poo!) and thus, the Earth is created. Without the need of overquoting Genesis, it is made clear that God made the Earth into what it is today and that we are all a part of God’s creation:
So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.
Genesis 1:27

Therefore that we can draw the conclusions that not only is the Earth immaterial but also supernatural, and that God is indeed everywhere, and in humans too:

In bringing many sons to glory, it was fitting that God,
for whom and through whom everything exists,
should make the author of their salvation perfect through suffering.
Hebrew 2:10

This idea strongly disagrees with the Cartesian dualism, formed to explain the relationship of God and humans, because in Descartes’ philosophy it is not possible that the body in this case, can have a two-way relationship with the mind. But if this is not true, then it is not possible for God to be everywhere and everything and this obviously directly questions God’s omnipotence.

Now, what defines Pantheism is that there must be a force, almighty or not, present everywhere and in everything and this force should be conscious and even preferrebly, sentient. This very much agrees with the Christian God, because we are shown that God is very well possible to make demands and have emotions on his own. For example maybe the one of the most blatant examples are the 10 Commandments where God more or less demands his followers to live after these rules or they will be cast into eternal Hellfire:

1 And God spoke all these words:

2 “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.

3 “You shall have no other gods before ^[a] me.

4 “You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything
in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below.

5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them;
for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children
for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,

6 but showing love to a thousand {generations}
of those who love me and keep my commandments.

7 “You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.

8 “Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy.

9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work,

10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God.
On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter,
nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals,
nor the alien within your gates.

11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth,
the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day.
Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

12 “Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the LORD your God is giving you.

13 “You shall not murder.

14 “You shall not commit adultery.

15 “You shall not steal.

16 “You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.

17 “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife,
or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”
Exodus 20:1-17

God even states himself that he is a “jealous God”, I guess we must congratulate him in his truthfulness. Now, the hardest concept to maybe grasp would be that of the universe not being physical as Descartes claims it to be. The reason I have already mentioned before, namely that if God is a supernatural force, then God is also nonphysical, and since the universe is a part of God himself, then the universe too, is of nonphysical and supernatural matter. Therefore the only conclusion can be that Descartes made a false dichotomy based upon the assumption that our universe is made out of physical matter. But, but, isn’t it made physical as in that we can touch and feel it? Yes, indeed we can, but it doesn’t matter if we assume that the physical is actually sprung out of the nonphysical and even less so if assuming the physical and the nonphysical is the same or if there is a heavy communication between the two where we cannot discern when the physical ends and the nonphysical begins. Descartes’ argument rather means that there can be no communication between and therefore even the slightest union is thus, impossible. However, as shown, there is a great flaw in his logic as presented above which he failed to see, even though he based his entire theory upon Christianity itself and its dualism. Christianity is not a dualism, it’s a monism and even more it is a pantheism and not a monotheism as has been previously believed. While certainly the idea of monotheism is supported in Pantheism too, thanks to the Trinity, it actually matters little since the focus no longer lies on the Trinity and in the existence of Jesus being God’s son. This becomes rather self-evident if we are to understand that God is omnipresent and as such, we can go even a step further and argue that Christianity actually believes us to be our own personal gods since God is indeed inside of us, and this gives us the power and will to use the God inside of us to do as what we see fit; hopefully into making our environment a little nicer to live in for others.

Was this better Waldheri? I am still waiting for your reply.

Atheists and other non-theists/non-Christians across the blogosphere are struggling with a difficult question: what do you tell a child about God and religion? And now, a particular and even more difficult question: what do you tell a young child dealing with death?

Friendly Atheist pointed to this dilemma, with his post on the subject (you can see my response to his post and to the general question below), and a link to an article in which a writer talks about a friend who brings up the question of children and death. He writes:

My colleague Margaret Watson warnend me against filling Zoe’s young head with Godless thoughts. Margaret’s dad died when she was nine, and her faith was a great comfort for her, because she could believe that he was waiting for her in heaven. “And, being Catholic,” she said, “It meant that there was still someone I could call Father.” I can’t argue with that. You’d have to be a brutally militant atheist to tell an orphaned child that we die and that’s it.

So what do you tell a child about God and death? Do you treat it like Santa, and risk turning them into a theist? Do you let them figure it out on their own? Do you answer with brutal honesty?

I’d like to offer my own answers, as well as invite the other writers here to answer them, in this post.

Blue Linchpin: I think telling a child a lie to make them feel better will do nothing but cause more grief later on. It’s better for a child to learn to deal with death and grief early, instead of lying and delaying the inevitable. It will only result in the child losing trust in their parents and adults, and having to deal with the loss anyways. I don’t think refusing to lie to a child and cause more pain later on is horrible and militant atheism. What’s the best solution? Honesty, I think. “I don’t know” is probably the best answer, and letting the child know that this is how life works but that their parent WILL continue to live on in certain ways: if I were a parent trying to explain this, I would tell them that the dead parent has become a part of everything within the world, from the air to the trees to the ground, and that they continue to live on in this way, and be with us, even if we can’t see them. This would probably instill respect for the world and all things while comforting them and allowing them to deal with death realistically. Neither is it a lie: naturally our bodies recycle and become a part of the world, though unfortunately this is slowed thanks to pointless burial traditions.

Db0: A child does not need to be told fairy tales to pacify it and it’s doubtful that having the fairytale of heaven will do much to help this going. If the concept of heaven was enough to avoid sadness, you wouldn’t see all the people in religious funerals crying their soul out, but rather, they would be celebrating their brothers and sisters going to “a better place”. There’s also the fact that the child might grow even more sad if they think their loved ones might go to Hell instead. Just imagine if the child later on in life learned of a “mortal sin” which is certain to take you to hell and that their loved one used to do?

Personally I would take an Epicurean view on this subject. You can expain easily that all humans eventually cease to live, one way or another. But that should not necessarily be a matter of sadness. As long as one’s life has been good, then they have already been rewarded by the mere act of living. And if their life has not been good, then at least this unpleasant existence has ceased for them.

We, the ones that remain, can always keep them alive in our memory and remember and enjoy the good times we used to have. Being sad about the good time we may have had in the future is nothing more than self-punishment.

Waldheri

It’s a hard question of course, and one that I think has been an ally to feel-good superstition for as long as human history. One answered in countless ways to ease the grief of family and friends. I don’t see any reason to infatuate in the modern religious notions associated with death, or even any good reason to ease the grief of death. Death <b>is</b> the end, and should not be downplayed to something less bad, or imagined as only a part of existence. People say death is a part of life. It isn’t, it is the end of it, it’s opposite. Some superstitions, including Christianity’s, make death almost something to look forward to – the perfection of heaven as opposed to this flawed physical world. Not a very good thing at all, something that can even make people blow themselves up given enough false promises. No, death is bad and we should all realise it. Even if life isn’t always rewarding, it trumps the emptiness of death. Existence here and now is all we have, and we should make the best of it. Only because of our actions in human life we have a chance that the idea of us will be immortal. When person X dies and a child asks “Where has X gone?” I can only answer “Away. X does not exist outside of us anymore. X only exists in our memory of X. Even though we will never make new memories of X again, X will remain a part of us.” It is the best thing we can offer as a comfort for the loss of somebody.

It’s been a slow time over at the ACP. Unfortunately there doesn’t seem to be much of an activity going on around here. Perhaps I should get my cat ‘o nine tails ready to provide some…incentive.

Fortunately, in this slow period, someone decided to send us an email to explain why we go wrong. This is a historical moment as we haven’t actually received any such thing until now. I think it deserves a post of its own.

Our contact is Jonathon who by now has sent two different emails. He seems to be open to communication so in the spirit of openess, I will post the discussion here so that they rest of you might join in. I will provide the email as it was sent with my replies (which I’ve already sent back) in between. Feel free to comment on any part you wish. (more…)

In the previous installment of this series I ended at the destruction of Sodom. The rest of Genesis contains some stories about the descendants of Abraham down to Jacob, father of twelve sons who would later become the fathers of the twelve Israeli tribes living in Egypt that would later find themselves enslaved: Prepair for the book of Exodus.

However, before we enter Moses, I’d like to write out some general conclusions I have made from reading Genesis. These mainly concern the biblical god (“God”). Although Christians often portray him as an altruist, the god I’ve read about is definitely not. He appoints Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as his servants and demands they act like it if they want the Lord to help them. We’ll see the same kind of egoism in Exodus, but that’s for later. The thing I was annoyed with the most in Genesis is that right in the first book it is made clear that one is not to question the Lord. The stories of the Flood and Abraham almost sacrificing his son illustrate this very well. Noach and Abraham never stop to think about the motives of this authority figure. Questioning authority is a cornerstone in skeptical freethinking. I will also note that God will make damn sure that he gets his fix of destruction while still upholding a forgiving and good-willed façade. God: “I will not utterly destroy a city if just ONE of its inhabitants is innocent of crimes I will not disclose! … Quick, Job, get out so I can destroy the city!”

Enter Moses
I’m sure you’ve heard the story. The pharao has commanded all first-borns to be killed, but Moses’ mother hides her baby in a basket along the bank of the Nile. The pharao’s daughter takes little Moses in and so he is able to grow up. After killing an Egyptian for beating a Hebrew he flees to Midian where he is taken in by Reuel/Jethro and is given Zipporah, one of Jethro’s daughters, as his wife. Some time passes before god has satisfied his sadistic needs and decided it’s time to free “his people” – meaning those unlucky enough to have born in one of the Israeli tribes, having to undergo genital mutilation after birth – and Moses is appointed his side-kick. Moses fears he lacks charismatic skills and God agrees and commends Aaron to join his brother Moses. Moses, his wife Zipporah and his children travel to Egypt. Along the way, the famous foreskin incident takes place, in which Moses is saved from God’s wrath by his son’s foreskin.

Exodus 4:24-26
At a lodging place on the way, the LORD met {Moses} and was about to kill him. But Zipporah took a flint knife, cut off her son’s foreskin and touched {Moses’} feet with it. “Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me,” she said. So the LORD let him alone.

Magic and God’s sick hunger for death
Instead of sitting down and talking like adults, Moses and Aaron are sent by God to show off some magic in the hopes of impressing the pharaoh. It becomes clear freeing the Israeli slaves is not the main objective for God: He simply feel likes showing of his mad skillz (Exodus 6:3-4). And so the show begins. God starts off with his weak staff-into-snake routine the pharaoh’s sorcerers (yes, that’s what it says!) are able to replicate. The water-into-blood routine was likewise equalled by the pharaoh’s magicians. The same happens for the plague of frogs. Finally God brought something new into his act, and transformed the dust into gnats through his proxies Moses and Aaron. Still, the pharaoh didn’t let the Israeli people go. Flies ensued and boils that plagued men and cattle alike. The pharaoh began to understand he was no match for God, but God made sure he could continue his sadistic act until the very end by preventing the pharaoh let the people go (Exodus 9:12).

And so God enjoyed himself greatly, raining hail down on Egypt. “Go to Pharaoh, for I have hardened his heart and the hearts of his officials so that I may perform these miraculous signs of mine among them that you may tell your children and grandchildren how I dealt harshly with the Egyptians and how I performed my signs among them, and that you may know that I am the LORD.” God says in Exodus 10:1-2. The heavenly maniac hasn’t performed his biggest act yet, and among the locusts and darkness he makes sure the pharaoh doesn’t spoil it (Exodus 10:20, 10:27, 11:10). Having made sure it would get this far, God now feels it is time to bring out the fireworks, and kills off all the innocent people who happened to have been the first to leave the womb. God breaks his spell of the pharaoh’s mind and the Israelites are free to go.

God had one more trick up his sleeve, however. By making sure the pharaoh decides to hunt after the Israelites (Exodus 14:4), he can perform one more miracle for the world – a last violent encore to add to the slaughter already committed. He made sure the Israelites didn’t choose the shortest path to the promised land; hell, there wouldn’t be a sea to split along that way! And so, even after the Egyptian slaughter, god’s hunger for death was finally stilled when he drowned the Egyptians after making sure the Israelites were able to traverse the Red Sea.

And returning to my opening paragraph, Exodus accounts again for the fact that God is not altruist at all. As if the gratification of his hunger wasn’t enough, the price for freeing the Hebrew slaves from Egypt was high: God demanded all the firstborn male that would see the light of life thereafter, men and cattle alike, to be his property. This means sacrifice, people. But not to worry, God will make sure you’re kids are fine – for the right price, tha tis. “Redeem with a lamb every firstborn donkey, but if you do not redeem it, break its neck. Redeem every firstborn among your sons.” (Exodus 13:13)

Next up in Reading the Bible Part 3: Commandments and laws

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’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…)

Fred Phelps has released a video on George Carlin.

George Carlin is now in Hell. And it is not relevant that George Carlin boasted that he does not believe in Hell when he lived on earth. He believes in Hell now. Like the rich man that the Lord Jesus told about in Luke 16, who died and in Hell he lifted up his eyes being in torments and he cried, “Lord Abraham have mercy on me, and send Lazarus the beggar on earth, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am tormented in flame.” Luke 16:23,24. When told that he could not have a drop of water, forever, though tormented in flames, he begged somebody to rise from the dead  to preach to his kinfolk, thus they also die and come to his place of torment. George Carlin the filthy blasphemer, the obscene pottymouth skeptic, agnostic and profane atheist had nothing but disdain for God and the Bible, all the days of his tragic life is at this minute and and forever writhing and screaming in exquisite pain, pleading for mercy from that God he flipped off while performing for HBO [Luker?]. Carlin made lots of money making fun of god, now he must deal with God face to face forever. The Lord the God repayeth them that hate him to their face, to destroy them, he will not be slapped to them that hateth him, he will repay him to his face. Deut. 7:10.  When Carlin died June the twenty-second, he split hell wide open at once, as it is written, “Hell from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming. It stirreth up the dead for thee. All they shall speak and say unto thee: art thou also become weak as we ‘George Carlin?’ The worm is spread unto thee, and the worms cover thee. Isaiah 14:9,10. Two of his fellow perverts scrambled to report the news, both of whom who will no doubt in due time will join Carlin and his buddies in hell, with the lying propaganda-man Keith Olberman and Jerry Seinfeld. All of these and more are typical anti-Christic American loudmouths and spindoctors! Westboro Baptist Church exists to publish Gospel truth and thereby to expose Satanic lies. George Carlin is in hell, deal with it! You will soon join him there, America is doomed! We will picket George Carlin’s funeral.

…Well! Watching that video and attempting to transcribe it certainly unsettled my stomach. It also brought up some interesting points about the extreme right and Fundamentalist ideas.

Sometimes I wonder why Christians can consistently deny the truth and evidence without weakening at all. How can they look at the truth and still believe what they believe? The answer is in Fred Phelp’s words–Christians believe that anything that goes against the Bible was simply put there by Satan to challenge their beliefs, and no matter how true it may seem, it’s still a satanic lie.

If you think about it, it’s ingenious, and in my opinion the Church’s sole reason for still existing. The Church and Bible created a near perfect argument to keep those already in their clutches staying there. Because if someone already believes the Church’s lies, they’ll just believe that anything that challenges their beliefs, anything they don’t want to believe, isn’t true for that reason. It stops critical thinking before it begins. Really ingenious–you have to give credit to the intelligence of those who have managed to claw their way out of the Church’s clutches.

Fred Phelp’s frothing speech on hell, torture and blasphemers also brought up a fun little point. Anyone who believes in the idea of ‘hell’ is denying their own belief of an all-loving, omnipotent God. A common argument I hear in response to, ‘If God really loves us, why would he send us to Hell? Especially just because we’ve never heard of him?” is that when we sin, we put ourselves in Satan’s power.

Wait just one second. I thought God was all-powerful. If he’s all powerful, all loving and merciful, no one would go to Hell. Simple as that.

But Christians continue to cling to their narrow-minded beliefs of Hell. You can just hear Fred Phelps relishing the idea of George Carlin roasting in Hell–Fundies are sadistic, to say the least. They enjoy the idea of those who disagree with them enduring eternal torture, and even more so they enjoy putting the image in young and impressionable children.

Family values? Yea right.

It was quite a surprise. At the moment I let the last breath pass my lips, I thought it was the end. Although it scared me that life was all over, I also cherished the moments I have had and looked back one final time and then died with a smile on my face. If I still had control over that carnal container, that smile would have disappeared quickly enough. I was confronted with the fact that I had been wrong, and now I was going to be judged by Him. “Hell” – It sounded much like those annoyed people behind counters who said “Next”. Like many souls before me, two angelic figures stepped forward to drag me away. In the execution of their razzia fiercely I protested.

They told me I could not enter heaven, because I had not accepted Jesus as my saviour. I understood, but how can I be judged for something I didn’t do? Do you put people in jail for not donating money to a good cause? Would you condemn people for not being an active member in a group that vouches for equal rights? They told me I had been warned what would happen if I didn’t do it, and that I still had made the choice not to accept The High One’s son. But how could it have been a choice? If I would have known the claims to be true, it would have been quite stupid of me to neglect it – but it would not have been a choice, but rather a necessity if I didn’t want to go to hell. Pascal’s wager is not about true conviction, but about fake faith opportunism. I had never felt inclined to show any respect for threats, especially those in the like of eternal punishment. What kind of love is that which when unaccepted will result in torture? It is not a choice I was given; it was a threat at gunpoint: Accept or feel the wrath. How can a god who on earhtly planes is praised for his benevolence resort to such dire measures? Does my contribution to humanity through my work as a medical engineer not count in this tribunal? Has my abstinence of violent behaviour not earned me any grants at all? I pretend not to be holy, but black hearted I am certainly not.

What insignificant test is life at all in the light of eternity? Do they think I can not conform to their ways, if ever it came so far that I was willing to sell my soul for entrance to heaven? And how does not being granted acces to heaven equate with torture, fire and brimstone? Have they not heard of the golden middle path? A place to dwell without having to conscript to the Heavenly Reign, and without having to feel the licking flames of the burning lake? Nay, I was quickly answered. What simple-minded dualism is this model for justice, if it can be called justice at all? And now I had a better understanding of the phrase “The road to hell is paved with good intentions”, for He does not care for all the good you have done. Judgement awaits not to review who you are, what you have done, and how you have behaved; but solely on whether you have bent to the will of that high dictator.

At my realisation of the rampant fascism of heaven’s governor, I was proud to find out that every day I had spent on earth I had unknowingly thwarted that mighty tyrant. At the edge of that cliff I had no remorse. They threw me in that fiery pit, and I smiled.