To say that, maybe the second most important (after Easter?) Christian holiday has a pagan symbolism is beyond thinkable for most “holy” people. Of course, I always regard Christmas as another Christian scheme- turning the pagan solstice celebration into the birth of Christ. By the way, what evidence is there ? As of the rest of Christianity’s claims: NONE !!!!
Anyway, this article tries to reconcile some views and give a different perspective on generally accepted things.
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.
In the previous article I made references to this site: http://www.everystudent.com/, which brings forth new and modern “arguments” for the existence of god, and why is Jesus the only way for eternal happiness.
This second part is centered on two main aspects: the nature of the Christian faith and the incredible and grotesque lie in the context of Christianity- “free will”.
For me, this says it all about the TRUE nature of the Christians and their “faith”. So, it is not about being happy, altruistic, finding peace in your heart, adhering to a lifestyle that would give you joy. It is exactly the opposite. It is about forcing yourself to believe something and to adhere to some rules that don’t have any meaning to you, struggling daily with natural urges that you try to deny and blame on “the Devil”, a ville oppression against your own mind and spirit, and, most of all, a speculative and opportunistic way of living.
You heard right: Christianity is the most egoistic, opportunistic and oppressive of beliefs. It has nothing to do with “compassion, love, altruism”. The true essence of Christianity is as follows: give up your own beliefs, your own free thought, your own mind and bodily urges in order to adhere to a belief system, to some external rules and thinking ways, written in an ancient book. Why? Because it is SAFER ! Because you don’t want to risk going to hell or whatever after you die.
In my opinion, this is the worse case of weakness and of fear of taking responsibility for your actions. Ever since Pascal brought into discussion his (in)famous wager, it has since been used by Christians as a POWERFUL and INDESTRUCTIBLE argument for believing in their god.
Of course, the infantile nature of this argument is so evident that it is more like a source of humor and comedy, than an argument of any kind. The Christians have the incredible courage to say that (even if they were to accept the obvious- that there is no proof for the biblical claims) there is a 50% chance for their god to be existent and that it is a safer bet to accept him in order to avoid eternal punishment. What the Christians forget (or maybe don’t know, since many like to live in ignorance, as a requirement of their christ) are the other thousands of religions that have the same roots and similar myths, just like Christianity. And many also appeared way before the bible did. So why is this Jehowa more special than other gods? The real chance for the Christian god to exist (if we were to accept this wager) is actually somewhere around 0.001%.
Another outraging thing about this way of thinking is that Christians claim that “if there is no god, they have really lost nothing”. And here is where I ask: what about those countless and worthless hours of worship, the fact that you denied what you loved the most, that you let go of your true convictions in order to become the slave of some nebulous beliefs and of a system demanded by an idol, non-existent god ? That sounds pretty much like ruining your spiritual integrity, and still you say that you have nothing to lose.
Anyway, back to my point: the Christian moral system and faith, although it may look shiny and polished on the outside (to some, at least) is no more than a rotten carrion on the inside. A terminal disease for your mind, not a cure. You are actually forcing yourself to engage in acts that have no meaning to you. The so-called good deeds are really nothing but shallow, heartless acts, done out of fear.
Well, this was really (initially) a desperate attempt to explain the fact that people engage in harming acts, even though they were supposedly created in a perfect world, by a perfect creator. Even worse, a noble and vital aspect in a person’s development- free will- that is being in control of your mind in order to follow your own path and build your own system in life, is systematically turned into a weapon that inflicts guilt. Because our evil free-will, we keep bringing plagues upon this world. It is because our free-will, because we do not let the Great Nonexistent govern us and because we want to follow our OWN belief-system in life, that natural disaster, wasting diseases, famine, deaths etc happen. If someone is dying painfully from a terrible disease, remember that WE are responsible for it, because we use our free will to refuse to subscribe to jesus.
That’s how Christianity works, and that’s what free-will is in Christian teachings- the greatest source of evil.
Of course, these theologians still want us to think that god is reasonable, he is a democratic ruler, not some tyrant who rules with an iron fist, but a permissive god who lets us choose if we want to follow him or not, to believe in him, or not. Yet, immediately afterward, they offer another example, of what will happen to those who do not follow god- that is they will burn…in HELL !!!! This makes Stalin, for example, look like a very sympathetic figure indeed. He didn’t force anyone to adhere to the misery creating fantasy of a system that he brought. You could have easily chosen to be a dizident those days. Of course, you might have also very well ended up in the Gulag, along with your whole family as a result of this. The Christian god is no different than this. How can anyone have the nerve to talk about you being allowed free will, as long as there is a gun pointed towards your head ?
In conclusion, free will and Christianity are two aspects that can never be put in the same room. For us irreligious people, free will is the boosting engine for our own mental progress. In Christianity, free will is the root of all evil.
Anyway, that’s all for today. I don’t know if there will be any third part to this. I’ll keep on writing more articles independent from this “under siege thing”.
PS: Myth on the same step with the law of gravitation ? HAHAHAHAHA
In case you haven’t noticed, the voting for the Golden Crocoduck award is now running.
I can’t say much that the video does not say by itself. Basically you can cast your vote for the person who you believe is the biggest Liar for Jesus, where you can define “biggest” as the most ballsy, ridiculous, funny or whatever.
Unfortunately the format of the poll is kinda unwieldy as you’re supposed to leave your vote as a comment in the video (the one embedded) and the votes will be tallied. There’s much better ways to conduct a poll than this.
I’ve made a little poll for this as it might be a little more useful than the comments of a youtube vid and plus you can have a bit more organization. Unfortunately I can’t tell all the nominees from the vids (some don’t have names, some are not clear) and I can’t be bollocksed to link to every individual vid now (almost 4 am here). Perhaps tomorrow. Feel free to suggest any names I forgot and I will add them.
Oh, and since we’re on the subject of votes, I thought I’d mention that the Blogger’s choice awards are ending in a few weeks and Non-Christians are nowhere near the top of the Best Religion Blog. So hurry up and cast your vote.
I will first provide definitions of the three words I used in the title. I will use Wikipedia as a source for the definitions, because I think the dictionary definitions I have seen are too short to encompass what they mean. I put more trust in the encyclopedic definition more or less agreed on by the collective conciousness that manifests itself on Wikipedia.
Religion:
A religion is a set of beliefs and practices, often centered upon specific supernatural and moral claims about reality, the cosmos, and human nature, and often codified as prayer, ritual, or religious law. Religion also encompasses ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and religious experience.
Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning “knowledge”) is the effort to discover, understand, or to understand better, how the physical world works, with observable physical evidence as the basis of that understanding.
From their definitions alone one would not immediately suspect that these three come into contact with eachother. I need not remind you how the religionists (forgive my lack of a better word) have clashed with the scientists in deciding whether to teach creationism or intelligent design (which was ruled to be the same in this court case, so I will use the terms interchangeably) in public schools – which I will use as the primary example in this article, tiring as it may be. There are more interactions between these three than just collisions. There have been allegements, both explicit and implicit by the religious that I want to examine and, to be frank, tear down. Without going into the actual issue, I just want to make a few remarks about trends that I have seen.
First of all I want to talk about the religionists attempts to put the stamp of “science” on their ideas. This does not only concern creationism: rather a lot of Christians are trying to wedge in the idea that their claims about the bible, human nature and the universe are backed up by (scientific) evidence. These religionists’ reasons for this may be apparent: in convincing non-believers of their found “truth”, whacking them around the ears with a bible or qur’an does not work any more in these modern times. Rather than convincing people of the messages in their holy scriptures, they are convincing people that their supernatural claims are compatible with the world perspective science offers, or worse: that their supernatural claims are actually the product of science. Anyone who has ever really dealt with science would immediately remember that (in science) the bible and the qur’an are not accepted sources of information for reasons so plethoric I deem it unnecessary to mention any of them.
Secondly I want to talk about the religionists’ attempt to put the stamp of “religion” or “politics” on science. The argument that science is just another faith or religion is well-known. The question whether science is religion has been answered eloquently by Richard Dawkins (among others) in this article, concluding that science is “free of the main vice of religion, which is faith” and that even though nothing can epistemically be defended for a hundred percent, there is a “difference in the world between a belief that one is prepared to defend by quoting evidence and logic and a belief that is supported by nothing more than tradition, authority, or revelation.”
Science has also been bombarded as a political system with an agenda. Coined terms like “evolutionists” or “Darwinism” are the incarnations of these attacks. The terms don’t maky any sense at all, as the former merely seems to be a response to the term “creationists”. Calling someone an “evolutionist” accurately implies that that person accept evolution, but it is void of additional meaning when compared to “scientist”. Anyone who accepts science, automatically accepts all scientific concepts, including evolution. The word “evolutionists” would only make sense if there were people who do not accept science, but do accept evolution – which is silly.
The word “Darwinism” more explicit in it’s attempt to ascribe political load to the concept of evolution. More recently “Darwinism” has unapologetically been abused in the “documentary” Expelled as an inspiration for the Nazis, and subsequently, the holocaust. It is nasty blow below the belt and an unacceptable, blatantly misleading lie to the public. The line of reasoning involved in this conclusion hinges on basic misunderstandings of religion (a very illustrative one being that if Hitler was truly inspired by evolution, he would have needed to do nothing as evolution dictates that the better “race” prevails automatically). More importantly, it should be noted that there is no such thing is Darwinism. If there would be, then where is Einsteinism or Newtonism? “Darwinism”, like “evolutionist” is void.
It all seems like religionists are trying to divide science, putting the same scientific principles under different sounding categories, and then attacking these categories. They forget that science works under the assumptions that there is one universe (or “truth”) and that laws that describe that universe do not change with time or space. Therefore, science is a single, solid system. It is not at all like the macrocosmic variety of religions, varying (in time and space) from Zoroastrianism and Taoism to Christianity and the Norse pantheon, or the microcosm of one such religion such as Christianity, varying (again in time and space) from Mormonism and the Seventh Day Adventists to Catholicism and Protestantism).
I can only conclude that the religious are very desperately looking for measures to get what they want. It includes trying to level with the successful unity that is science and it’s foundation “reason”, either by trying to portray themselves as scientific or by making up sections of science which they attack with slanderous lies. Also resorting to claims that science has been infiltrated by the immoral godless who are purposely hiding the truth and demanding “equality” have luckily not had any legal support. I guess they also fail to realise that the high percentage of atheists in the scientific community is a product of the amounted knowledge and understanding of the universe that does not require a god.
I urge nobody to give into the usage of words like “evolutionist”, “Darwinist” or any other void description of what it is supposed to represent. We, as scientists, atheists, humanists, and freethinkers must keep an eye out for these kinds of religious political motives to safeguard the secular stronghold insofar it exists today and potentially exists tomorrow.
The Antichristian Phenomenon
Loading ...
