dragonlugia: Religion

Satanism and Black Magic

Tue, 27 Nov 2007 02:06:03 GMT

I've been reading a book about "the world's most evil cults", the first section of which covers "Satan in the Sixties". And I gotta say, satanists really are sickos. I'm not talking about symbollic satanists or people just into the imagery and so on. I mean real satanists and black magicians who worship evil for evil's sake.

It was actually quite disappointing to read about these people. Like serial killers, most of them are just sex maniacs. How boring, and plain disgusting. The worst of them also prance around nude, sacrifice small animals in the dead of night, take drugs, and occasionally abuse some dumb victim they managed to trick into their midst. It just seems so stupid to me. They're nothing but a bunch of perverts with no self control.

The suprising thing was that the organisation known as "The Church of Satan" actually seemed very civilised compared to the descriptions of the smaller cult groups. The Church of Satan falls into my category of symbollic satanists. Their black masses are harmless. Sure, they may use naked women as the altar, but it's just a symbol that theirs is a religion of the flesh, not the divine. They hurl curses upon people, but don't actually abuse anyone. And their lifestyle is just one of selfishness, like pretty much every other human on the planet only these guys make a point of trying not to be hypocrites.

Real satanists and black magicians do try to hurt people. They keep tight circles of secrecy, threatening punishments to members who should dare stray once initiated. It's dangerous to the members who join without knowing what they're getting themselves into, and it's dangerous to victims who may find themselves at the heart of the perverted rituals.

As an asexual, I'm probably more likely to be disgusted by the whole thing. But what I've noticed reading this cult book and the murderer book is that the worst of humanity centres around sex. People lose control over it, fight for it, kill for it, combine the whole thing with drugs and run around under the name of an evil religion as if that somehow makes them more legitimate. No wonder people tried to be so strict in the old days.

On the other hand, I have no problem with Wiccans and their 'white magic'. Theirs truly is an ancient religion, whereas satanism is very much post-Christian. Satan was only thought to be evil once Christianity reinterpreted his role as 'the accuser', and many satanists heavily feature Christian symbols as a form of mockery. I'm sure there are many other black magic sects who don't use such symbols and they stink too, but satanists in particular hold no credibility in my eyes. Wiccans are much more sensible, controlled, and respectable people, even though like other religions I still think they're loony.

I think my only protests about Wicca are the commercialisation of their practices and the fact that it inevitably attracts the perverted who go on to change from white magic to black magic. I hold great respect for any white witch who makes their own supplies as Wiccans once must have done. I hold great disdain for those who get into witchcraft for all the wrong reasons, seeking to manipulate the world for their own ends, and inevitably sinking into black magic for the purpose of self-gratification.

So obviously now, I hold much more suspicion against satanism as a whole. I'm much more interested in the symbollic and imagery-based elements of the left-hand path, but the fact that such disgusting cults exist is enough to make me especially cautious in the future. It's sad, because the darkness holds some truly inspiring themes such as rejection, despair and redemption. But these sick people come along, claim Satan and Evil as their masters, and try to completely soil and spoil the potential of the dark.

Some people should just be shot.

GodHatesGoths.com

Wed, 14 Nov 2007 23:52:16 GMT

What a relief! If www.religioustolerance.org is right, then godhatesgoths.com is just a dumb parody. Still, there's not much really reliable info about it, not even on wikipedia (shock! horror!) so we'll just have to cross our fingers on this one.

Heres the section from http://www.religioustolerance.org/goth.htm

-------------

Anti-Goth parody web site:

Please do not read the next six paragraphs unless you
have a strong stomach, are slow to anger, and are over 18.

GodHatesGoths.com is apparently a lampoon web site written from an exaggerated fundamentalist Christian point of view. They present themselves as the official website of an apparently non-existent organization "Parents Against Goth" headed by a fictional character, Rev. R. G. Green. He writes: "I hope you will find much comfort in the message of hope and inspiration our website offers."

He quotes the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) and its list of crimes for which the penalty is death: Witchcraft, Satanism, Divination, spell casting, acting as a medium, rebellion against one's parents, blasphemy, worshiping Gods other than Yahweh, disrespecting a member of the clergy. He implies that these prohibitions and their punishment by execution are still valid today.

He interprets the Bible as condemning to Hell all Buddhists, Goths, Hindus, Jews, Satanists, Wiccans, as well as children who die young or individuals who are challenged mentally. Aborted fetuses will also "burn in Hell."

They conclude:

"GOD ALSO DETESTS RETARDS. DOWN SYNDROME, CEREBAL [sic] PALSY, THALIDOMIDES [sic], DWARFISM, SPINA BIFIDA, AND OTHER CREATURES SPASTIC RETARDATIONS ARE REPULSIVE TO GOD. THE BIBLE STATES QUITE CLEARLY THAT THESE TWISTED LIMBLESS MONSTERS SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED ANYWHERE NEAR A CHURCH, AS THEY ARE UNCLEAN AND REPULSIVE TO GOD. THEY ARE AN ABOMINATION. THEY HAVE MINDS OF SUCH A REPROBATE NATURE THAT THEY ARE GIVEN TO SEXUALLY GRATIFYING THEMSELVES IN PUBLIC, AND ARE NOTHING MORE THAN SLOBBERING STAMMERING ANIMALS. WHY SHOULD THEY GET THE BEST CARE? GET GRANTS TO BUILD RAMPS FOR THEM? WHEELCHAIRS? PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT? IF GOD DID NOT INTEND THEM TO WALK, LET THEM CRAWL LIKE THE SNAKES THEY ARE."

"GOTHS ARE PROUD OF THEIR SIN, PROUD TO PARADE AROUND LIKE SICK HALLOWEEN FREAK-SHOWS, PROUD TO DEGRADE THEIR BODIES WITH TATTOOS AND PIERCINGS, PROUD TO ENGAGE IN FILTHY SEXUAL PERVERSIONS, AND IN THAT PRIDEFUL STATE THEY CANNOT REPENT - YOU CANNOT REPENT OF SOMETHING YOU'RE PROUD OF. PRIDE IS ONE OF THE 7 ABOMINABLE SINS WHICH ARE HATED BY GOD."

"THE GOTHS' ONLY HOPE IS TO HAVE THE UNAMBIGUOUS TRUTH PREACHED TO THEM, AND PERHAPS GOD WILL SOFTEN THEIR HEARTS AND GRANT THEM REPENTANCE TO DEPART FROM THEIR SIN AND NAME THE NAME OF CHRIST. NOT VERY LIKELY, THOUGH, SINCE GOD HAS GIVEN UP ON THEM. HE HAS ABANDONED THEM. HE SHALL MOCK THEM WHEN THEY SUFFER, AND LAUGH AT THEIR DEMISE. WHEN A GOTH DIES, GOD LAUGHS."

God Hates Goths

Wed, 14 Nov 2007 08:55:02 GMT

www.godhatesgoths.com

I may write more about this later, but for now...

This is what I wanted to write on his guest book, except that it was too long to be accepted. Enjoy.

_____________

It must be nice to be so utterly convinced of your superiority. Despite all the hate in your heart, I'm sure you love your life because you think you'll go to heaven. I know you're a fundamentalist who believes in a firey hell, but modern interpretation says that hell is the absence of god, and since god doesn't exist, we are all already in hell. So yes, our world is in decay. And you are a prime example of that decay.

You'll ignore me for sure, or in the off chance you reply, I know it will only be to attack me. For that reason, I am glad I am in a different country on this spherical planet. Not even the television show '24' features torture as bad as that which you suggest should be used. And your sadistic attitude truly is sickening.

Other people who have written to you have brought this up, but hell, the hate you attempt to spread through this website is inspiring. So I shall do some name calling. You woman bashing, child abuse advocate. You hate Jews and blacks, yet claim you are against the Nazis. You're a real comedian. If anyone is a stereotypical satanic goth, it is you. And let me get this straight, you're so anti-abortion that you'd rather let 'retards' be born so you can pick on them. Make up your mind. Otherwise, go find a less contradictory religious text to live by.

Anyway, as all the horrified 'guests' here have made clear, you are sorely mistaken about goth culture. I hope this website is all just a joke, but I'm guessing it isn't. You're just another reason for me to turn to the darkness. Who wants a light that is as cruel as yours?

All that said, I don't want to sound like a hater. I like crazy people like you. Otherwise the world would be even more boring than it already is. But Tom Cruise is still at the top of my list for nutters. You only count as a mild amusement.

By the way, you're so convinced that witchcraft exists. What happened to the idea of an all-powerful god? You're admitting that witches have power and confirming the beliefs of wiccans everywhere. Witchcraft is nothing, just a waste of time for people who practise it. It's just a game that at best can give someone confidence, that's all. Stop being such a scaredy cat!

Well, I hope someone gets you some help. Or better, cripples you so you learn what it feels like to be 'hated' by your 'god'. This was a morbidly amusing website to read, but in the end, it's just plain sad. I bother to write this only because you did such a fantastic job displaying your insanity. Few people have that skill.

Enjoy your life while it lasts. Because this is all you've got.

Catholic Lifestyle

Thu, 18 Oct 2007 12:02:07 GMT

I was brought up a Catholic and when I was little I wanted to be a priest. But then I found out it was a position reserved for men... It was disappointing for me then because I knew all the words the priest said, to the point that I'd be cheeky enough to mouth them as he spoke. We used to sit up the front of the church and I imagine it would've been very off-putting.

Now, of course, I'm an atheist. But when I think about it, I still live very much the way I was brought up. My opinions differ from those of the church, and my appearance has changed, but otherwise... Sometimes I think I'd make a bloody good nun.

I don't drink, don't smoke, don't do drugs (I'm even cutting back on caffeine!), don't party late at night, and I'd be quite happy to remove myself from society and live in a monastry tending to some sheep or something. It'd be easy for me to accept never marrying, and being thoughtfully quiet suits my style. It's funny, because I seem to obey Catholicism more than a lot of people who do believe in God and so on.

I also have trouble lying, cheating, being greedy, hurting people's feelings... There's probably more but last time I went to church was because they were doing a commentry and I just went to watch and learn that it's all based on the style of the synagogue... Ummm, anyway, I also think I could live without technology. I don't watch much TV, and my music and internet mostly plays the role of filling the deep void in my life. Hehe. Well maybe it would be a struggle at first, but I'm sure I'd get used to it. I don't own an mp3 player, I have an old old phone for emergencies mostly, and I even have to force myself to play video games these days.

So why am I not running off to go on that show where they get lay people to join a monastry for a month? Because I don't friggin believe. Atheism was one of the most annoying things that ever happened to me, but I also can't bring myself to pretend to believe, much as I might want to. I'm also leaning to the pro-abortion attitude amongst others which loses me some more points. My doings might be Catholic, but my thinkings sure aren't.

Then there's me being goth. A lot of people seem to assume that goths do all the things society deems to be 'wrong'. But 'ordinary' people do things that are just as bad, the whole party drugs, binge drinking, clubbing thing. My idea about being goth is to be different, so by being socially acceptable in my doings, I'm rebelling against the rest of teen culture right? So no issue with my gothic lifestyle.

As for gothic appearance. Some days I think a nun would have a heart attack if they looked at me. Eyeshadow is the coolest tool for looking like death. I love my boots, they both look cool and actually give my feet the support they deserve. On the other hand, I have no piercings (not even ears) and no tattoos, nor do I dye my hair. My goth look is remade every morning after I discard my 'pretty in punk' PJs, so it is impermanent enough for me to morph into a nun... but goth reflects my personality, and it turns my appearance into an art form - that's something I'm not willing to give up.

And I'll stop there, coz this random rambling went on for a lot longer than I planned. As usual... But you get the point. I quite like the idea of running to a monastry to be a nun... but although my lifestyle fits, my mind is much too wild and crazy. If God suddenly appeared and said "look, I exist!" I'd first think I was hallucinating and actually going insane, but then promptly punch him in the face for leaving me to atheism.

Hail Nothing. Because Nothing is worth worshipping.

I'm Nothing. Nothing is perfect. Ha!

Scriptural Evidence 2

Tue, 19 Dec 2006 08:15:33 GMT

Like I promised, now I'll moan about the Qur'an.

My biggest issue with it is the fact that Muhummad (pbuh, which I will only write once) visited Judeo-Christian areas. Sure it may have been necessary for him to 'realise' that the Bible etc. had been corrupted, but it lends less credibility towards the myth of divine revelation. He could easily have memorised the more interesting stories, thought about them in his cave, then come out proclaiming that Gabriel had revealed it to him. What would have made me a Muslim is if Muhummad had never seen a Jew or Christian and yet managed to come up with something like the Qur'an that had many of the same stories as the Bible and so on.

But since he did visit Judeo-Christian areas, I start wondering if he got the idea that he could become great by leading a new and inspiring religion. I agree that his home religion was likely to have been corrupt, and he really did replace it with something better, but his later aspirations for conquest bring into question his ultimate motivation for spreading the word of his god. Perhaps he just got greedy, but you only need to look at Scientology to see how starting your own religion can get you fame and fortune. And if he did just get greedy despite earlier good intentions, then you gotta wonder about the integrity of the so-called prophet.

I also read on a Muslim website a bunch of 'proofs' as to the truth of Islam. Some are based on the predictions of the Qur'an that have come true, others are stories of miraculous happenings. The one that bothered me the most was a story of Muhummad's birth, at which time light shone from his mother's womb. The most obvious reason for that being crap, is people would have noticed and thought him special instantly, thus Muhummad would never have been treated as any ordinary child. Like the birth of Jesus, it seems almost certain that this story was a later addition.

I do plan to read the Qur'an, once I'm done with the Bible. At which point I may or may not criticise them again (or convert and praise them). I must say though, Muhummad was right to say that human hands corrupt such works, but the Qur'an is just as tainted (assuming divine beings exist and bother to write anything anyway, otherwise the Qur'an is just a fun work of fiction).

Scriptural Evidence

Sun, 17 Dec 2006 09:36:14 GMT

Fundamentalists annoy me because they blatantly choose to be blind. If science contradicts their holy book, they automatically say science is wrong, or twist some words to make sure their book is always right. How desperate. Like these people who reckon the world is only 8000 years old, and say that fossils and stars and things were all planted there by a god to make us think the world is older. Yeah right. But the minute science looks like it can prove their holy book right, they embrace science and announce how great it is. What hypocrites.

Check this out: The Atheist Delusion

It's a parody of the fundamentalist point of view.

But it's not just fundamentalists that can be blind. 'Average' believers do it too. They account for contradictions with the statement that certain stories aren't meant to be taken literally, rather that they are an analogy for some greater message. Yeah right, so that means you can pick what to believe if it's convenient to you. The fact is, holy books can't be taken seriously because they were written by the human hand. Even the Qur'an was put together by mortals, despite the supposed divine inspiration.

At present, the holy books I've been exposed to are the Bible and the Qur'an, so they're the ones I'll now specifically target. I'm trying to read them both but haven't yet finished, so I won't be too specific, but I have a general understanding of their histories which I do plan to attack.

Okay, the Bible. The Old Testament is more a history of the Jews than anything worth calling a proof of God. Anyone who has read it will know that the god presented is a jealous, egotistical, intolerant, biased, unmerciful little twit. What's most important about this is that this god is a tribal god, not one that deserves universal respect from people around the globe. A bigger problem with it is mistranslation, made worse by it's old age. Moses never crossed the Red Sea, it was the Reed Sea, and plenty of details about his story are logical exaggerations to honour the Jewish hero. Also, many of the stories after him detail the Jewish version of holocaust against other peoples, which are shockingly violent. These aren't analogies, they're a tribal history of conquest. It also emphasises Yahweh as a tribal god, because if he were universal, you'd think he'd want to convert, not destroy them. The Old Testament is a work of humans, passed down through generations, compiled by their children and added to over many centuries. Yahweh did not write it, nor did he divinely inspire it, because if he did, then he's just a petty tribal god.

The New Testament is little better. Admittedly it cuts down on the violence and presents a happier god, but it has had so much provable human confusion that it seems even less plausible than the Old. The Gospels are the most obvious example. Before the Bible was properly organised, there were many Gospels floating around, like that of Thomas and the more controversial Judas. Then someone decided there were too many, and he picked out four to go with each point of the compass. He picked them, not God. So already we have no idea of how accurate the Gospels are. Each was written to entertain a particular audience, causing these different versions which often contradict each other. The fact that we are told that Jesus fulfills prophecy is because the writers deliberately set out to make it so. They didn't actually know where Jesus was born or who visited him; they wanted to believe he was the long awaited messiah so they wrote down the fulfillment of prophecy even though they had no evidence. There is also an integration of foreign fairytales. Some authors tried to appeal to gentiles, and to do so they had to integrate gentile stories, so that their audience could understand better. So the Jesus story has gotten completely twisted so that no one really knows very much about him at all.

Their is also doubt about the spread of Christianity and its promotion of the Jewish tribal god. Jews at the time seem to have been a very strict community in the sense that they avoided outsiders and all their influences. Jesus, being a Jew, probably wouldn't be too thrilled that his god was taken global by one Roman convert, Paul. He probably didn't realise the evil he was doing by spreading the word to gentiles (and it was probably his uneducated idea, too). Richard Dawkins talks about this much better than me.

And you gotta laugh at those Jehovahs and things who actually believe in Revelation. Sure it fulfills prophecy, but once again, anyone could sit down and write something that does that. I did it in part of my rpg story. All sorts of authors have done things like that. And these fundamentalists are so desperate to believe it, that they use the World Wars as proof that the prophecies of Revelation are also coming true. Gimme a break. To me it sounds like something you could write if you took enough drugs (or were just plain weird).

That's enough for the Bible. Next blog I'll moan about the Qur'an.

Refuting Receivers of Existence, The Despair of Fruitless Argument

Sat, 16 Dec 2006 01:10:44 GMT

To anyone who actually reads my blogs, it'd be pretty obvious that I like discussing religion, even if no one leaves me comments (please do!). The one person I could have proper conversations with was my Grandpa, but after yesterday I'm no longer so sure. I'm starting to find that religion is a brick wall in terms of argument; neither side is willing to relent. It seems to me that once your mind matures and you've been exposed to ideas, you make up your mind and that's that... unless something life-changing happens to you. And yes, I admit my mind is pretty much made up, but I still love to listen and consider.

What happened with my Grandpa is that the argument became one sided. Or perhaps it always was. His 'proof' of god revolves around his understanding of space and time, and for a long while it was his understanding that we debated. But I soon decided to just let him express it so he'd get to the point. And he eventually did. I listened and found it illogical, and tried to organise my thoughts into an argument, but as I was expressing it I was cut short. He used his superior education and experience against me, both in terms of science and in bible study. I can't communicate the unfairness of this. It made me feel that he really didn't intend to listen to me because he'd already decided that he and he alone was right. That he was going to 'listen' in order to instantly refute all my words. And when he began to talk about Jesus, I realised he was a strong Catholic, I could see the faith in his eyes and realised the argument was a lost cause.

See, I thought that his argument could only merit one to take the position of being a straight theist or deist. The argument that only a supernatural being could cause the big bang is hardly enough evidence to go the full mile and say that Jesus also exists. If his argument had convinced me of the supernatural, it still would take me a lifetime to decide which religion is right. But he's gone all the way to put his faith in Catholicism.

I'll try my best now to outline my Grandpa's argument.

He notes a difference between being able to imagine and being able to conceive. I don't get it, but I think he means conceive to be imagining something that can actually exist. Whatever.
He then states the 'fact' that all things are created by other things, but that the universe cannot only be made up of receivers of existence, there has to have been something to start it all.
His understanding of the big bang, is that in that event, all matter and space and time was created, and had not existed before. He says that without matter, there could not be time, because we define time by the movement of matter. He also says that there cannot be space without matter, and gave a very strange argument about vacuums and gas that I found illogical and without evidence, but whatever, moving on...
He then says that he cannot conceive of an eternal material existence that caused the first big bang. But he can conceive of an immaterial being that exists outside of the confines of space, time and matter.
Therefore he reckons god exists.

My biggest complaint is that he cannot personally conceive of any alternative. The fact I can conceive of other things means nothing to him. His personal difficulty is enough to prove to him that the Christian God exists. And let me state now that he defines god as "I am who am". He tells me that my arguments twist words, but so do his! I am who am means nothing. They are just words, written down by people who rotted long ago.

I also contest his assumption that all things are receivers of existence. To say that they are, instantly assumes a creator. How can you use an assumption to prove that very same assumption? We don't know that all things are created. Sure they're made of matter, but as far as we know, matter isn't created by anything. With my limited physics knowledge I assume that energy and matter are essentially the same thing, by Einsteins equation. So if matter is energy, everything is energy. And I also go as far to think that the law of conservation of energy or the first law of thermodynamics, that energy cannot be created or destroyed, means that energy has always existed and thus the essence of matter has always been present. I see no need for things to be created.

In terms of the big bang, we don't know that it was the first event to ever occur. There are theories present that big bangs occur all over the place, causing new universes to be born. Some expand forever. Some become stable. And some, like black holes, contract again into a tiny singularity, which may at some point explode again. Of course this is speculation, but it is possible. My Grandpa refutes it by saying, "what caused the first big bang?". But he assumes that there was a first. As humans, we assume everything has a beginning and an end because those things that do have them are all that impacted on our primitive lives. So we constantly assume that all things have a beginning. But what if there wasn't a beginning?

And as for accepting an immaterial existence, that has even less logical plausibility than the notion that energy has always existed. We know that energy exists at this moment in time. But we don't know that the supernatural exists right here and now. If we don't know that it exists here and now, how can we assume it has always existed? And 'always' assumes the existence of time, which may just be our tiny brains again, but makes me question whether the supernatural could truly be independent of time.

Then the final assumption, that God exists. His argument is like Intelligent Design. He basically says, I don't know where the universe comes from (note the assumption that it comes from somewhere), so therefore the answer must be God.

If you think I'm being unfair or have missed something, please leave a comment to point it out for me. Maybe I'll refute it anyway, but if I've got something wrong I'd like to know (especially the physics bits). I don't necessarily want to be an atheist, though at present I am, so I'm open to opinions. Let me just say though, I've read some Christian opinions which appear to completely misunderstand the atheist position, so please think first and don't write out of blind passion. I've become rather frustrated by the brick wall of religion and would greatly love to knock down the barriers.

Next blog I might attack scriptural evidence. You've been warned.

An Atheist's Nightmare

Sun, 10 Dec 2006 03:55:21 GMT

Atheism is a way of perceiving the world that is often looked down upon by the religious for varying reasons, such as the 'fact' of our lost souls, or the assumption that we have no source of morality. By saying 'our' and 'we', I indicate myself as an atheist. But it was not my choice to become an atheist, I simply am, in the same way that some men and women realise that they are homosexuals, regardless of wether or not they want to be one. The transition to atheism, for me, was something of a nightmare, but unstoppable because it's what I am; I can't believe something just because I want to. So here, I'll try to tell as much of my story, because maybe it will be of interest to someone, or perhaps it will comfort other atheists going through the same thing.

I was born into a Roman Catholic family. Thus I was brought up to be Roman Catholic. But like any child, I did not understand what it meant. I accepted what I was told as fact, although often misinterpreting things. For example, I thought my priest was Jesus. He looked old, coz he had white hair, and I thought that since Jesus was born 2000 years ago, he must be old and have white hair. Of course, I only knew that Jesus had died and come back to life. I didn't know he'd gone back to heaven after that. But then, one Easter, I saw a movie about the death of Jesus. The whole time, I was looking for a white-haired guy, who would look like my priest who would be Jesus. Instead, I found him represented in that typical bearded guise, and much younger looking, and I realised I was wrong.

But many other things I was told, I believed, because I didn't know any alternative. But I now speculate that my belief was not as strong as it should have been, that perhaps I was an atheist without being aware of the fact, when I didn't know it was possible to not believe in God. I say this because, for example, I'd pray without ever expecting an answer. I wanted an answer, but I didn't really expect to get one. My smaller prayers and wishes which did come true, I did not attribute to God, but to the things you'd expect to happen in the world. And my larger ones I knew were too much to ask for. Yet I went on believing, however childishly, since I was a child anyway. But now I realise how thin that belief was, compared to people who truly believe their prayers to be answered, and some people who even claim to converse with God.

In any case, I lived as a Catholic. For the first weeks after my first holy communion, I did all the rituals in a dedicated manner, because I considered it to be special, like any kid who wants to be a grown-up. Then the novelty wore off and it was just another thing I had to do in church. Then church just became plain boring. I stopped wanting to go. Besides, I was too heavy for the priest, who used to lift me and other persistent kiddies up when we were all gathered round the altar. And the most disappointing thing for me was to learn a female could never be a Catholic priest. I had memorised all the priests words, even putting off a few who came to visit, when I mimicked everything they said perfectly (I liked to be in the front row). The priest I had thought was Jesus was still always nice, and I still like him more than any other priest, but any magic I had once attributed to him began to dwindle. Many times, I'd appeal to God or to Jesus, to show themselves. I tried to imagine that they were there, but I knew it was just my imagination. So I gradually lost interest.

Then came the day I discovered the word 'atheist' and it's meaning. When I was sick for a long time once, my Grandma looked after me and gave me books to read so I wouldn't get bored. She gave me 'Northern Lights' by Philip Pullman, and later the remaining books of the trilogy. I loved them. One day, I remember coming out to see my Grandma talking to my Dad. They were talking about my books. Then my Grandma said, in a tone of disapproval, that Philip Pullman was an atheist. It sounded horrible, so I asked what it meant, and I was told that it meant someone who didn't believe in God. That moment was the first time I considered the fact that I might not believe in God. I thought instantly that it made perfect sense. I realised that I didn't have to believe in God. Every now and then, I'd think about it, try to confirm the meaning of the word. But I wasn't sure. It contradicted something I'd been told for as long as I could remember. That was in Yr5, 1999.

Somewhere between 1999-2000, I also found out that the author of Animorphs, my favourite series at the time, was also an atheist. And while the doubt of my belief didn't bother me, it was often at the back of my mind. Church was as boring as ever. But going to a Catholic school, I was still being told what to believe, having it shown to me constantly. Prayers in the morning and at lunch and before we went home. I happily sung Christmas songs, loved eating Easter eggs, was relatively happy with the Christian way of life.

Then I moved into Yr7 where I discovered science. Not the crappy science of junior school, where sponges drying out was called an experiment, but proper, chemicals-can-change-colour, stars-are-made-of-gas science. I loved it, coz it was fun. It explained so many things. But I kept thinking, there are still too many things science can't explain. Does God fill that gap? But somewhere between Yr7 and 8, I had a science teacher who, despite having dodgy scientific methods at times, had a very good answer to my question. Just because we don't have a scientific explanation yet, doesn't mean that there isn't one. And I became conscious of the fact that I might really be an atheist.

But at that time, I also had external forces impacting on my life. Puberty for one, which does terrible things to your balance of chemicals, but at the same time, the people around me were changing, and I was missing the boat. I've never been very socially smart. I only liked the Spice Girls because everyone else did, so I thought I was supposed to like it. I knew nothing about music. And in senior school, I still held on to my love of Pokémon, despite most 'growing out of it'. Now the boat of superficial relationships had arrived. People were going on and on about boyfriends, an interest I honestly had no interest in. So I was forced to sit on the sidelines and watch my friends change. I didn't know them anymore. I still don't feel entirely comfortable about it all. My world had long since stopped revolving around me, and now it seemed to be in another galaxy altogether. Not only that, but the world itself had changed. Since leaving junior school, where life had made sense, there'd been the September 11 attacks bringing the 'age of terrorism', and at the same time came the rise of the internet. My old life was over, and this new one frightened me.

The worst thing to happen with the growth of my atheism, was the increasing distance between me and the social world. Without God, I inevitably began to question the meaning of my existence. Why was I there? If life ends with the grave, and life is so short and pointless, why do we live at all? And with no one to really talk to, it was worse. Few people had missed the boat with me, and whilst I valued the company of some, it was a deeply unsatisfying existence, and still left the majority of my thoughts floating aimlessly in the electrical impulses of my brain. I wanted to mean something, to be noticed, to feel like life was worth while. But I gradually came to realise that I was depressed. And had I been more gutsy, I might actually have committed suicide.

I remember my despair being little noticed. I told my parents a long time after that I had been depressed and they reacted with shock, asking why I hadn't told them at the time. Which really, when you're depressed, is an almost impossible thing to do, especially for stubborn people like me who think they can do anything on their own. I'd cry a lot at the time, usually in private, but later in Yr9, 2003, it got worse and harder to contain. I managed to scare my brother with it, especially when I unwisely made it worse with Evanescence. I also think my Grandpa suspected it as being more than my general grumpiness. But as far as I can tell, that's all the notice I got.

In the end, I began to think, maybe God will help me out. But he never did. What saved me was chance. The topic of mental health was being discussed in PE, so I was forced to acknowledge the graveness of my state of mind. Yet I made it to the summer holidays feeling crap as ever. Then the chance thing was that someone had written the Mr Men and Little Miss books, and McDonalds had a adopted them as a Happy Meal toy, and then I just happened to get, whilst out with my parents, the little yellow Mr Happy. I don't know what it was, but I thought, regardless of God's existence, I couldn't keep living the way I was. So I spent the whole of Yr10 just living because it was fun, trying to see happiness everywhere, and it was my happiest year in senior school achieved by playing a mind trick on myself.

But it wasn't the end of the painful atheistic transition I was going through. My unbelief became a dominating subject in my mind, and I decided that even if I did believe in God, I couldn't believe in Christianity. I tried slowly to avoid having to go to church, not wanting to announce my atheism for fear it would upset my family. But it did anyway. My Dad was especially upset, even angry, and tried to bribe me back to the church. It was a huge mental effort to stay in my positive state of mind. And when he eventually accepted my decision, it took a while for our relationship to mend. I assume that he told my grandparents, because they soon started asking related questions. My Grandma took it particularly badly, saying if I stay in the house of a Christian, I should respect his beliefs and go to church to show my gratitude, logic which escaped me. She also tells me I'm doomed, which probably genuinely hurts her too, to think I'm going to burn for eternity in hell.

It's getting easier to be an atheist though. My Grandpa, who used to be one, debates the subject with me from a much more educated point of view, and it's a lot of fun. I still find his arguments illogical at times, but it's better than trying to talk to believers who stubbornly take less intelligent lines of argument. At the same time, I find science atheists just as illogical, since they think science is beautiful and gives meaning to their lives, like Richard Dawkins as expressed in The God Delusion. Science just makes me feel even smaller and more insignificant than I already do. Whilst science helped prove my unbelief to myself, I attribute my atheism more readily to the fact that God has never truly touched my life, I just know that there is no God, even when I want there to be one or two or a hundred. Religion is really interesting, especially when you look at all the crazy things people believe (especially in Scientology). No thanks to the Board of Studies who think Australian History counts as religious education and that you can properly study them by only comparing the tinyest weenyest bit of an issue between two religions.

So there it is, my painful atheist's nightmare. Which could possibly continue since people think we're the devil incarnate. Obviously they haven't noticed the Church of Satan and other darker religions or paganism such as new age witchcraft. The word 'atheist' is enough to horrify the faithful, when I put 'No Religion' on the census my dad said "that's sad" as if I'd lost something important. It's worse in America. Atheists, typically being independent, aren't organised like the religious, so we don't have a voice. That's why there's the Bright Movement, somewhat like Gay Pride, only for atheists and agnostics and things. Perhaps I'll join and call myself a Bright; it doesn't sound as scary to people as 'atheist' and might give us a real voice. Religious ignorance shouldn't suppress those who simply can't believe, they can't attack us for our 'thoughtcrime'.

Oh! Watching that book club thing on ABC just then, and their discussion on The God Delusion, I have to say, I agree that Dawkins pushes the point too hard. And I also agree with the atheist Germaine Greer, that Dawkins doesn't address the type of atheist that she and I are; if God did exist, we would be against him. Finally I find someone with a similar viewpoint! So in that respect, the religious might really have something against me.

Intelligent Design?

Wed, 06 Dec 2006 06:34:37 GMT

Reading The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, and combined with a documentary I saw on Intelligent Design, it's overwhelmingly clear to me that the creationist idea is so utterly ubsurd that it really shouldn't be getting the attention that it does. Problem is that there are too many gullible, stupid, and/or thoughtless people in the world that such nonsense must be mentioned in science papers, news reports, and even my humble little blog, with debates that should've ended as soon as the issue was invented. In any case, here I am going on about it. If you can't see what's wrong with ID, then either read Dawkins's book or have a good long think about what a scientific theory really means. In short, ID says, "we don't know why everything looks designed, so we'll just put it down to God". That's not science, it's lazy assumption. And if you still can't see what's wrong with it, then you must be one of those gullible, stupid, and/or thoughtless people I've already mentioned.

One more thing about the creationists behind the whole idea. They are either stupidly stubborn or have some ulterior motive to keep promoting it. Not only is there so much evidence against their 'argument', but the fact that they clutch at the tiniest little gaps in Darwinism shows how desperate they are to prove an unprovable point. Any sensible person would've conceded long ago, but creationists using their fancy name "Intelligent Design" just don't get it. Therefore they're either blindly stubborn idiots, or they're desperate to get people believing the theory for some untrustworthy purpose. They would claim to do it for the 'glory' of God, but plenty of people can accept evolution and still believe in God. So perhaps some of these creationists (a hopefully small some) want to convert people to fundamentalism, or a particular strand of fundamentalism, in order to control them in very cult-like ways. This seems unlikely, but what other alternative to stupidity is there? My natural assumption of human intelligence must be flawed.

Since science has brutally demolished all creationist theory, I'd like to think of a different way to still further kill off ID. I have a question; "If the world really was intelligently designed, what would it be like?" Some people would say it wouldn't be any different to what it is now. But if a supernatural power really had created this imaginary world, and demanded worship from its people, then it would not leave itself open to science as our world is. My theory or hypothesis is that a supernatural being would create a world that would be utterly impossible to explain except by intelligent design.

In terms of the shape of the world, it could be spherical, like Earth. It could be modelled the same way people once thought; with the sun, moon and stars stuck to a larger transparent set of spheres which move around the planet. Still, a planet is not an implausible thing. Obviously. What would be more impressive is something of a flat land, perhaps still within a sphere (the most perfect shape). The cross section of this sphere is the plane of the land and sea. Above it, the sky is a dome, through which the clouds float upon divinely influenced winds. Below the land-sea plane is first a strip of earth in which trees can be planted and bodies buried, still lower is impenatrable rock, and then maybe fire, or even the underworld suggested by many ancient myths. The sun and moon and stars might move along the sphere, rising from and dissapearing into great caverns in the ground. The sun, rising in the East Sea and setting in the West Sea, would boil the water, demonstrating that the edge of the world truly is the edge of the world, that the sun is not a distant ball of fire. And what would confirm the presence of supernatural powers would be the existence of true magic, masterable by mortals.

The people of this clearly designed imaginary world would never be able to explain its formation except by the intelligent designer itself. In their world, the designer (or designers) might even make itself properly known. That is the sort of world a designer ought to have made, not the universe we live in today. The implications of true Intelligent Design are so different to our present world that we can see it all as false, even without having to look at evolution. Creationists are just scared, because they want to hold onto their all-powerful, all-everything God, and they know that Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection is their greatest threat - more than that, evolution has completely wiped out the creationist argument all together. They want to believe they're special, they probably wish they lived in my imaginary sphere-world, but we can't escape reality so they should just admit the fact, build a bridge, and get the hell over it. Intelligent Design is full of shit.

Too bad we can't design our own worlds and have people worship us. I know I'd have fun. The sphere-world is a bit predictable and boring. But you could also make cube-worlds and pyramid worlds and pikachu-shaped worlds. Perhaps one day science will help us do that or technology (more likely) will enable us to simulate and manipulate such worlds. Sort of like the game played in The Ellimist Chronicles that eventually provoked a war with aliens. Current games like Sim Life are too simplistic to be at all interesting.

Religion and Sexism

Fri, 03 Nov 2006 10:57:43 GMT

'All religions degrade women'

Personally I think feminism is messed up, but I still think religion needs a feminist kick in the ass. I agree with this article; it's not just that Sheik who's the problem, its religion in general. All the big ones began back when men lorded the Earth and women were happy to go along with it. By that it's understandable that there'd be heaps of misogynistic beliefs and scriptures. But what shits me is that all these religions refuse to even consider that it might have been cultural influence, as opposed to divine proclamation. Believe it or not, back when I was young and Catholic, I wanted to be a Priest, but noooo that's a man's job, and since then I've turned atheist (not just because of that mind you).

Could it be because God is male? Some Christians try to make out that God is ungendered. But he's still called 'the Father'. And 'the Mother' would sound wrong. So in Judaism, Christianity and Islam, God is male. Instantly that makes them think women are second class. Also, the angels are supposed to be ungendered, but references to them are male - Gabriel, Michael - and they're referred to as 'the sons of God' and they go take their pick of 'the daughters of men'. I'm not so sure about Hinduism because I haven't bothered much with it, but I think some of them view all the gods as different forms of a single God who was male... not sure there. And as for Buddhism, no God, but a male founder (not his fault though) and you have all these monks go hide away who all seem to be male and wouldn't touch a chick with a barge pole.

Then again, there are these weird 'Earth-mother' groups who take from very ancient traditions, and then you have wiccans and so on, but they're minor and in the modern world seem rather silly.

I just hate how so much discrimination is based on thousand-year-old scripts. Times change. Unless God himself comes and says that women are second class, I'm not gonna believe it. Religion is annoying, because to prove an atheist wrong, all you gotta do is have God appear, but to prove the faithful wrong, there's nothing you can do, because despite the absence of evidence they just keep believing and say things like 'God is mysterious'. Pull the other one.

And as for feminism, it's messed up. They way things are going, women now seem to want help rather than equality, and that just reverses the whole point of feminism. Keeping the name 'feminism' is to me rather out-dated. It puts too much emphasis on the women, so that you get these crazy academic chicks who reckon you can't call yourself a feminist unless you're a lesbian. Extremist religions I can understand to a point, but extremist feminism!? As a result there are now men's rights groups because it's true that they're starting to suffer. The only social group you can make fun of in this politically correct world is now the white male, and they're getting jack of it. Maybe that's why they guard the Priesthood so tightly - last thing left to hold on to before crazy women start their own nuclear weapons program. It should be something like equalism - that way there's no emphasis on anything like gender, race, religion, etc.

One more thing about feminism. Women worked so hard to be considered equals, but now, with current fashion and capitalism and so on, they go out of their way to look good for the guys. Even if they're competing with each other it's still like backwards feminism. If the Sheik hadn't made his comments in such a harsh manner, I might've agreed with him. Dammit, my head's gonna explode with everything I wanna say now. I think I'll just go set up my one-alien utopia now. Goodnight.

An Idiot for Islam

Sat, 28 Oct 2006 12:12:17 GMT

Sheik Taj Aldin Alhilali. How did this idiot come to call himself Mufti of Australia? If he lives here, he can see first hand what the people are like, and should know how tense some people are about Islam these days. He should know that in the interest of Islam, he ought not to shake things up any worse than they are. If he is an extremist, then perhaps he thinks World War Three will bring about his precious Judgement Day, or create a war to convert the world to Islam. But if religion is imposed on people, they seldom embrace it. What extremists don't seem to understand is that the best way to spread your beliefs is to prove they're better and convince people to convert of their own free will. I don't mean to prove that Allah exists, but to show that the Islamic way of life is better - that's how early Christianity spread isn't it? Before the Romans embraced it? If the Islamic extremists really want an Islamic Earth (instead of an excuse for violence), then terrorism and such ill-placed comments are a dumb way to get there.

So this guy, Alhilali, he reckons women who dress like tarts are asking for rape. Sure, okay, it's not a new idea. There was some judge who got into a lot of trouble for saying that once. Surely Alhilali should learn from that mistake? But no, idiotsville. I don't care that he compared women to meat, because it seemed to me like a logical but ill-chosen analogy. But I do have two major complaints against his theory. One, he assumes Western women these days have a choice. Sure, they could all dress like me, but fashion designers tell 'em it's a big no no. And apart from the chance of being labelled a social outcast, this is Australia, it's hot. You can't possibly expect women to cover up in the kind of weather we get. Even at night it can be hot, so inevitably you're gonna get half naked chicks walking around at night who might get into some trouble. But what can you do? Only NASA and those kids that are allergic to the sun have all over suits with built in cooling systems. So women can't be blamed for dressing the way they do. Two, he's insulting males by assuming they don't have any self-control. I thought I heard a suggestion that he had sons who where gang rapists (don't quote me though). Anyway, if he means what he says, then that's just another reason to deport him - how do we know he has any self-control? What if he becomes a rapist? It doesn't help his cause to suggest such things. Besides, most Christian men seem not to have that problem - making it look even more of a religious issue and sure to fuel anti-Islamic movements everywhere. He degrades Islamic men particularly, but I'm willing to put my money down that most of them are as decent as your average Christian or Atheist. Why does this 'Mufti' think he has the right to insult both men and women? Sure the Pope made some comments that insulted the Islamic communities, but here's the difference: the Pope lives in his cozy little Vatican, surrounded by fellow Catholics. Alhilali lives right here in Australia, with non-Muslims who don't share his views. Who is more at fault? The Pope who is quite possibly clueless, or the Sheik who is surrounded by the people he attacks?

And what's this bullshit about the White House? As if he hasn't already said enough! WHAT A FUCKING MORON! Give us some more ammo to work with. So much for his, 'no more talking for two to three months' so-called punishment. Cut out his tongue, he clearly has no self-control there, and while you're at it, cut of his happy little friend, too, just to be safe. The response by the meeting of Islamic leaders was so half assed - I was willing to let them off the hook until I heard it. Misunderstood my foot! Apparently this guy is always misunderstood, very conveniently. Clearly he hasn't got a clue about being a leader, so chuck him out. Even his community is embarrassed about him. And if he can't represent his community, then he's not a real leader.

So there you have it, Sheik Taj Aldin Alhilali, the Idiot of Islam.

As for the rest of the Australian Muslim Community, leave them alone. They've done nothing wrong but let this guy and his 'helpless' rapists get away with insulting both Islam and the rest of humanity. In fact, it's not their fault because they didn't elect him anyway. It's the Sheik we need to get rid of, and he can take his rapists with him.

Pentateuch

Thu, 05 Oct 2006 10:42:50 GMT

Yep, I finally finished reading them all, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. If you can stand the repetition it's actually mildly interesting. Beats reading Emma, things actually happen in the Bible. It's kinda weird to compare how society views God now to how Yahweh was portrayed back then. Sounds like a hell of a lot of sacrifices to him (goats and rams and bulls and birds and bread and wine) and the people of Israel complained a lot and rebelled a lot. It's mostly a history of Israel.

Interesting things about Yahweh. He seems okay in Genesis, clearly not all-powerful though. But in Exodus he starts getting really irrational, threatening to kill all the people until Moses tells him to be sensible. Then as Israel rebels over and over, he keeps threatening to wipe them out, and Moses keeps being the sensible one. Sensible only in the fact that he points out that to destroy them now would be to prove the Egyptians right and show up the weakness of Yahweh. He also appears to the people a lot, but says later that he will send prophets instead because the people keep asking that he not speak directly with them or they might die in his glory. And he also acts very strangely by making people sin and then getting mad at them - he actually made Pharaoh refuse to let Israel leave, and made some guy on a donkey sin, and tells his people to do things that make them unclean so they have to stay away from camp for a week.

I'm gonna see how much Bible I can chew through. There are actually some okay stories. Leviticus was a bit dull, mostly about sacrifices and laws. Numbers and Deuteronomy are a bit better, still some laws, but more desert wanderings and land invading. Genesis and Exodus probably have the best stories in terms of supernatural happenings. Now reading Joshua and it's so far about them invading the Promised Land. So much for "you shall not kill". They go and put cities under "the ban" which means everyone inside must die. Men, women, children, sometimes all the animals if Yahweh says so. Then they burn it and stone the king and build a big pile of rocks over him. More action, so it's all good. And any religious group who says kids shouldn't be exposed to violence ought to go burn their bibles.

And besides, my local library didn't have any interesting books, so what am I to do? And they say you should know your enemy...

The Nature of God

Mon, 25 Sep 2006 09:08:27 GMT

I'll say again, on the scale of Satan Worship to Aethism to Devout Theist, I'm definately in the more aethist range. Whether or not I go to Hell isn't so much my concern as say... my Grandma's. She keeps mentioning the fact that I'm doomed every now and then. But anyway, what I'm saying is, I don't consider myself part of any religion. But for theory's sake, let's just assume for the moment that some sort of God does exist.

Right then. In that case, it is my strong belief that modern views of God are horribly off track. These days we make too many excuses for the Almighty Spirit and claim such things as:

God is perfect

God is all forgiving

If you don't believe in God, you're going straight to Hell

Heaven is perfect

God is different for everyone

Everything is just a part of God's plan

God has no gender

God is perfect

In other words, God is good and just and loves everyone and just wants the best for humanity. But if God is perfect, why does he demand we worship him? Especially when he can offer bugger all in return. The Old Testament mentions something about God hiding his face and the people despairing. Does this look like the actions of a perfect God? If so, he has a very strange concept of perfection. It seems to me that he is both selfish and lazy, to hide away and sit on his bum while we wander about aimlessly looking both for him, and for a more complete view of life's meaning. He even says "I am a jealous God" in the Ten Commandmants... then says we shouldn't envy what our neighbours have. So assuming carved images and other gods are the neighbours of God, and he doesn't want us worshipping them, then isn't God breaking one of his own commandmants (the hypocrite!)? Okay, so if the Jewish/Christian/Muslim God isn't perfect, then the view of most of humanity about his perfection must surely be wrong.

God is all forgiving

Aaaah yes, the modern, mostly Christian bullshit. This, in my opinion, is a device to make sinners feel good about themselves. Especially now that you can't 'buy' your way into heaven like you 'could' in medieval times. Supposedly all you have to do is ask for forgiveness from God, usually formalized by confession with a priest, and there you go, you're well on your way to salvation, even if there's a little bit of purgatory on the way. Okay, so, if God is all forgiving, why should you have to ask at all? And it's so easy that a mass murderer could get into heaven despite a life of evil. And for the people who go to confession, why should they have to keep going back whenever they make a sinful mistake? Catholics particularly have the view that one goes to purgatory before entering heaven, taking care of the fact that criminals can be saved because they undergo purification. But if you are purified, then you're nothing more than a mindless angel, like those in Islam that couldn't rebel (in Islam, Satan was one of the Jinn, not an angel). Purification in that sense also means that the essence of who you are is erased. This in itself is a form of punishment, and shows that you yourself haven't been forgiven. So all this yak about God being all forgiving is just that: a load of yak.

If you don't believe in God, you're going straight to Hell

These days, the old 'fire and brimstone' image has gone out the window. But whether or not Hell is firey, there's always been the view that Hell is a place of separation from God. For a devout Jew, Christian, Muslim, or whatever, I understand how that could be a bad thing. But for an aetheist, what do they care that they are separated from God if they don't even believe in one? The purpose of Hell, so far as anyone can tell, is to punish the sinners. But if the sinners don't see Hell as a punishment, well, it's lost its purpose, hasn't it? And what about the aetheists who live a life comparable to Nuns and religious charity workers? Some aetheists live a much better life than the average worshipper - should they go to Hell simply for not believing, and even though they've lived like Jesus or Muhammad (pbuh)? Either the unbeliever does not go to Hell, or Hell is completely different to anything we think about it.

Heaven is perfect

The main idea behind heaven is that it is a place of perfect happiness with God. Even Hinduism has something like this. You're supposed to be eternally blissful because you are with God. But! This completely ignores the fact that people have spouses, parents, children, pets, all of whom you'd want if you had a good relationship with them. Especially for married couples, Heaven becomes rather troublesome, because you can't ever give all your love to God like you're supposed to, which makes you less entitled to the happiness that God would give you. But then again, you are happy because you can be with them. But say God allows you to continue loving other humans. What if someone you love goes to Hell? You'll never see them again. And that means Heaven is no longer blissful, no longer the perfection you imagined it would be while you were alive. And what if God says you can only love him in Heaven? You'll have to go to Hell. But what do you care? You've got the people you love, you're happy, you're in you're own Heaven - but it's actually supposed to be Hell. Even if you don't have these love problems, it's usually assumed that everyone in Heaven gets on perfectly. But that's a complete oxymoron. Humans by their nature are not perfect. Humans will never get along perfectly. Either you'll have to be turned into some sort of robot, or be brainwashed into an angel - so like I said before, you're not you, and Heaven's perfection becomes completely artificial. Heaven cannot possibly be perfect. It goes against everything!

God is different for everyone

This is as instantly bull as New Age. Why bother with an institutionalised religion if you think your vision of God is your own? It's exactly the same thing that New Agers follow, the idea that they can practise a religion however they want - which is bullshit because they can tailor it to suit them when they want it to. These days, there are still people who see God as an almighty spirit like in the good old days, but you also get these bizarre concepts that he's the force that encourages you to achieve, or the essence of your life, or whatever the other junk that people come up with is. Saying God is different for everyone is a cop-out, another convenient explanation to try and keep people faithful. Sure people might experience God differently, but to go as far as saying God is actually different for some people is crazy. What I mean by experiencing him differently is that you think he's the overlording dicatory spirit of classic belief but one person might think their prayers are answered, while you just think he watches over you. You don't think he's some compulsion within you to do good things. Because that is just instinct and personality, not 'God'.

Everything is just a part of God's plan

Here's where I moan about all the bad things that happen in the world. Supposedly God's plan is to work towards a perfect world or whatever. And he has his brilliant plan to get there, which only he can understand. This is another cop-out to keep believers believing. If everything is working to God's plan, then it is in fact God who causes tsunamis and flies planes into buildings and bombs Afghanistan. So all the chaos and disunity in the world is God's own doing. But that just shows that God's plan is to fix his own mistakes. What an idiot! If this is the way the great mind of God works, then you can see why we're not all supermodels - because God couldn't figure out how to remove the physical imperfections we experience today. But hardly anyone sees God as a great bumbling idiot. So then, things clearly do not work to God's plan. Perhaps it's the work of the devil. Or maybe the fact that God sits back and watched us kill ourselves, or be obliterated by nature. Clearly, God is not as omnipotent as he would have us believe. Nor is he omniscient, because if he was, then he could see what was going on or about to happen and work to prevent bad things from happening. And to complete the triangle, if God is omnipresent, both in terms of Time and Space, then what need has he for a plan? Plans being linear in nature would indicate that God experiences the world in the same linear fashion that we do. Or if he still has one, then he has already achieved everything, because although he is here with us suffering ants, he is all at once also with the people who live in the happiness of the world at the conclusion of his great plan. How stupid!

God has no gender

So why do we call him He? Or in Polytheistic religions, why do gods always have a goddess counterpart? Historically, God has always favoured the males, but while you could say that's just coz he knew that men were dominant and thus the only ones able to begin a change, it's much more likely that men just wanted to assert their dominance by showing women that God was male, so women should bow down to human males also. Sure, if the second coming turns out to be a chick, maybe I'll change, but in the mean time, why do people find it so disturbing to call God 'Mother'? Just doesn't sound right, does it? But also, what we're seeing today is some sort of war between God and Mother Earth. History suggests that the Earth Mother came first, before men realised they were physically stronger and began to worship the sky. But whatever. Human's will never convince me personally that God is without gender. Sure he probably doesn't use it for actual reproduction, especially in monotheism, but gods always seem to identify with a gender, so in Holy terms, why should God not be assigned Gender? Weak argument, but all my previous typing has tired me out.

So quite clearly, if God exists, we've got him all wrong. And the only way we can sort it out now that we're in such a mess, is if we get a new prophet or see God and actually have people believe it.

So for the moment, I'm quite happy with my aetheism. Because you humans just haven't got a clue.

PS. That was more than 1800 words! There is no way I'm proof reading this one, so if I've messed up, it's your problem, not mine.

Science and Religion

Fri, 22 Sep 2006 12:30:21 GMT

I love my Grandpa, he's always got some wacky theory to convert me to, and even better, tries to listen to my argument against it (before deciding I'm wrong anyway).

So he reckons he's got a sort of scientific, logical 'proof' of the existance of God. The main idea is that all things owe their existance to something else. So, if you take me, I owe my existance to my cells, which come from molecules, which are made from atoms, which are made of protons and things, which are made of even smaller bits, and so on. And also that at some stage all matter had to have had a beginning. So he says, how can the universe possibly be entirely made up of receivers of existance? How can the material universe possibly be eternal? He says he can conceive of a non-material entity such as God that exists eternally and caused the big bang. And he reckons time is a measure of the rate of change of matter, so time could only begin when matter began, so to start it all off, a non-material being with no reliance on time must exist.

So here's my argument.

E=mc² The relationship between mass and energy. Essentially they are the same thing. And the law of conservation of energy reckons it cannot be created or destroyed, merely converted. From my very limited scientific background, I think this suggests that everything has, and will always be here, in one form or another. Unlike my Grandpa, the idea of eternal matter does no 'damage to my intellect' because it is really just energy.

Humans are built to believe in beginnings and endings, because the world around them has always displayed births and deaths, and the cycles of nature. The Aboriginals were probably the least like this, however, because of their circular view of time. But anyway, sure the big bang was a beginning, but the big physics dudes are starting to think that maybe heaps of big bangs are always occurring, with universes constantly dying and reborn. So far the theory comes from the idea of black holes, that they suck everything down into a tiny point, so if you had all the matter/energy for an entire universe, squished it down into a singularity, then somehow made it unstable enough to explode, well, you'd have your very own big bang. All the races in the resulting universe could call you God (despite the fact that you'd probably die in the process). So perhaps one day, all the gravity in the universe will pull itself back down into a black hole style singularity, then explode again. So if this is always going on, how can we possibly know that there ever was a real beginning to anything? We are all such miniscule creatures compared to the universe, we're not supposed to comprehend a world without a beginning. But clearly, it is possible.

And how can time be the measure of the rate of change of matter? If the displacement of matter is x, then the rate of change of matter is its velocity, or dx/dt. Shall I repeat that? dx/dt! So to find t, which is time, you need to invert and integrate, so clearly it isn't the rate of change of matter. There are theorists who think time is merely a part of the measuring system, but in my opinion this does not explain the relativity of time, that something moving fast can experience time differently to something not moving at all. Clearly one has to be moving more quickly through the fourth dimension. Still, I s'pose there's not really enough information, and theories of time are still rather diverse on this planet.

The point I'm trying to make here, is not that God doesn't exist. I may be leaning that way, but what right have I to impose such a view and steal away the hope of those who need a god? What I'm trying to say, is that you can't possibly prove through logic or science whether or not God or gods exist. We won't ever know everything about the universe, coz that would be boring, and it's so damn big. The only way we'll ever get close to agreeing, is if the big guy himself suddenly appeared to set us straight, and stayed so that people in the future couldn't think that we made him all up. The religious will argue now that God is ever present, but clearly there is no evidence! I dunno who said it, but the irony is, that to prove an aethist wrong, all you have to do is have God appear. But to prove the faithful wrong, no amount of science, and no amount of absence of God will ever convince them. Humans are an odd species.

Religion and the Fabric of Human Society

Tue, 19 Sep 2006 08:46:35 GMT

Watching the drama around Pope Rat Singer's address just shows how oddly important religion is to the human race. I've often thought about it before, and I think it all comes down to aspects of human nature. As far as we can tell, humans are the only animals on Earth that clearly believe in things that cannot be proven. Some animals do have rituals, but I think it is fair to say that they are more routines, patterns of living that they've adjusted to. Humans, however, have full on religions, sometimes to the extent that they dedicate their lives to them.

Okay, so that's my attempt at an intro. You humans and your insistence on beginnings and endings... Anyway, the Rat Singer thing. Watching that, I bet lots of people are just having confirmed the idea that religion breaks up society by giving people reasons to go to war. It's true that many wars have been fought over religion, from the expansion of Islam after the Prophet's death, to Hitler's persecution of the Jews, to the early Roman fights against Christianity, the fights over the Holy Land, the Anglican-Catholic conflicts, the attempted wipe out of Aboriginal belief systems, and all the way back to Ancient Egypt and the wars fought to conquer surrounding nations who would then be required to pay tribute to the Pharaoh who was considered a god. So many wars have been fought that you could be forgiven for thinking the removal of all religion would be the best thing that could happen to the world. But apart from making the world utterly boring, it's my present belief that society would eventually collapse, unless something else arose for people to believe in.

As an almost aetheist, it's probably a weird thing for me to say, that the human race needs religion. But here's the next thing: humans are smart. Not exactly my-people smart, but smart enough to think about the world. And with the rise of science, many have turned from religion in favour of the more solid proof that they now have access to. The problem with this is that the reality of the world shows how insignificant and meaningless life is. When you get right down to it, all we are is a bunch of cells that interact together in a particular way, a bunch of chemicals that change, get recycled, are discarded, we're all just nature's way of keeping meet fresh, a mixture of atoms, mass, and energy, and that long after we die all these atoms will just be used as part of something else. Depressed yet? In short, life can be seen to have no meaning, and this idea conflicts greatly with the human mind. We see people turn to ideologies such as New Age and Humanism for meaning, and it's almost as if humans are hardwired to believe in something.

Now obviously I'm not an academic, geez, not even out of (human) school yet! But here's the theory: humans evolve, they get smarter, and they start thinking about the world. They start questioning the world, you know, things like 'why should I have to stick with this tribe', 'why am I here', 'what am I supposed to do with my life'. Some of the more morbid ones undoubtedly committed suicide for thinking reasons as opposed to brain chemical reasons. So, by the rule of survival of the fittest, the ones that formed a concept of gods or spirits or some other supernatural law-giver could easily have passed on both their genes and their theories, to produce the religiously wired humans of today. And not only does religion give humans a reason to live, it brings people together, the way tribal instincts used to do automatically.

So I can't remember if I was arguing anything in particular, but humanity needs religion both to keep people together and pull them apart. There's another thing, like they said on The Matrix, humans need conflict. That's where even war seems necessary to humanity. I bet that causes a few eye rolls, but it's true; in the media, what brings the audience in is "human conflict and drama". I mean, can you imagine a utopia, like heaven or whatever, where everyone gets along, everyone listens to other opinions, everyone tolerates other religions, nothing ever gets stolen, no murders, no wars, no violence? How boring it would be! The human race would have achieved everything it was working for. There'd be little need for advancement, except maybe to deal with a growing population. War is one of the greatest catalysts of technological development. And if you stopped making weapons, well, another race with worse intentions than mine could come in and easily ruin everything. The human race extinct because it was too perfect.

Religion and humanity. I think episode 3 of season 4 of Wire in the Blood sums it up. Skip this paragraph if you don't want the ending. I'm pretty sure it's the one where a series of murder-suicides take place with religious themes, and to stop a biochemistry student from releasing a biblical style plague, Psychologist Dr. Tony Hill has to convince him that the extremist Christianity group the guy is in is a load of bull. The student realises that he only joined it to find some meaning after his first suicide attempt so he promptly finishes the job and jumps off the roof. It's probably one of the worst things that can happen to a psychologist, as Tony grieves. He's told it's not his fault, but he says, "I took away his hope". Over this and the last episode of the season, Tony himself questions life and his previous attitude that life has no meaning and people should just get over it, inevitably leading him to the edge about to jump...

I just had to fit some telly in this blog, it'd be too mind numbing otherwise. Gosh, I think too much. If only I could write this much for English. Hmm, it's another one that could get me sent to a counsellor- but seriously, I've still got 24 and Uni Go clubs and Psychology to look forward to. Shit, digging my hole deeper by providing excuses for my non-suicidal-ness. Stupid humans! There's just no way to win with you! You're just lucky I don't have my positron bombs with me!

Clearly I need a life. Less than two months to go!