An Open Lettre to All Those Who It Applies; A Rant, Self-Pwnage.

 I was going to do a post about the Nietzsche's death of god but quite frankly it does matter. Lately I have been posting worthless musings about philosophy that don't really apply to anything, maybe I even let it get to the point that I just started posted bitter hatred toward anything religious. Was a faking my indignation? Quite possibly but with little in the way of external criticism I was left posting as I was. Was I being bitter and angry? Almost certainly yes. Maybe I should seek to apply my philosophy in practical things instead of being just another voice bitching about the evils of everything. The internet is full of angry and mentally spent men, I was becoming one of them. I am going to try to stop being so dull about the topics I choose. Angry criticism can be useful but not when you are being outwardly hostile and negative toward who you are criticising. I have forgotten the philosophy means much more when you can apply it to life and not abstract ideas. Making, criticism that helps instead of wailing hopelessly on topics of little value... I wish apply philosophy in a way that positively benefits the lives of others or at least myself. For now on Im going to try to make criticisms with a purpose, and try and avoid religion sucks because of x,y, and z.


Anyway I was inspired today by a very judgmental Christian and after a bit of introspection I was left to the current mindset I am now. To every street preacher yelling out bible verses to an unattentive audience, to every preacher handing out edicts of hatred from their pulpit, to every protester hold signs espousing your hatred to homosexuals, to every evangelist who declares we are worthy of hell because we are the scum of the earth, I say this. Who are you to judge? Who are you to throw verses from your ancient text condemning people as though they are the ones who claimed to live by the text? Who are you to hypocritically shout verses about others supposed sins? You are in no place to judge the lives of anyone. To these people god has merely become a tool to support their agendas, their prejudices, and their argument. Whether god has ever been anything more than this is open for discussion however their is one thing that is not.


You are not a prophet of god you are no more qualified to portray the will of this deity than any other person with a thought on the matter. What would a god seeing this behaviour think? The god of nature, the god of an infinitely majestic universe.


Oh, and to the atheist secularist, or anyone who feels the need to reciprocate this hate; I have one question. 


Why?

2012 Elections... Bugger I suppose I must.

 Don't think it is just fabulous that we as a strong democracy in the western word get together to change suits every couple years. Isn't it great to what you think really matters? Isn't great that we have a government for the people and by the people? Isn't it great that you are so full of yourself that you can't see what is right in front of your face?

It is an interesting ritual we have in the United States every election year especially when selecting a president. We tend to get really patriotic and delusional about our actual influence in the government as a whole. We wave flags and proclaim if you just vote for the right candidate things will get better but it as been shown that the differences between candidates are superficial at best. For evidence of this you merely need to look at the last presidential election and the results thereof. Mr. Obama was to be the change America wanted and had ran on that platform but now nearly completed with his term, he continued on as Bush would have. The only change made was the person sitting behind the resolute desk. I have to admit that I myself even being a free market Libertarian was guilty on some level as taking this hope at face value. I hoped to see the end of international policing, and more advances in social issues but I think it goes without saying that the results were sub-par. I know I went on a bit of a tangent but I wont remove it because I find it necessary.

Back to the original point now, there is little difference between the candidates. Where you see huge irreconcilable philosophical differences that separate the parties I see varying degrees of the same ideology. Voting is futile when you know whoever you vote for will continue on as the previous powers before them.

Hell even if you find someone that would genuinely change things for the better he would never get elected for one simple reason the idiots outnumber you. For every educated voter you have thousands of voters who look at the letter behind the politician's name and vote in step with their party. In a country full of inept people is it any surprise they have an equally inept government. A government of the people is as only as good as the people. It is said democracy is mob rule and I would say that is right to a degree. However at least mobs tends to be organized and have a single object of anger, in this case we have millions of bickering citizens spouting off their ignorance whilst explaining why their brand of stupidity should rule the nation.

Also their is another thing getting in the way of this utopian democracy idea we Americans tend to have and that is by design we are not a democracy and this was intentionally done. Just imagine a pure democracy where your right were subject to the whims of the electorate. Just imagine having 4 christians and an atheist voting on religious freedoms, it would be a mess. Even with the protections we are supposed to have now we our struggling to protect our rights, look at all that has been done whilst exploiting the fears of the electorate. The infringement of fourth amendment rights, the torture of those in our custody, the selective removal of habeas corpus etc.. As of right now we are bastardized republic under corporate rule and that is a problem that needs more than a presidential election to fix.

Pascal's Wager? Meh better odds in vegas.

  Pascal's wager is a relatively simple idea but it is flawed in its very concept. Simply put it states there is infinite rewards for believing in the Christian deity and an infinite amount of punishment for not believing. So Pascal states that you better be on the safe side and believe because if the atheists are right nothing happens after death so you haven't really lost anything.

This ignores two basic facets of a thing we call reality, the first and most obvious in my opinion is the false dichotomy it creates. This wager might be worth considering if there is only two options faith in the Christian deity or non-faith. However there are an infinite or at least an unfathomably large number of faiths each contradicting each other. Then it is your daunting task to figure out which of the innumerable faiths is true or whether none of them are. Imagine it this way you are playing Russian roulette with a revolver with an extremely conservative estimate of say 1,000,000 different chambers (each chamber representing a different faith or no faith) 1 of these chambers is empty (representing the correct choice assuming there is one). 1:1,000,000 odds how are you liking your odds now Pascal?

The second problem is the idea that people can choose belief or disbelief. Belief or disbelief is a reaction beyond our control, like a mental reflex you have when you know someone is telling you a bunch of rubbish. If I were to tell you there was an invisible and intangible village of elves living inside my closet you would be immediately skeptical as you simply cannot believe it. Can you choose to believe in this village of elves? Of course not, it is a reaction beyond your control when someone who makes a great claim and offers no evidence. But yet whenever a local church member knocks on my door trying to get me to participate in their services they act as though my skepticism is a choice rather than a reaction. Maybe they act like that because they really don't believe themselves, maybe they act like that because they have to keep telling themselves that this is the truth, maybe they think if they keep lying to themselves their own skepticism they have will just go away. I don't know what it is but I cannot convince myself to believe in something I do not, sorry.

The Moral Argument? What Rubbish!

Alright, this one was a long time coming I have seen this argument used so many times that it makes me sick. I thought I would write about it here because it really irks the hell out of me when some smug Christian thinks he is an intellectual heavyweight when he uses this or some variation of this argument.

So the argument has two premises and a conclusion.

1) If objective morality exists then God exists.
2) Objective morality exists.
Ergo God exists.

Now here is the part that bugs me in such a short argument they have made several different errors, and I am going to probably be all over the place trying to hit them all so bare with me.

The first problem is with the first premise it is an assertion that is not backed by anything. So to be able to use this as a premise you need a separate proof to show that the source of objective morality could be a god and you also must prove that all other infinite explanations for the existence of objective morality do not hold any water.

My second problem is still with the first premise is that they purposefully use the big "G" god as in the Christian deity which is absolutely not founded in anything. It wouldn't bug me as much if they point to something and say, "A god had to make this.". That would still bug me but not nearly as much as when they point to the same thing and say, "My God Yahweh the lord of lords, the king of kings is the only possible explanation for the existence of this thing."

My third problem still with the first premise mind you is it's inherently false. They claim that without their deity in the sky dictating a moral code to the people objective morality cannot exist. Now this is where I wonder if the know what the term objective means.

Objective- Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

Now to base your entire moral code on the personal feelings of deity is I believe the very definition of subjectivity. For a moral code to be a true objective measure of right and wrong there must be reasons that can be examined by all. To have morality dictated to us by a deity, any deity is not an objective matter of right and wrong it simply becomes a measure of blind obedience. (This sort of leads into the euthyphro dilemma which I think deserves its own post)

With the second premise my only criticism is that it is a bit of an oversimplification.. While I believe there is an objective moral code in practice the morality or immorality is contingent on the perspective that the individual has on the moral codes. In short it isn't always as clear cut when complicating factors are involved.

The conclusion has one basic flaw, it is based on faulty premises.

Traditional Marriage?

In the wake of New York breaking away from it's bigoted religious background there has been a lot of talk about marriage and what it entails. I have heard many conservatives advocate traditional marriage and they will appeal to the idea that marriage has always in the Judeo-Christian culture been between a man and a woman. I have multiple problems with this.

• The first and foremost problem is the it is a blatant appeal to tradition which is in itself logically fallacious. Just because that is what we have done in the past does not mean it is acceptable to continue the practice
• The second problem I have is we are a secular nation not run by the dogmas of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Our nation's law is governed by enlightenment principles not dark age tripe.
• My third and final problem with this is that today's institution is nothing like the traditional institution of marriage and for good reason it is out dated. Marriage has been redefined several times to fit our societal needs.

Just so you don't accuse me of justifying the redefinition of marriage with the fact that we have previously done so, I'm going to explain why these changes were for the best and why the change I advocate would be for the best.

First I would like to describe what the institution of the past, it was an institution inseparable from the church and subject to many stipulations. Not just that it must be between a man and a woman, there was a dowry that was required, marriages were often arranged and the women rarely got to choose who they were marrying, woman were to be submissive and more or less slaves,(Colossians 3:18) and in the bible it describes instances when  fathers sold rape victims to their rapist for continued abuse(Deuteronomy 22:28-29) , women had absolutely no rights in this institution the list goes on. Now I for one am personally glad the traditional institution of slavery sorry marriage has became a consenting contract and partnership between two individuals. I am glad that the institution no longer oppresses women as subhuman.

I think now you can see here why it is silly to appeal to tradition and why it was best to change the definition f marriage and why it was best to stop viewing women as property. Marriage today has become a legal contract for all intents and purposes which has made it easier for couple to live together. Married couples can visit each other in the hospital, file joint tax returns etc. all of these things make it easier to be a couple and denying certain groups these rights is a simple act of oppression. It is a way for the religious to more or less slap the gay community in the face and to treat them as subhuman. It is time that the religious know that they do not own or have a say over the lives others. It is sad to see that in the 21st century that the dogmas of a bronze age religion still oppress the nation. It is sad to see bigots advocate traditional marriage without knowing what it actually entails.

Religious Fear Pimps

 Why must religions exploit the fear of others to exist? For example their fear of death, and their fear of nonexistence. Not only does this religion say that you can defeat these fears and live for ever but it adds another fear, the fear of eternal torture. Not only do they exploit this fear in adults which is horrible but the exploit it in children which is despicable. An innocent child with a influential mind that can be taught that a flying fat man with magical reindeer delivers gifts to the entire world and a child that can be taught a magical bunny gives all of the children in the world candy one day out of the year. To scare these children with myths about this eternal place of torture is just plain bad parenting regardless of superstition, it is a crime to waste these minds on the superstitions of their parents. I recently found a video the exposes the kind of thing these people do to children and I think I will share it here.

To abuse the child's mind and to expose it to a myth that is a abhorrent that if someone were to recreate the event in the bible in a film the government ratings would prevent any child from viewing the film because of the overwhelming violence and the sexually explicit portions. But somehow it is acceptable to expose the children to this because it is a Holy Book.  I beg of you stop this fear pimping campaign on your children wait until your children are old enough to understand and comprehend what the bible says.

While I find exposing a child to such a violent and damning thing is reckless. I also believe that targeting adults is perfectly acceptable as they have the the reasoning faculties and are able to comprehend what the bible is saying. But this can also be extremely repulsive depending on the method they use, like claiming a false doomsday or threatening them with hell fire. This is a common tactic they incite fear and then offer to help you fight the boogie man they themselves created. All you have to do is give up your soul to their deity.

They also prey on the emotions that are already there which is probably their most despicable tactic. I have been to a few funerals in my life and without fail at every single one they tell the grieving that their loved one is in heaven regardless of their faith. Then they will tell them if they have found Jesus that they too can see him in heaven, it is absolutely repugnant to use a funeral as an opportunity to recruit. But what scares me most is that I was the only one in attendance that seemed to notice how repulsive that was.

Religion preys on the malleable minds of children, the human fear of death, and the sorrow of grieving families. This is repugnant and should not be tolerated. Also I would like to recommend to those that are interested to watch the documentary Jesus Camp, it gives you a vivid look into the tactics they use on children.

God's Forgiveness?

X.  Why do I need God's forgiveness? To enter his kingdom? To avoid eternal torment in his sadistic torture chamber? So you can be accepted by his hypocritical flan club? Ignore for the moment that the reasons listed are shameless attempts to manipulate the minds of the weak and a doubly shameful attempt to manipulate the mind of a child, it is absurd for anyone to ask for moral forgiveness from one of the most morally delinquent entities ever.

Yahweh is a hypocrite he commands you ask forgiveness for petty things like coveting and if you do not repent you will face eternity of torment in his torture chamber. But think of how absurd it truly absurd it is to ask forgiveness from this deity. Truly it is like Ted Haggard commanding you repent for your 'deviant' sexual activities it is beyond absurd... Now back to the example of coveting God commands that you never want anything you do not already have and to be content with what you have. Granted it is good advice and it will lead to a more content and happy life but look at who it is coming from. The Christian deity has committed this act he declares as a sin more than any person to ever live or ever to live. He has everything he could possibly want and has the ability to wave his magic wand and conjure anything he wants. But yet he covets something he can never have, your blind faith and obedience. He gets angry when he doesn't get this and he is extremely petty. He flooded the entire earth, committed genocide, and destroyed entire cities because of his vanity because they would not blindly follow. So why ask for his forgiveness when God himself breaks these rules that he himself supposedly made? For a perfect God his sins are very human.

Is Yahweh Someone You Would Wish to Worship?

  I for the sake of argument am going to assume what the bible says is 100% true accurate and literal. Today I am going to pose a single question is Yahweh the Judeo-Christian deity a deity you would wish to worship? In this post I will provide biblical justification for all points made.

If the what the bible says about God is true I could see several reasons why worshiping this deity would be an absurdly immoral thing to do. Firstly this deity commanded genocide to be carried out in his name during the Conquest 0f Cana'an he was ordered to kill everything in this land no man, woman, or child was to be spared. Now is a deity that would order the massacre of woman and children one you would wish to worship? This is simple genocide.

1 Samuel 15:1-3




1Samuel also said unto Saul, The LORD sent me to anoint thee to be king over his people, over Israel: now therefore hearken thou unto the voice of the words of the LORD.
2Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.
3Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.


The bible also supports an institution that every industrial nation for the better part of two centuries has abolished and deemed inherently evil. How could a book said to be the word of an omniscient and benevolent deity fail to see the evils that is so blatantly obvious to all individuals not blinded by the mentally crippling doctrine of hate apparent in the system. Not only does the bible say slavery is acceptable it claims that it is perfectly fine to beat these people you claim as your property as seen here.

Exodus 21:20-21

20And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.

21Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.

The bible describes God himself as a slave owner and a cruel one at that.

Luke 12:46-47

46The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers.

47And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.

So far we have a deity that had ordered the deaths of women and children, a deity that had ordered genocide to be carried our in his name, and a deity that fully supports the evil institution of slavery. So what do you think so far? Is he that benevolent shepherd you always thought him to be? I don't know about you but my idea of a virtuous and benevolent deity doesn't exactly entail a genocidal slave owning deity with power issues. It took me only a handful of verses to destroy the facade put on by his followers, this is not a deity worthy of anyone's praise.

Also I think another point could be brought up about the insecurities of God he seems to need your worship but that shouldn't really matter all that much to you if you are an omnipotent, omniscient, and omni-present being. So either God has the same insecurity issues as a typical teenage girl who wants to be accepted or the creators of this false religion knew God only existed in peoples minds and therefore the God would die as soon as we stopped believing. I am going to go with the former as the latter is another topic entirely. Is a God with insecurity issues one you would wish to worship? More important what does this Lord wish to do with those that do not wish to worship him?

Luke 19:27


27But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.


Anyone who does not submit is to be killed, your benevolent deity has advocated genocide once again. This is eerily similar to a end of the book Uncle Tom's Cabin where Tom is asked to submit or be killed by his master (the personification of the evils of slavery). This was said by Simon Legree "I'll conquer ye or kill ye!" now it is pretty bad when you find Jesus and a slave trader conveying the same message.

I think this is a good place to stop there are thousands of verses like what I listed above. But I'm not going to insult you intelligence I believe if you read this correctly you have gotten the point by now. Further more it would take an entire book to go through every last verse that shows the distasteful personality of God.

The Problems With an Objective Morality

First let me define what morality is, I will use a simple definition for the purpose of this post. What is the right and what is wrong.

I have multiple problems with the idea of objective morality. To a certain extent an individual could argue that they are objective, no one would say that killing is acceptable no one believes that theft is acceptable but this is not because of moral reasons but evolutionary ones. How long would a species or society survive if they would kill each other? If things were like that we as a species would have slaughtered each other to the point of extinction. So it is in the best interest of the species and our society that we not kill each other. Let's look at a different situation because quite frankly the idea of objective morality works with the Wizard of Oz type of good and evil but fails in real world application because evil doesn't always put on green makeup and a pointy hat for you. Evil could be something as subtle as intentful inaction and good can be something as simple as being polite to others.

Now let's take the idea of taking another human life obviously our species would not survive if we took this lightly so we as a species we would have gone extinct ages ago. However some individuals can find the taking of human life acceptable in certain situations. Some individuals find the use of lethal force acceptable when they need to defend themselves or their families. Some find killing for a cause acceptable. If morality were something completely objective we would all come to the same conclusions to all moral dilemmas.

Now for my main point against objective morals. If a mother takes a knife and uses it to kill a potential threat to her children would that be an immoral act? If killing is wrong it should be consistently wrong no matter the circumstances. Would you have the nerve to give that mother a lecture on morality? Would you have the nerve to tell her she acted in an improper manor?

Two individuals in the Nazi Germany are confronted with a decision, they could speak out against the genocide going on around them or they could remain silent.  Each individual has to decide what is right given each situation they come to different conclusion as to the proper action or inaction. Person A decides to remain silent because his actions would bring harm to his family. Protecting your family would I hope be a moral thing in your mind. Person B decides to speak out because this injustice cannot go unchallenged but he and his family are killed for this dissent. Speaking out against genocide is to you I hope a moral action.

If morality is something objective than one of these individuals acted improperly. So my challenge to those who believe in an objective moral truth: Tell me which individual acted correctly and justify your answer.

I have heard many people say, "Just because we do not know the objectively moral thing to do does not mean it doesn't exist." I would agree but you just rendered morality unknowable therefore you would merely be left speculating on what the proper morality might be. This renders objective morality meaningless because if it is unknown we might as well be bloviating on what colour underwear Santa's elves are wearing. With an unknowable objective morality any statement about it would be without basis and without merit.

The idea of morals come from people and people vary greatly in many aspects. To try and remove people from a purely human idea is frankly absurd. Some cultures/individuals value things differently but to claim they are wrong to come to a different conclusion in the matter of morality is to claim knowledge you do not have.

If there were an objective moral law and the moral law were consistent the taking of human life would always be wrong no matter the circumstances. I use this example because often time Christians are arguing for an objective moral law but they constantly contradict themselves in this regard and the sad part is they do not even know it. The Christian's moral code is based solely on the judgement values of a single deity, a deity that has trouble abiding by his own rules. How can a deity so inconsistent be the foundation of an objective morality? He tells us we should not kill but then he orders genocide to be carried out in his name, he orders individuals to be stoned for breaking the most trivial of his arbitrary rules. I never seen a individual for killing yet against killing at the same time. That is another thing is your moral code were objectively true it would not break the logical law of noncontradiction which it clearly does.

This would apply to more than just the Christian God. This would apply to any religion that has a deity dictate their moral laws. You are basing all of your moral code on the judgement values of a single deity. Just because they aren't your own subjective take on the right thing to do in a situation doesn't mean that the subjective nature changes.

Damn Politics

 I normally try to stay away from politics if at all possible I really consider myself fairly apolitical. I find philosophy to be more rewarding and more challenging. Furthermore political experts as they call them seem to be very intellectually impaired, independent thinkers in the world of politics seem to be about as common as cannibalistic elves. When you watch people debate politics it seems like they are just routing for a sports team rather than stating and defending a set of beliefs. However the intellectual bankruptcy of political debate is only a half of the reason why I despise politics.

Furthermore politics is about the obtainment of power through force and coercion. No matter how free you think your government is, no matter how benevolent you think they are, they have only one thing backing their authority and that is coercion. They attempt to protect you from yourself by illegalizing a plant called marijuana, if you refuse to obey this they will initiate force upon you. I reject the legitimacy of the state ergo I reject the political system by which it is run.

This is a rather short post as I do not have very much to say I could spread this out by using more example but that is not the purpose of this post. The purpose of this post is simple.

1. To state my disgust and absolute rejection of the coercive state.
2. To state my rejection of this state's coercive political system.
3. To explain why I am apolitical and why I will not discuss politics.

Libertarianism and Voting

A lot of Libertarians who speak out against voting are of the Anarchist persuasion. The reason they do not vote is not because of apathy but quite the contrary it is a principled stand against the current form of government. People in our society usually see not voting as a sign of indifference, it has gotten to the point where many say if you don't vote you do not have the right to speak out against the government.

However in the case of the anarchist the act of voting is seen as a implicit approval of the current form of government so by voting you are giving the system legitimacy. Anarchists believe rights are naturally occurring and not dependent on the approval or disapproval of others. Voting goes against a couple basic anarchist principles The Non-Aggression Axiom and the Principle of Self Ownership. Voting violates The Non-Aggression Axiom because you are asking others to coerce people into believing as you do. Say I would vote to illegalize drugs that is like me asking others to arrest coerce and use violence against those who use drugs. It also violates the Principle of Self Ownership in that by voting you are claiming a higher authority over others lives then they have. Staying with the example of drugs, by saying the are not allowed to use certain substances is to say you have a higher claim to their life and their body which is a kind of slavery.

Some people say it is your civic responsibility to vote, but I believe my moral responsibility to not harm others in anyway and my moral opposition to slavery far outweighs any sort of patriotic guilt trip you can think up.

Epicurean Riddle

I use Epicurus' riddle quite frequently in my thinking when it comes to religion and though I believe it has some basic flaws I believe he was fundamentally asking the right question. If there is indeed a God what kind of God would that entity be? Now let's take a look at the riddle.

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
-Epicurus


If he is willing but not able then he certainly by definition is not omnipotent however this leave the door open to an omniscient God. If he is able but not willing God is implicitly doing evil but does that mean his motive is of malevolence? It could be apathy or another of other numerous motives. It is clear that their is not a God both able and willing to prevent evil as evil does exist. If God is neither able nor willing then it could be an omniscient apathetic God. Epicurus' riddle is very handy when you are speaking of a God who's properties are known but more or less useless for deistic Gods with unknown properties. In my post refuting the Judeo-Christian God I was only able to falsify the Judeo-Christian God because the properties were known. While it would be a fools errand to attempt to falsify a deity that is declared unknowable.


You cannot falsify something with unknown properties, it is known as an unfalsifiable hypothesis. In fact every time you are talking to someone who says their God transcends the rules of reason and logic I encourage you to immediately end the conversation. It is not worth your time to reason with an individual who believes that their beliefs are an exception to the rules of reason and logic. 

Refutation of the Christian God

 The Christian God is perfect. The Christian God is benevolent. The Christian God is Omnipotent and Omniscient.

Why the Christian God is not Perfect.

a) First I would like to cover the idea that the Christian God is perfect and completely with out character flaws. The Christian God is a very angry God. As we all know anger is a human aspect and it is an aspect that makes us less than perfect, it clouds our judgement and affect our actions in a negative way. In some ways anger makes us lose control of our actions and when it comes to that point we seek counseling for this character  flaw. If an individual had the same anger the Christian God had it would be safe to say he would be going to court mandated anger management classes  Take for example the story of Noah, he flooded the entire earth killing everything not on Noah's ark. Such a temper would not be acceptable in a human so why would it be acceptable for a perfect deity to act in this way. The God in the Christian bible is a deeply troubled being who isnt by any stretch of the imagination perfect. 

b) Also his hypocrisies are evident throughout the bible, I dont believe anyone could argue that hypocrisies are an aspect you would find in a perfect being. Do as I say and not as I do is an absurd statement crappy parents tell their kids so they do not have to work on their own character flaws. It is a base aspect of humanity a perfect being should follow the same guidelines they ask others to follow. "Thou shalt not kill" and "kill everything in the land of cana'an" would be seem a logically incompatible with each other.

c) Another problem with the idea of a perfect Christian God can be seen in his creation. God created something very imperfect he created man with all of their character flaws and this should have a reflection on the creator. When an a watchmaker producer mediocre watches it show that the watchmaker is mediocre. So  when God produces imperfect beings it indicates that he is an imperfect creator. It is said in the bible God created us in his image, a perfect image but we are not perfect. So for the purpose of non-contradiction either the bible was mistaken when is said God was perfect or it was mistaken when it said God created us in his image, you cant have it both ways.

Why the Christian God is not benevolent.

a) Benevolence is defined as "inclination or tendency to help or do good to others; charity" and I would also like to add kindness to the definition.  This is obviously inconsistent with certain parts of the bible mainly the old testament. Some Christians would say the old testament is irrelevant to the Christian God as he had forged a new relationship with the people. When you are looking into hiring an individual you look at their criminal background and depending on what you find you may not hire them for the job even if they say they formed a new relationship with society. You are not without cause for refusing to employ this reformed individual as it speaks to his character. Just as the old testament speaks to the Character of God.

b) Now that I established that the old testament is in fact relevant to the view of the Christian God let's look at some examples of his benevolence. The bible advocates the practice of slavery, nothing screams the tendency to do good to others like enslaving them.


"Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour."


-Leviticus 25:44-46


No one could possibly argue that the practice of slavery is an example of God's benevolence. Slavery has been a bane on society and yet the Christian God seems not to see a problem with its inherent evil. However some Christians defend this by saying, "The slavery of the bible was much more humane than the slavery of the American south." This to me is an absurd statement there is no "good" slavery to have a individual claim ownership of another human is a moral wrong, a moral wrong that the Christian God is blind to.

c) Would a benevolent God order his followers to kill in his name? God ordered the Israelites to kill everyone and everything in the land of Cana'an. God asked them to kill everything that breathes to leave no one alive no matter their sex and no matter their age. I think it is clear to me the killing of children is not exactly the benevolent thing to do.

The Christian God is not omnipotent.


My reasoning for this part is very short... When God created Adam an Eve he created them with free will and he has no power over that free will. So you can see the contradiction if free will is something God can not control then he is not omnipotent.

The Christian God is not omniscient.


My reasoning for this part is also very short. I will use the same example when God created Adam and Eve and said they could do whatever they wanted except partake from the tree of knowledge he failed to grasp the simple factor of human nature. You stick a child in a room full of toys and tell him he can play with any toy except the red fire truck, he will end up playing with that fire truck. Was God so completely clueless of human  nature that he unknowingly set Adam and Eve up for failure?

Conclusion


I have established the Christian Go is not omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent, or perfect and as a Christian you still may be hanging on the the fact I did not disprove the existence of the being you called God however I did disprove the defining characters of this being.

Think of the Christian God as a four sided figure like a square and each side represents a defining aspect of God.

This is God each side represent a defining aspect.

God is not perfect, and by taking away one side of the figure(God) I changed the figure into something completely different.

God is not benevolent, and it loses another side.

God is not omnipotent, leaving it with one side. At this point the refuted aspects make the figure unrecognizable.

God is not omniscient, now the figure has been refuted to non existence as its properties are no longer there. Sure you could argue that it is there just not as anyone would recognize it but it would not be the Christian God as we know it.

Religion's Role in Society

What is religions role in society? Should it be a basis for laws? Should the state enforce morality? If your answer  to those questions are yes then that raises a whole new set of questions. What religion should dictate the official morality of our nation? Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, Buddhism? Clearly if we want to legislate morality we must determine which religion's moral codes are objectively true because we shouldn't be expected to enforce something based on the judgement values of the individual. Can anyone's moral code be considered objective? After all we as humans do frequently disagree when it comes to morals.. If morals were objective then they would be a matter of fact and disagreement shouldn't be a problem. When it comes to objective fact disagreement doesn't exist. When was the last time you heard someone argue that a triangle has four sides? You haven't because people would point out that by definition a triangle has three sides and the person claiming a triangle has four sides would look like a total wanker. Now when individuals make judgement values on things like lying is the answer as clear as the number of sides on a triangle? Of course not when it comes to lying an individual must consider the circumstances around the lie and who is hurt because of the lie. Different individuals would judge the same situation in different ways. So because morality is based on the judgement values of the individual it is clear that morality should not dictate laws as it is not objective.

Ok now let us throw all reason aside and say that morality is now objective and Christianity is the dictator of all that is good. Now we are enforcing the moral laws of Christianity to the full extent of the bible. Now how can this coexist with the freedom of religion granted in the constitution? If you are enforcing the Christian morals you are violating their right to worship as they please when their morals directly contradict that of the Christian moral code. Also how does this coexist with the principle of free will often supported by Christians? If you are enforcing your moral code you are by your own theology negating God's gift of free will.

Thus you come to the conclusion that the only kind of state capable of freedom of religion and free will is a secular state.

The Folly Of Patriotism

 Patriotism has to be one of the most overrated qualities an individual can have. People in our society are proud to be patriotic proud to support their country even when the country doesn't deserve it. Patriotism in fact blinds you to the evil deeds your nation is committing right under your noses. Patriotism is a tool the government uses to stifle all dissent in fact there were a couple times in American history where dissent was illegal. From the Alien & Sedition Acts of John Adams to the Patriot Act of Bush the younger they made it the patriotic thing to violate the rights of others when it became convenient for the government to do so. It has come to the point that saying that we as a nation should not invade another nation and force our ideals on them at the point of a sword to be an Un-American act. We would cheer on when the rights of others were violated because it meant we were being patriotic. You know it gave you warm fuzzy feelings when you would wave those blood stained rags you call flags. You know you had that same feeling when your first gut reaction to any type of dissent was to scream and drown out the sound of their voice and not even consider that what they might have something to say worth listening to.

Patriot: the person who can holler the loudest without knowing what he is hollering about.
-Mark Twain

Early American Government

 The American Revolution is probably one of the most romanticized bits of history ever and unjustly so. Some parts of it were spectacular for example the fact that a group of more or less farmers could tackle the largest superpower of the day was phenomenal. But the part that that was most overblown was the reasons behind it and the results of it. People said they wanted to be free from the kings rule they called him a tyrant and rightfully so. But was what the "patriots" suggesting any better at all? They created a government in which the immoral hierarchy of powers still existed and while on paper it protected the right of the individual in practice it failed completely because it maintained the system in which rights could be abused. In fact it only took us to the second president before we began to see the failures of the colonist's plan. John Adams' Alien in Sedition Acts had effectively violated the rights given to them by the constitution. We were violating the rights of citizens before the ink even had dried on that document. You can try to change the nature of the beast as much as you want but the beast is a beast by nature. Government by its very nature enforces unjust power over a group of people. It is insane keep using the same system over and over again and to expect a different result.