Final Prayer

I started recollecting from back when I was a northern Baptist choir boy, when I actually did believe the God of the Bible. I used to pray to this God when I was in a bit of trouble whether it be an actual crisis or a crisis of faith, I remembered how important these prayers where to me how they brought me comfort. I used to lead my congregation in prayer for every Wednesday night service. But then one day I noticed that very few of my prayer were met I didn't get these signals I asked for when my faith was weak. I prayed for the health of my loved ones but I still was forced to watch them die and wither away.

The prayers that were once so significant to me now have stopped.. I do not remember the last prayer I had done, it was probably something with little thought like a meal time prayer. I refuse to let something that was once so significant to me go out in such an inane way so I decided to write one last prayer.

Dear God,

I know you must be busy feeding your preachers with sermons and apologetics so I decided to write it down so that you might read it later. Why did you ignore my prayers? I spoke to you multiple times everyday but you never answered back not once? Am I not important enough to answer? I was told you loved me but you seemed to have ignored me. Certainly you would have known how bitter this would have made me and how it would have turned me away from you, you are omniscient. Is not not then your fault that I walked away? Surely I cannot be blamed for this apostascy as it was you who neglected me. However your guilt goes much deeper than simple neglect my father, every night you would get drunk on rage and slap humanity around. Why bother?

Why were you so angry with us? Sure we did break some rule and made mistakes, but even gods have fell. But you condemn us still? Why my father did you not try to talk to us? We could have been buds but instead you decide to break out the pestilence and floods. You are an angry god guilty of sin and murder. Do I need to take it any further? You were angry and jealous as my began to wander. But is that such a crime just to sit  and ponder?

I am leaving you now for I given you all the time I can allow. Just remember that it was not me and its you; the neglect and anger is why we through.  My dear lord I know I have asked many questions for you to answer, but don't worry about it  I never expected anything that is for damn sure. So it is time for me to run, and don't worry next time Ill pray to the sun.

For the last time in your empty vain name, amen.

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.