No God, No Rules?

On February 8, 2010, In Morality, Philosophy, By The Armchair Antichrist

Sometimes when you ask a religious person what would happen if they did not believe in God they will say that they would have no reason to act moral anymore. There would be no more objective morality for them. Everything would become subjective and relative to personal whims and desires.

There would be no difference between murder and dropping a stone. So, without God they would have no problem with rape, murder, theft, arson, adultery and all the things which they previously considered sinful. At face value this is completely ridiculous claim.

But, it makes perfect sense through Feuerbach’s work which I have previosuly written about in You Are Your Own God. Since God is human nature externalized and objectified, the denial of such a God would be a denial of human nature. It would be a denial of our Reason, Will and Affection. That would be like the removal of the ego and super-ego from one’s psyche, leaving only the id behind. Like the brute we would be ruled by our desires.

I hope I have made more sense out of religious idiocy. And hopefully through reason I will be able to continue to correct their mistakes.

Tagged with: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
 
Comments Comments
Leave A Response

Why is There Something Rather Than Nothing (Part 2)

On February 6, 2010, In Cosmology, Philosophy, By The Armchair Antichrist

This is of course a continuation of Why is There Something Rather Than Nothing.

For this I will turn to one of my favourite pre-Socratics, Parmenides. I will present his arguments which will hopefully help answer this ultimate question.

P1: If you can think about nothingness, then it has at least two attributes: it is knowable and thinkable.
P2: If ‘nothingness’ has attributes, then it isn’t nothingness; it is ‘something’ knowable and thinkable.
P3: It is absurd to claim that nothingness is something.
Conclusion: You cannot think about ‘nothingness’.

P1: If the cosmos comes to be it must come to be from what is not (nothingness) or from what is (something).
P2: The cosmos cannot come to be from not being/nothingness.
P3: The cosmos cannot come to be from something/what is because it already is.
Conclusion: The cosmos cannot come to be.

P1: If the cosmos is perishable it perishes into something or nothing.
P2: It cannot perish into something because that is still the cosmos.
P3: It cannot perish into nothing.
Conclusion: The cosmos cannot perish.

Tagged with: • • • • • • • • •
 
Comments Comments
Leave A Response

Another Challenge to Mind-Body Dualists

On February 5, 2010, In Philosophy, Uncategorized, By The Armchair Antichrist

This is a continuation of Obstacles for the Soul.

If the mind is immaterial and not limited by space then why is it limited to our physical bodies? If mind had those characteristics then our consciousness would not be limited to our bodies. But, everywhere my body goes my mind is also there. Rather, if mind is immaterial and not limited by space then it transcends space. We should be conscious of all the universe. If you think about it every mind would be godlike.

Furthermore, the mind is considered the true ’self’. The body is only a container. So, you should have no problems if I cut off some of your fingers. Better yet why don’t I free you from your container by killing you? That is what you are hoping for isn’t it? Life after death? What difference does it make when it happens? You will be spending an eternity in such a bodiless state anyways. It’s better to get you accustomed to it now.

Besides that, those of you who are pro-life would be in a moral dilemma. Abortion would not be wrong at all. If a embryo/fetus has a fully formed soul then it is alive regardless if its physical container is aborted. Its body may have died, but it has not died because the soul is its true self. Then again they might go to hell because they have not been baptized and cleansed of their original sin. But, that’s something you would have to take up with your Creator who made up this stupid guilty by genealogical rule.

Tagged with: • • • • • • • • • • • • •
 
Comments Comments
Leave A Response

God is Weak

On February 1, 2010, In Arguments against God, Nature of God, Religious Arguments, By The Armchair Antichrist

There is just so much mental gymnastics that religious people engage in. It really is a mystery how they handle all the cognitive dissonance so well.This time it is the claim that God cannot do something that is contrary to his nature. His nature is the basis of our morality so it is claimed that God cannot lie or sin. This is such an easily refutable statement that it is a wonder to me that why a large number of Christian debaters including William Lane Craig have used it.

If God cannot do even one thing then he cannot be all-powerful. In an effort to reinforce the ‘morality comes from God’ argument they have sacrificed one of God’s key attributes: omnipotence. Heck, if I can do two things that God cannot then I am technically more powerful than God in some regard. It seems that the concept of God is so fragile that it will fall apart at any moment.

Related to this is the claim that God is bound to the laws of logic. And this is of course to counter the paradoxes of whether God can make a rock so heavy that even he can’t lift it or whether he can make a square circle. This approach again fails miserably. Omnipotence is by definition ‘unlimited’ power. So, God cannot be limited by anything especially if he is supposedly the author of the laws of logic which is suggested by the transcendental argument (which of course also fails epicly).

First, a weak hell. Now, a weak God. What’s next?

Tagged with: • • • • • • • • •
 
Comments Comments
Leave A Response

Canadian Forces Ad on Youtube

On January 31, 2010, In Politics, Videos, By The Armchair Antichrist

This is the ad currently displayed to people who go on youtube in Canada. Apparently, this is part of some recruitment campaign. On their youtube channel (http://www NULL.youtube NULL.com/user/CanadianForcesVideos) it says they are looking for ‘undiscovered talent’.

And this is in their profile information:

“The Canadian Forces offer unique, challenging and rewarding careers, competitive pay, job security and benefits. We provide personnel with training. There is also the opportunity for free college or university education in specific fields. For more information on over 100 exciting careers with the Canadian Forces visit FORCES.CA”

They also have some information on the Canadian forces:

“The Canadian Forces are a modern and effective military capable of performing a number of important roles at home and abroad. For all our equipment and technology, it is our people who truly allow us to perform these roles. These men and women have unique skills, knowledge and experience that make the Canadian Forces modern, effective and professional.

Approximately 67,000 Regular Force members and 23,000 Reserve Force members belong to air, land, sea and special operations components of the Canadian Forces. Expansion is essential for us to be able to continue to protect Canada and to assume a leadership role in the world.”

I like the angle they’re coming from. They are emphasizing the technical side of the military which I guess is what they have always done. I might be biased, but I like these kinds of ads more than those overly macho ‘Army of One’ American ones. The diversity part could use a little more work though. It is an ad for Canada no less, the land of multiculturalism.

Tagged with: • • • • • • • • • • • •
 
Comments Comments
Leave A Response

Big Bust Cosmology

On January 29, 2010, In Cosmology, Debates, Religious Arguments, Science, By The Armchair Antichrist

In most or all of the God debates that I have seen there is a common use by the theist side of the Kalam argument reinforced by a reference to the Big Bang Theory. I will not be debunking the Kalam argument here. That can be found in an earlier post. With this post I will be showing you how theist debaters have been misusing science, specifically the Big Bang Theory.

Most erroneously, these theist debaters claim that the Big Bang has been scientifically proven to be an act of creation or at least was the moment of creation. This is not true. What we know conclusively through science is only that the universe was once in a much denser and hotter state and expanded into its current form. The farthest we can get to the ‘beginning’ is the Plank epoch up to 10–43 seconds after the Big Bang, a period which is still very fuzzy.

All theories about the early universe are speculative at best. This is because without empirical evidence (that will hopefully be found by particle accelerators) the only measure of validity for these theories is internal mathematical consistency. Basically, if the math behind the theory works out then it is a possible explanation of the universe’s cosmogony or ‘beginning’.

There are many of these kinds of theories which are all theoretically possible. Some of them include self-creating universes, universes created from the collision of branes, finite spherical universes with no beginning, the list goes on.

So the question is why do these theist debaters only hold onto an account which allows for a beginning (if only they had the same level of confidence for evolution). Well, this is so that they can argue for a ‘creation’ event and therefore, the existence of God. They will even go as far as to quote mine physicists who believe in opposing theories. This is a perfect example of confirmation bias and the overall close-mindedness of the religious.

Tagged with: • • • • • • • • • • •
 
Comments Comments
Leave A Response

Religion and Psychology

On January 28, 2010, In Debates, Religion, Science, By The Armchair Antichrist

I have noticed that professionals in the field of psychology have become more active in the ‘atheist movement’. In my first year at university it was a psychology professor who represented the atheist side in a God debate organized by Campus for Christ. And in my current second year the atheist side was again represented by a psychology professor who is a professor from the university too.

Perhaps it is because they understand the underlying cognitive biases that contribute to religiosity such as confirmation bias which plays a strong role in religious belief. They probably also see the emotional benefits of having religious beliefs and the benefits that come from being part of a religious community. I know some of you religious folk are going to scream “GENETIC FALLACY!” But, that is only true if it was the ONLY reason someone gives for why people believe in God or are in a particular religion.

While I would prefer to have philosophy professors in God debates, I find psychology professors just as capable because of their strong background in science. Furthermore, I hope the psychology of religious belief is expanded and more thoroughly researched so that it one day becomes a regular part of psychology (i.e. a branch of abnormal psychology).

Tagged with: • • • • • • • • • • •
 
Comments Comments
Leave A Response

Russia Plans to Ban “Damaging Cults”

On January 26, 2010, In Religion, Videos, By The Armchair Antichrist

If this law is written up properly it could be very beneficial. While it would not completely ban a cult, it would place reasonable restrictions on them like preventing them from proselytizing in the military, hospitals, and mental institutions. This would curb the number of people they can convert and minimize their influence.

Tagged with: • • • • • • • • •
 
Comments Comments
Leave A Response

You Are Your Own God

On January 25, 2010, In Arguments Against Religion, Arguments against God, Philosophy, Religious Arguments, By The Armchair Antichrist

I hear this statement thrown around a lot by Christians who try to bring atheists, agnostics, and other freethinkers down to their level. They claim that instead of worshipping God which is oh so great, you worship yourself. Sometimes they will change it up and target your interests or hobbies (e.g. Music is your God, Gaming is your God, etc.). But, mostly they use the “You are your own God” line.

The Christians who use this think they are being clever, but really they are just bastardizing Ludwig Feuerbach’s work. In The Essence Of Christianity Feuerbach argues that religion is identical with self-consciousness, the distinctive characteristic of man which separate us from brutes. The divine trinity of human nature is Reason, Will and Love. These three things propel us towards an object which is none other than than our objective nature. Religion is merely the objectification of our own human nature which we call “God”. In religion, we simply take our human nature, objectify it, and call it “God” (e.g. “God is love”).

Therefore, God is only a projection of the ideals of humanity. Humans are the only real subject. Religion, then is a fantasy because it allows man to go beyond his own nature though it is only through imagination which conceives of a higher kind. But, in reality we cannot escape our own nature. We must embrace it and practice self-verification, self-affirmation, and self-love. Every being is perfect and infinite in their own way (perhaps he was the first motivational speakers) and has God within itself.

So, as you can see this is what it really means when you are your own God. But, don’t take it from me. Decide for yourself if this makes sense or not.

Tagged with: • • • •
 
Comments Comments
Leave A Response

A Pact With the Devil?

On January 23, 2010, In Christianity, Heaven and Hell, Religion, Videos, By The Armchair Antichrist

Pat Robertson claims that the Haitians swore a pact with the devil to win their independence from the French Empire. This doesn’t make any sense. Yes, it doesn’t make sense in that the Devil is an imaginary being.

But, it also goes against some crazy religious views. Some nutcases believe that Nostradamus prophesied that Napoleon was one of the antichrists along with Hitler. However, if Napoleon was an antichrist then why would the Devil help the Haitians defeat him?

It could be argued that the Devil is a trickster and played both sides. But, still the antichrist is basically the son of the Devil and is also supposedly doing his work. An intelligent being like the Devil who is infamous for his trickery isn’t likely to have shot himself in the foot like that.

Tagged with: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
 
Comments Comments
Leave A Response
« Previous Entries
Go To Top »