The Armchair Antichrist

Link HTML:

Permalink:

If you like this then please subscribe to the RSS Feed (http://feeds NULL.feedburner NULL.com/TheArmchairAntichrist) or Email Feed (http://www NULL.feedburner NULL.com/fb/a/emailverifySubmit?feedId=67ph9hkenfoe0cqvkb5f56sj1o&loc=en_US).

Tags: adultery, affection, arson, brute, feuerbach, human nature, id, murder, objective morality, psyche, rape, reason, religious idiocy, superego, theft

Another Challenge to Mind-Body Dualists

Posted 05 Feb 2010 — by The Armchair Antichrist
Category Afterlife, Mind and Soul, Morality, Philosophy

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.

Share this:

Close Bookmark and Share This Page

Link HTML:

Permalink:

Tags: abortion, conception, embryo, fetus, godlike, immaterial, moral dilemma, original sin, pro choice, pro life, soul

Witch Hunter Sues Humanist Activist in Attempt to Quell Criticism

Posted 07 Dec 2009 — by The Armchair Antichrist
Category Morality, Religion, Respect for Religion?

In May 2009, the Center for Inquiry (CFI) launched an anti-superstition campaign to highlight and combat the abuse of alleged child witches throughout the African continent. Now witch hunter Helen Ukpabio, head of the Liberty Gospel Church in Nigeria and a frequent target of criticism by CFI, has filed a lawsuit in Nigerian federal court against Leo Igwe, CFI’s representative in Nigeria.

The events were set into motion on July 29 when a mob of about 150 members from Ukpabio’s Liberty Gospel Church attacked Igwe and others during a “Child Rights and Witchcraft” event in Calabar, Nigeria. Police finally broke up the mob and arrested one person. Igwe’s bag, phone, camera, and a copy of his planned speech were stolen and his eyeglasses were smashed.

The complaint filed by Ukpabio essentially alleges religious discrimination on the part of Igwe, who has been a tireless vocal critic of Ukpabio’s claims that many of Nigeria’s children and women are witches. The suit, scheduled for a hearing on December 17, is seeking an injunction to prevent Igwe and other humanist groups from holding seminars or workshops aimed at raising awareness about the dangers associated with the religious belief in witchcraft. Ukpabio is attempting to erect a legal barrier against humanist groups who might criticize her group for their practices. Learn more about CFI’s anti-superstition campaign and Ukpabio’s law suit by reading our recent press release.

“The persecution of alleged child witches underscores the importance of our anti-superstition campaign in Africa,” said Norm R. Allen Jr., executive director of African Americans for Humanism and CFI’s Transnational Programs. “Superstition has dire consequences to individuals and societies and often contributes greatly to gross human rights abuses. Those who continue to view superstition as benign must think again.”

The anti-superstition campaign can save lives. We hope that you can provide a gift at this time to help us continue this most important work. Please give as generously as possible. Thank you!

This just makes my blood boil. The crimes these people have committed are no less than crimes against humanity. And they have the nerve to sue these CFI representatives after they viciously attacked them during a child’s rights event. I’m against the death penalty, but in the case of Helen Ukpabio and her followers even the death penalty is inadequate retribution.

Share this:

Close Bookmark and Share This Page

Link HTML:

Permalink:

Tags: african, CFI, church, gospel, human rights, humanist, nigeria, religious, superstition, witchcraft

Parental Failure

Posted 28 Nov 2009 — by The Armchair Antichrist
Category Morality, Religion

There is something that most religious parents who indoctrinate their children into their own religion have in common. These parents usually teach their children that fictional characters such as Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy are real. This kind of parenting can only be characterized as sub-standard.

If parents should teach their children anything it should be critical thinking. Children need to learn how to properly evaluate the things they encounter in life. They need to know how to ask the right questions and be able to analyze information to come to rational conclusions. Teaching them that imaginary characters are real will only make them more susceptible to unfounded claims in the future.

There is also the problem of lying to children. Teaching them something which you personally know isn’t true is morally wrong. And for you Christians, it violates the 9th commandment. There is also an element of idol worship involved (violation of the 2nd commandment), especially for Santa Claus whom children basically pray to for presents.

The Santa Claus myth also promotes doing good for the sake of reward and avoid doing wrong out of fear for punishment (i.e. coal) because you are being watched by an omniscient supernatural being (sounds familiar). This teaches children an unjust system of morality. Children should learn that good has intrinsic value and should be done for its own sake.

Moreover, for many of these myths the child’s belief of the supernatural entity involved is required in order for them to receive the reward. This teaches children that it is okay to believe in something without proper evidence. And even when children begin to ask questions parents will continue to lie to them in order to keep them believing in the myths as long as possible (to not spoil their fun). The result is the discouragement of healthy skepticism.

Nevertheless, it seems like teaching kids about these more softer versions of religion makes it easier to push the hardcore religion down their throats. The step from Santa Claus to Jesus is not that far. I guess it is all just part of the religious program of indoctrination.

Share this:

Close Bookmark and Share This Page

Link HTML:

Permalink:

Tags: commandment, easter bunny, fictional, imaginary, indoctrinate, parenting, Religion, religious, santa claus, supernatural, tooth fairy

If God Does Not Exist, Everything is Permitted?

Posted 16 Oct 2009 — by The Armchair Antichrist
Category Christianity, Debunked, Media Critiques, Morality

This quote is one of the most widely used by theists (e.g., William Lane Craig). But, is there any basis for this quote? Did Dostoyevsky even make this quote? And is this quote valid in reality? In this post I will attempt to answer these questions.

Firstly, this quote cannot be found anywhere in The Brothers Karamazov. It is an accurate summary of the beliefs held by one of the characters, Ivan Karamazov, in the early chapters of the novel. But, the character himself does not utter this sentence. To recap, this sentence or anything close to it does not appear in The Brothers Karamazov or four other famous Dostoyevsky novels for that matter. Dostoyevsky simply did not make this quote.

This attempt at deceit is beyond the practice of quote-mining which theists have been known to use. It is a blatant misattribution of a quote to one of the world’s most famous writers and complete intellectual dishonesty. Nonetheless, even if Dostoyevsky did make this quote, using it as evidence for anything on the sole basis that he said it would only be an appeal to authority.

But, lets look at the content of the quote. Again it is one of those quasi-arguments that assumes something before trying to provide evidence for it. And of course it assumes that God does exist because we know that everything is not permitted in the world. But, logic doesn’t work that way.

You can’t start by assuming something is true to prove that it is true. That is the mark of backwards religious thinking: you start with something you want to believe is true and then find what complies with that, all the while ignoring disconfirming evidence.

Even with a general knowledge of Christianity it is possible to see that the quote is wrong. In Christianity all your sins will be forgiven as long as you sincerely beg for forgiveness. It doesn’t matter how severe the crime is. It could be theft, arson, rape, murder, even genocide. As long as you ask for forgiveness it will be granted. It seems that, contrary to the quote, all is permissible as long as there is a God.

Furthermore, Christians will say that we do not always get justice in this world. In fact, there seems to be a lot of injustice in this world: many good people live bad lives and many bad people live good lives. So, they believe that this necessitates an ultimate court beyond our world to apply justice when it can’t be found in our own. This is merely an appeal to consequences and wishful thinking. The existence of injustice in this world does not mean that there must be a source of ultimate source of justice beyond it. Theists are just invoking God to hide from reality.

Share this:

Close Bookmark and Share This Page

Link HTML:

Permalink:

Tags: brothers karamazov, christian, Christianity, dostoevsky, genocide, justice, logic, murder, quote mining, rape, religious, william lane craig

Does Objectivity in Morality Require God?

Posted 01 Oct 2009 — by The Armchair Antichrist
Category Arguments Against Religion, Debunked, Morality, Philosophy, Religious Arguments

Recently, a commenter made it clear to me that he believes that I cannot say something is objectively wrong without God. This claim makes many assumptions. It is one of those arguments like the Ontological argument which requires you to believe in God in order to convince you to believe in God. It is also known as begging the question. And as you can see this is not logical at all.

One of the assumptions it makes is that the objectivity of any moral statement derives from God. This means that it assumes that God has the authority over all of morality. However, if you accept that God has authority over morality it is a necessary condition that you already believe in his existence. Your belief in God is necessary in order for you to be convinced into believing in God. So, this is just a circular argument.

To further explain my point let’s grant that it is a fact that God exists. He is all-powerful, all-knowing, infinite and the creator of the universe. That’s all great stuff, but it does not mean I am obliged to accept his authority. He may threaten me with death or even eternal suffering in hell, but I do not need to accept his authority. In no way is saying “genocide is wrong” made objective by God giving me the thumbs up. Conversely, saying “genocide is right” is not made objective by God giving me the thumbs down. His input makes no difference because coercion has nothing to do with morality.

In contrast, making God the arbiter of morality degrades its value. I wouldn’t even call it morality anymore if it was derived from God. This is because you are only following commands because you want to avoid eternal suffering and gain salvation. The morality that I know and value is practiced without coercion and is practiced because people are moral in themselves. People know why certain things are wrong because those things hurt others, deceive others, take advantage of others and so on.

What makes morality objective is that it can be determined from simple ethical rationalism. For example, there are principles like the Golden Rule or Ethic of reciprocity which we can understand rationally and by the way wasn’t first invented, discovered, or taught by the bible. We may not all come up with exactly the same moral statements, but we will generally be in the same range. The small flexibility that morality allows does not make it useless, however, it just demonstrates that we have independent minds. We are able to interpret things to be either good or bad because we all have our own moral compass within our minds. Outsourcing this moral compass to God does not solve anything, rather it ends up demoralizing morality.

I also wrote about morality in an earlier post titled The Question of Morality.

Share this:

Close Bookmark and Share This Page

Link HTML:

Permalink:

Tags: argument, authority, circular, creator, ethical, genocide, golden rule, Morality, ontological, rationalism, salvation

The Question of Morality

Posted 23 Aug 2009 — by The Armchair Antichrist
Category Atheism, Christianity, Morality, Philosophy

Christians say that their morality comes from God, but there are some problems with that. Is something good because God commands it, or does God command what is good? The typical Christian response is that goodness is in God’s nature. However, since God is eternal his nature is also eternal and he would have no control over it. Therefore, his nature would be arbitrary. So, we must have things which are good in and of themselves and not solely because God commands them.

I prefer morality that is of natural origin rather than supernatural. Since, humans are products of evolution it is not hard to understand that morality is also partially a product of evolution. When humans lived in small groups which were more or less composed of their own kin it was beneficial to be good to each other in evolutionary terms. This type of biological morality has survived and is the basis for our morality today.

But, our brains have evolved and we can rationally understand why some things are moral and other things are not. For example, the Golden Rule, do not do to others which you would not like done to yourself, is not hard to come by rationally. Many cultures around the globe have developed this ethic of reciprocity independently, much earlier than Christianity claimed to have first introduced it.

Furthermore, Kant tells us that we should never treat people only as a means but always as ends. He also said that we should imagine a world in which everybody did something and if it would be a world we like to live in. For example, if we lived in a world where everybody lied, then promises and contracts would be meaningless.

Morality above all else is inside us and not imposed from above by authority. If God is the only thing stopping you from theft, murder and rape are you really a moral person? You are just following the commands of an authority figure to escape punishment. There is no morality in that at all.

Share this:

Close Bookmark and Share This Page