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: battlestar galactica, capitalism, class struggle, commodities, consciousness, cybernetic, human nature, labour, marxism, mass effect, matrix, production, sentient, terminator

No God, No Rules?

Posted 08 Feb 2010 — by The Armchair Antichrist
Category Morality, Philosophy

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 superego 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.

Share this:

Close Bookmark and Share This Page

Link HTML:

Permalink:

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

Why is There Something Rather Than Nothing (Part 2)

Posted 06 Feb 2010 — by The Armchair Antichrist
Category Cosmology, Philosophy

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.

Share this:

Close Bookmark and Share This Page

Link HTML:

Permalink:

Tags: arguments, attributes, conclusion, cosmos, knowable, not being, nothingness, parmenides, perish, pre socratic, something, thinkable, ultimate

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

You Are Your Own God

Posted 25 Jan 2010 — by The Armchair Antichrist
Category Arguments Against Religion, Arguments against God, Philosophy, Religious Arguments

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.

Share this:

Close Bookmark and Share This Page

Link HTML:

Permalink:

Tags: agnostic, atheist, Christianity, feuerbach, freethinker, god, human nature, humanity, Religion, trinity

Good Old Kant

Posted 12 Jan 2010 — by The Armchair Antichrist
Category Arguments against God, Nature of God, Philosophy, Religion

Although Kant believed in God (not the Christian one since he was very critical of Christianity) and tried to provide logical reasons to believe in God, this excerpt from his Critique of Pure Reason illustrates some of the problems with the God concept. Specifically, it helps shed some light onto all the meaningless talk about God being outside of time, space and so on.

“If we suppose an object of a non-sensible intuition to be given, we can indeed represent it through all the predicates which are implied in the presupposition that it has none of the characteristics proper to sensible intuitions; that it is has none of the characteristics proper to sensible intuition; that it is not extended or in space, that its duration is not a time, that no change (succession of determinations in time) is to be met in it, etc. But there is no proper knowledge if I thus merely indicate what the intuition of an object is not, without being to say what it is that is contained in the intuition. For I have not then shown that the object is even so much as possible, not being in a position to given any intuition corresponding to the concept, and being able to say that our intuition is not applicable to it. But what has chiefly to be noted is this, that to such a something [in general] not a single one of all the categories be applied. We could not, for instance, apply it to the concept of substance, meaning something which can exist as subject and never as predicate. For save in so far as empirical intuition provides the instance to which to apply it, I do not know whether there can be anything that corresponds to such a form of thought.”

Share this:

Close Bookmark and Share This Page

Link HTML:

Permalink:

Tags: christian, Christianity, god, intuition, logical, reason, space, substance, time

Why is There Something Rather Than Nothing?

Posted 29 Dec 2009 — by The Armchair Antichrist
Category Cosmology, Philosophy, Science

To answer this question we first have to inquire into what “Nothing” is. Heidegger believed it to be something. For example, he saw the desire for Nothing as different from having no desires. But, this treatment of Nothing as something leads to a logical absurdity.

Premise 1: Nothing is better than great sex.
Premise 2: Pizza is better than Nothing.
Conclusion: Pizza is better than great sex.

Nothing is not prior to the Not. Rather, the Not is prior to Nothing. The Not reverses the truth value of statements from true to false and vice versa like a switch. Heidegger wrongly treated Nothing like a substance or a name just because it was a noun in language.

Therefore, Nothing cannot be a state of affairs unless it is compared to something (i.e. Not something). So, logically something has always existed which renders this question meaningless.

This leads us to the next question which is why is this “something” the way it is? Why is the universe ordered in this way? For the answer to this question I turn to the anthropic principle. The anthropic principle basically states that we see the universe the way it is because we exist.

The reason why the Big Bang occurred about 10 billion years ago is because the universe needed to be old enough so that some stars will have completed their evolution to produce the elements out of which living things are made, and young enough so that some stars would still be able to provide energy to sustain life. If this was not the case we would not be here to ask the question.

For better explanations you should turn to the work of cosmologists and physicists who are tirelessly working towards a better understanding of the universe.

Share this:

Close Bookmark and Share This Page

Link HTML:

Permalink:

Tags: anthropic principle, big bang, cosmologist, heidegger, nothing, physicist, something, substance, universe

Obstacles for the Soul

Posted 14 Dec 2009 — by The Armchair Antichrist
Category Afterlife, Mind and Soul, Philosophy

The existence of the soul which is responsible for our enduring identity is fundamental to Christianity and many other faiths. But, does the concept of the soul hold any water?

First let’s take a look at what the “soul” is. Just like the concept of God, there does not seem to be a clear ontology for the soul. It can only be described in comparison to the physical. For example, it is often described with words such as non-physical, immaterial and non-spatial. But, this does not explain anything at all.

Furthermore, how does an immaterial soul interact with a physical body? It is logically contradictory to say that something which is immaterial can have any effect on something which is material. Also, any added energy from the soul would violate the first law of thermodynamics.

And, if the soul exists why does damage to parts of the brain get reflected in decreased functionality in those areas which it is said to control (e.g. speech, motor-skills, problem-solving etc.)? Damage to the brain is physical and should not be able to affect these mental functions which reside in our non-physical souls.

Moreover, in some split-brain patients it has been found that half of the person believes in God and the other half of the person does not believe in God. Why would a physical split of the brain be able to split the identity of person so neatly in half if the non-physical soul is responsible for our enduring identity?

In addition, all of our senses are dependent on our physical body. Our eyes are necessary for vision, our tongue for taste, our nose for smell, and so on. How could we still be able to experience anything without a physical body? If the soul is capable of all those things without the body it seems very pointless and redundant to have sensory organs at all.

Lastly, the concept of the soul would be very counterintuitive to our sense of morality. If our physical bodies are only containers and it is the soul that is who we are, then we would not die when our bodies do. Our souls would exist and we would still be alive after death. But, if a person is still alive after death why would it be immoral to commit murder?

Share this:

Close Bookmark and Share This Page

Link HTML:

Permalink:

Tags: brain, god, immaterial, mental, Morality, ontology, physical, soul, spatial, split brain

Pseudo-Intellectual Babble

Posted 16 Nov 2009 — by The Armchair Antichrist
Category Answers to Stupid People, Debunked, Philosophy, Religious Arguments, Religious Stupidity

In this post I will teach you theists how not to argue. This was inspired by a recent commenter. He said that belief in science presupposes its superiority to any other worldview or as he likes to call it “noetic structure”. Without presenting an argument to justify the superiority of some noetic strcuture, B, one begs the question in favor of B by simply presupposing it is correct.” So, he says that he doesn’t agree with my claim that science is the superior method of finding knowledge which makes it an invalid claim to him.

I responded by saying that the only way we can tell if one system is better than another is through how well they work for us. And he convienently responds by saying that I have presupposed the pragmatic approach to selecting the proper system. Really? Is there another way to tell how well something works other than the way it works for us? This type of reasoning, lets call it bullshit, boggles the mind.

It is hard to be gentle with people who try to argue like this. This type of pseudo-intellectual babble does not lead to anything and is just arguing for the sake of argument. The proper term for this type of view is conceptual relativism. Conceptual relativism presupposes that there are different worldviews. Not every system is accepted, but there is no way to judge between two good systems. There is also no neutral worldview to make judgment from; no outside perspective. And there is no point of view from within a worldview for judging another one.

What does this mean for Christianity? Well it means that it is nothing special. All religions would be equally valid worldviews. That is the best conclusion that could come from conceptual relativism. But, how does that help apologetics? Well it doesn’t help at all. It has the opposite effect desired.

Share this:

Close Bookmark and Share This Page

Link HTML:

Permalink:

Tags: apologetics, Christianity, conceptual, knowledge, noetic, pragmatic, relativism, Science

The Question of Evil

Posted 26 Oct 2009 — by The Armchair Antichrist
Category Arguments against God, Free Will, Philosophy

I will not be discussing Euthyphro’s dilemma here. Rather I will be discussing whether or not God could have created a world with no evil options while still preserving free will.

Theists will say that we do have free will. We have the choice of doing good things to help people and also evil things to harm people. They believe that the ability to do both good and evil is necessary for free will. So, they will conclude that removing evil options will also eliminate free will.

But, presuming the existence of God will lead you to the opposite answer. If you accept that God created humans in this current form you also have to accept that he has already limited us in some way. Since he is all-powerful he could have endowed us with an infinite amount of options. God could have given us options that we couldn’t even imagine. But, since we do have a limited amount of option it must have been God the creator who set those limits.

So why would further limits destroy free will when his earlier limits do not?

Share this:

Close Bookmark and Share This Page