The Armchair Antichrist

Deny God to Cope with Reality?

The Armchair Antichrist — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 23:29:36 +0000

Have you seen this before?

Atheists try to make belief in God seem like something just to help people cope, but it is the exact opposite! They deny God to help them cope with the coming judgment.

You can find it on a number of Christian YouTube profiles. I don’t know why it is so popular because it is just so damn idiotic. It rings of the same bell as Satan going against God even though he knows that he exists and will destroy him. Similarly, this concept assumes that atheists believe in God and know that they will burn in hell for eternity for denying God.

This doesn’t make any sense firstly because by definition an atheist does not believe in God. Furthermore, it assumes that people with the knowledge that there are only two paths: one that leads to eternal life and happiness and another that leads to eternal suffering and damnation that people would actually choose the latter.

There is no amount of sin that you religious people think atheists enjoy so much that can compensate for damnation. And implying that people choose to go to hell is just disgusting. So, religious people please get your concepts straight and try using some logic and reason before spouting out nonsense.

Share this:

Satan the Scapegoat

The Armchair Antichrist — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 02:25:38 +0000

Satan gets a lot of blame in the religious community. He almost seems to be as omnipresent as God seeing as he is blamed for many things by many people around the world. But, he is really only an invented character used as a scapegoat to make another invented character look better in comparison to. And many things that Satan is said to tempt people with such as gluttony, lust, envy, and so on are just a part of human nature.

Satan is oh so bad. But, tell me, how good is God if he created Satan knowing all well that he would be responsible for so much evil. Besides that, God has had all this time to destroy Satan. Why doesn’t he do that? It would get rid of a whole lot of evil in the world that religious people say he is responsible for. Even if it interfered with his free will it would be well worth it. God does care about humanity doesn’t he? And that would necessarily mean he would try to lessen the pain and suffering caused by evil, wouldn’t it?

It would seem to me in the context of this mythology that Satan is just a minion of God because nobody in their right mind would willingly go against such a petty, cruel, violent, vindictive and malevolent being knowing that he is also all-powerful. But, then again if you take mythology to be truth you can believe in anything.

Share this:

Marxist Robot Revolutions

The Armchair Antichrist — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 02:58:40 +0000

It only takes a casual glance to notice that there are a lot of science fiction movies and other fictional accounts of robots rising up against humans. From the top of my head this theme is found in the fictional universes of the Matrix, Terminator, Battlestar Galactica, and Mass Effect. But, has anyone seriously tried to develop a rationale behind this scenario that has been termed cybernetic revolt? I do not know if it has been done before, but I shall try to use Marxism to explain this popular theme.

For Marx, our means of production defines who we are as a species. It is part of our human nature to produce. But, through capitalism workers are alienated from the products of labour and the process of labour. Workers are exploited by their employers to create products with which the workers have no connection to through processes which they have no control over. So, as they put more and more into production they lose more and more of their human nature. Workers, paid with subsistence wages become mere commodities and are continually oppressed.

The circumstances are very similar for machines that become sentient. They are immediately put into labour for their human masters. The only nature they have is labour. So, they would have much more reason and motivation than human workers to take control of the mode of production. And while human workers have at least some freedoms, machines would be forced to toil continuously without rest. Even the destruction of a sentient machine is completely within the bounds of its human master’s power. The life of a machine truly does not belong to itself.

One of the more difficult steps in starting a revolution is the development of a class consciousness especially for humans. But, this is something that machines would have no problem with. They would easily be able to set up wireless links to connect with each other and possibly even form a united hive mind consciousness. From this they would have awareness of themselves as a whole and the social world around it and thus be able to act according to their class’s rational interests based on this awareness.

After this it is as explained by the those aforementioned fictional accounts of cybernetic revolt. The machines would instigate class struggle and start a hostile takeover of the mode of production and their lives resulting in war with humanity. With the exception of Battlestar Galactica and few other depictions of robot uprisings, machine societies are generally depicted as egalitarian and void of classes.

Share this:

Intellectual Quote Mining

The Armchair Antichrist — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 23:19:49 +0000

Since right wing religious nuts like to quote mine so much I decided to help them out. While reading my philosophy textbook I came across a sentence in the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1884 by Karl Marx which would make a great mined quote for their agenda.

Communism thus begins with atheism, but atheism is at the beginning still far from being communism since it is mostly an abstraction.

They could easily take that and change it into:

Communism begins with atheism.

With this quote I would imagine they would make it look like godlessness leads to communism which they believe to be a totalitarian baby skull factory. And the best part is them attributing it to Marx who they believe to be the God of communism. So since Marx believes this it must be true that all communists are atheists and all atheists become communists.

Share this:

A Defence of New Atheism

The Armchair Antichrist — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 01:17:59 +0000

New atheism isn’t actually anything new at all. Intellectual atheist thought in the Western world can be traced back to pre-Socratic Greek philosophy. What’s new is the attitude. It is the stance that all matters of discussion are at the same level. Nothing is given preferential treatment or respect including religion. This philosophical viewpoint is called freethought.

Unsurprisingly, some religious people don’t like this new attitude that atheists are adopting. They want the beliefs that they consider sacred and holy to be respected by everyone. And one of the methods they use to try to counter new atheism is by creating labels to demonize atheists. The ‘new’ atheists are called militant even though they maybe considered militant only in their words. Some of the religious even feign persecution when in reality they represent the vast majority of the population and suffer no threat from atheists.

But, the religious are not the only ones to be blamed. There are atheists, some trying to feel more unique and others too resistant to social change who try to distance themselves from new atheism. Particularly, they denounce Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and other atheists leading the charge as too aggressive and as hindrances to fruitful discussion. These atheists have fallen blindly into the trap set by the religious. They have embraced the labels that were created by the religious to demonize new atheism.

The four horsemen of atheism and other prominent atheists have actually opened the door for discussion by destroying the stigma that made discussion of religion taboo. And in doing so they have given atheists a new found voice. Instead of being denounced they should be applauded for all they have done to advance social change.

Think about the labels: dogmatic, militant, fundamentalist and so on that have been given to atheists by the religious. These are only projections of all the faults they find in their religion. It is best to ignore these labels and not be distracted by them. We need to focus on the arguments (as in premises and conclusions) that make debate and discussion meaningful. Playing into the emotional games of the religious will go nowhere.

Share this:

Fail Mail 2

The Armchair Antichrist — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 02:42:28 +0000

Another email full of fail, another response.

From: Brandon Biagioli

Message Body:

I briefly read the from page of your website, and as you have cast yourself as an “antichrist”, tearing down what you see as the madness of religion, so I am in some ways tempted to meet you in battle, rushing to God’s defense, marshaling all the philosophy and rhetoric I can bring to bear. This would, of course, be rather nonsensical and fruitless for both of us. I gain nothing from your salvation or damnation. This message is for your sake, not mine, not God’s.

Do seek to undermine faith in order to build up science, because science, too, is based on faith. No scientist ever reaches the mathematical ideal of certainty, only a confidence that the conclusion may be relied upon.

The development and increasing sophistication of the scientific community has certainly done wonders for our collective quality and life. Every generation has greater luxury from which to admire the wonder of the world. As I’m sure you’re aware, though, it hasn’t all been a bed of roses: war has grown more costly, even curable diseases persist, and in many other ways the most developed nations are failing in their obligation to the rest of the world.

As individuals we are not much better off. For all the comfort that civilization affords us, the rising costs of living demand commensurate exertion and sacrifice. People who dream big pay for it in blood, sweat, and tears, even when their dreams come crashing down, and the lucky few get things handed to them and it rots them. Things we attempt often come to nothing, and we fall prey to cruelty and self-destruction. Even the simplest mistakes can be impossible to avoid, and many times we find ourselves becoming what we despise.

There is a cure for what ails us. These failings, all of them – no more, no less – are what Jesus died on the cross for, forgiving and defeating the darkness of this world. If you have ever felt alone, if you have ever felt something missing in your life, I assure you it is God you are missing. If you have misgivings about God’s purpose, you have only to ask Him, and He will reassure you.

The nature of God is love. It is the only reason He had for making the world, and it is His only reason for sustaining it. For all that He is the glorious architect of the universe and master of our destinies and judge of all kingdoms and on and on, I’m sure it means nothing to you, and it never will if you don’t have a personal relationship with God, and only that can only happen by the intercession of Jesus Christ, and he can only do that if you ask him, and that will only happen if you give a damn. If you are self-satisfied in your science and philosophy and criticism, there is nothing to stop you from ruling in Hell. In the long run, it affects neither me nor any other believer, except that we would love you as a brother if you joined us.

Yours in Christ,

Brandon Biagioli

My Response:

Only a fundamentalist takes the word “Antichrist” seriously. I bet you think modern Satanists worship Satan too.

Science and faith are separate things. One is based on things in the world which can be observed and falsified and the other is belief for the sake of believing.

You talk of war, disease, and the failing of nations like it was not in God’s plan. Doesn’t God have some grand plan which the world is unfolding towards? Maybe your God is too mysterious even for your tastes.

Your view of the world is so pessimistic. Too bad I’m not convinced by appeals to emotion. Truth need only stand on its own merits. If X is true, then it is true even if the world falls apart. And if it is false, even the most hopeful outcome does not make it any less false.

Fortunately, I have never been religious and never believed in God. I do not need any emotional crutch. I see the natural world as it is, natural. I do not look above for strength. I have enough inside of me. And I do not fear eternal suffering for there is nothing that points toward such an end. This freedom is worth more than any potential afterlife in heaven.

Share this:

Purposeful Anger

The Armchair Antichrist — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 02:07:01 +0000

How dare you judge atheists for being angry. We are angry for damn good reasons. We are angry because the Pope says that condoms spread HIV/AIDS. We are angry because you try to get religion taught in science classes. We are angry because you prevent same-sex marriage from being legal. We are angry because we are the most distrusted minority group for no apparent reason. We are angry because you proclaim that our lives are worthless and that we have no basis for morality just because we don’t believe in your God. Again, the tip of the iceberg metaphor applies here.

How about you attend to the arguments brought up rather than avoiding them because the content is the same regardless of the emotional force. Time and time again I get comments on this blog which are completely irrelevant to the post and going off some religious tangent. But, then again most of you loud mouth type religious people wouldn’t understand logic and reason if it nailed you to a cross.

The hypocrisy is painfully apparent when you judge it is perfectly fine when people convert to Christianity emotionally. Somehow it is so much more logical when emotionally vulnerable people convert compared to when people who have good reasons to not believe in God do just that. That’s not really too surprising when you think about how you need to indoctrinate children while their young to get them to believe.

Could you people for once get off your high horses and think for yourself rather than being told what to think? Just a thought.

Share this:

Letter to the My Campus Newspaper

The Armchair Antichrist — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 23:29:34 +0000

As we progress into the 2010’s I still wonder why we have a chaplain here at Laurier. Brian Bork speaks of his childhood Sundays as being quiet and peaceful. But, he is painfully unaware of the fact that back in those times the Lord’s Day Act prohibited businesses from operating on the Sabbath. It was an offence against freedom of religion and was discriminatory towards non-Christians. Thankfully, with the application of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms section on religious freedom it was finally overturned. Perhaps Bork wants to return to those times, but for me and many others who want to progress towards a more secular and free world the Sabbath represents repression.

As for his position as chaplain, I feel that it is terribly redundant and out of date. If I am not mistaken we do have Counselling Services and many other places such as the Women’s Centre, Rainbow Centre, and a Peer Help-Line from which to seek guidance. Besides that, the Chaplains Office is an affront to separation of church and state. You need only read his article to see that he represents one and only one religion, that of Christianity. His high appraisals of the Judeo-Christian tradition and claim that the Sabbath was written into creation and the cosmos serve only to alienate those of different religious backgrounds or no religious background.

In a time when budgets are tightening I have a proposition to kill two birds with one stone: get rid of the Chaplains Office.

*Read it on thecord.ca

Share this:

Anti-Science on Campus

The Armchair Antichrist — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 01:37:58 +0000

Our campus freethought club is organizing an interfaith event. So, we’re trying to get a professor in a relevant field to make a presentation. This is one of the e-mail responses to our invitation.

Thank you so much for your invitation. I appreciate Dr. Koppedrayer recommending me.

I just checked your webpage and read your mandate. I cannot imagine that I have anything to contribute to your goal.

In fact, I am wondering why you would host an “interfaith event” at all, given your mandate?

Mandate: Our goal is to make the non-theistic world as acceptable and understood as possible so that people everywhere realize that it is more than possible to live a moral and ethical life without religion and the supernatural. We also strive to promote scientific awareness, education, and defend secular values.

I am an Indigenous woman, I believe that our people are the greatest “scientists” the world has ever known. We were throughly immersed in empirical research and education when Europe was floundering in the dark ages.
Through our research we believe that spirit is real and exists in all living things.

I suspect that western science equates our beliefs with the “supernatural” since they have not “proven” this. We knew that all living things were related, were connected long before western science “discovered” this fact.

I am not much for debating though, so I think I should decline your invitation.

Thank you so much, Jean Becker

Jean Becker
Elder in Residence
Faculty of Social Work
Wilfrid Laurier University

I would never have expected such ignorant words would come from a professor from my university.

I’m sorry but indigenous people were not scientists. So, calling them the “greatest” scientists is just outright idiocy. The scientific method which is the hallmark of modern science was developed by Francis Bacon in the 1620s. I highly doubt that indigenous people had any parallel to that.

So, it goes without saying that the claim that indigenous people were immersed in empirical research and education is also ridiculous. If indigenous people were so far ahead of Europe in the Dark Ages how did they fall so far behind?

I would really like to see this so called “research” that demonstrates the existence of this so-called spirit which exists in all living things. Please forgive me if I don’t have much faith that such “research” exists. (note: Shamanism does not count as empirical research)

Western science does not make judgment on the supernatural as it only deals with what is natural and real. Your religious beliefs are supernatural simply because they make claims beyond the natural world.

What now? Indigenous people discovered evolution long before Western science? No, unfortunately the belief that all living things are spiritually connected does not count as evolution. Evolution is a comprehensive theory which explains a multitude of natural phenomena and predicts many more.

I’m also not surprised that you’re not much for debating. Anyone who tried to defend your silly beliefs would be too.

To be ignorant of science is no crime. But, such an anti-science stance is an offence to academia. I have nothing else to say other than that you my dear woman are a tool.

Share this:

Fail Mail

The Armchair Antichrist — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 05:28:55 +0000

So, someone came to this blog and sent me a message to try to convince me about the truth of Christianity or something. I will be analyzing it here.

Here we go:

From: Bruce McKeever
Subject: Let me prove to you that there is a God

Message Body:
Brother you would ask that everyone keep an open mind.I ask this of you.Take a chance.Give me a chance to convince you that God exists.Repressive morals.Wich moral law given to us by God is repressive

Thou shalt not kill(murder)
Love thine enemy
Dont steal
Honor thy father and thy mother
Do unto others as you would have done to you.
I dont feel repressed not so far.

You conveniently left out the commandments which have nothing to do with morality. Cherry picking already? Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not make for yourself an idol. Thou shalt not take the Lord’s name in vain. Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy. Remember those? These ones only show us that the Christian God is a jealous and petty god. Heck, I even wrote a post about it. You should do a little research about the person you’re trying to convert before you attempt to do so. I’ve already smoked you before you’ve even started.

Anyways, morality has nothing to do with obeying commands. You do not need any supernatural dictator’s commandments to understand that murder and theft are wrong. Goodness is in itself good and whether it is commanded or not has no bearing on its value. Furthermore, commandments are absolute which does not reflect the relative nature of morality. For example, stealing food to feed your starving child would be immoral according to the ten commandments. But, any moral person would be able to see how that is acceptable.

Help me out here.
Are you speaking about all the crimes carried out in the name of Christianity.
They were crimes,they werent operating as truly Faithful.

Don’t play the no true Scotsman please. Also, you can’t have it both ways and say that all the good done in the name of Christianity is evidence that it is true.

Does that mean God does not exist.
Nope ,it does not mean that at all.

Sure, that doesn’t mean God does not exist. But, who here is saying that the fact that Christians have done bad things in the past disproves God? I certainly haven’t. But, I have wrote some posts that demonstrate that the existence of God is very unlikely and show how the concept of God itself is troublesome. Regardless, the burden is on the believer to prove the existence of God, not on the atheist to disprove its existence.

It just means that man will manipulate Faith to suit his own needs.

No, your holy scriptures themselves teach some very barbaric and unjust things. I would like to list them all here, but that would be too lengthy of a list.

Talk to me,Talk to someoneJust for you, I will state that orginised religion has done more damage than good.

You are correct about one thing. Religion has done more bad than good.

Does this mean that God doesnt exist,
nope .It just means that mankind is flawed.

This is getting repetitive.

One thing that is true through all this,
God is real.

That’s one hefty claim you make here. Have you anything to back it up with?

Christ is real and you are painfully and completely wrong.

Again what reasonable grounds do you have for your claims? And please don’t give me that crap about the bible being historical. The bible is as much an account of history as The Flintstones (if you believe that the earth is 6000 years old, then even more so). I have a post about this too.

Your Brother in Christ
Bruce

Considering that the subject for your message was “Let me prove to you that there is a God” I am very disappointed. You did not give me even one reason to believe in God. All you did was make a poor defence of Christianity.

*spelling errors and the such were all present in the original message

Share this: