Posts Tagged ‘reason’

Deny God to Cope with Reality?

Posted 10 Mar 2010 — by The Armchair Antichrist
Category Heaven and Hell, Religious Arguments, Religious Stupidity

atheist heaven 242x300 Deny God to Cope with Reality?
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:
Close Bookmark and Share This Page
  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).
Powered by Bookmarkify™ (http://www NULL.bookmarkify NULL.com/)

Purposeful Anger

Posted 24 Feb 2010 — by The Armchair Antichrist
Category Christianity, Religious Stupidity

fuck religion 243x300 Purposeful Anger
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:
Close Bookmark and Share This Page
  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).
Powered by Bookmarkify™ (http://www NULL.bookmarkify NULL.com/)

No God, No Rules?

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

the atheist 220x300 No God, No Rules?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: 
 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).
Powered by Bookmarkify™ (http://www NULL.bookmarkify NULL.com/)

Good Old Kant

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

kantian metaphysics 300x209 Good Old KantAlthough 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: 
 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).
Powered by Bookmarkify™ (http://www NULL.bookmarkify NULL.com/)