A recent survey on religion shows there are 34
million Americans who are classified as "Nones", that is they do
not embrace any of the "revealed" religions and the vast
majority of them are not Atheists. In actuality, the vast
majority of the "Nones" are actually Deists!
The survey shows a giant step forward for Deism in the fact that it
actually uses the word "Deist" and for the very significant raw
numbers it shows as representing the number of people who are
Deists. In reality, the number of Deists is actually
higher than the survey shows because the survey uses an outdated
definition of Deist. For a more accurate definition please see
our Deism
Defined page.
Click here to read the
actual survey. (It's in PDF)
Insightful and Thought
Provoking Three Part Essay
A Word
by Alexander M. Cohen
I am
categorically averse to any sort of soapbox preaching but… I feel
that I must express my thoughts here because as I look around both
locally and abroad I see that there are mainly two camps. The first
are adherents of their designated religion. The second are advocates
of Atheism that assert since there is suffering in this world,
problems with organized religion’s validity, and empirical evidence
that appears to disprove Intelligent Design that there can be no god
at all. In these essays I will utilize the most of my meager
resources to offer a third camp, a bastion of reason. I don’t expect
to change anything; I merely wish to bring Thomas Paine’s philosophy
out of crumbling history books and onto the vast canvases of human
minds far superior than my own.
Deism: An all but forgotten religious
philosophy that believes god is a metaphorical “clockmaker” and that
once he started the universe (i.e. the Big Bang) he willfully
stepped aside and let it run without hindrance (Since there is
no man-made dogma in Deism, Deists are free to believe that there is
no Providential influence in the world, or, like
George Washington, some
Deists believe that there may be Providential influence but that it
is inscrutable. The editor), this and thus by
extension, Deists refute miracles. Deism also denies the validity
of “revealed” religions such as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam as
these would require divine intervention to human “prophets.” Deists’
imagining on whom god is and what his true nature
is varies from person to person. It is appropriate that Deism, which
prides self-realization through the examination of the environment
to be alternatively known as the “Natural Religion.”
Born
Again Through Reason
Please read "a word" first
The
following is an open letter to an imaginary individual who strongly
subscribes to the beliefs of Christianity. I realize that the tone
of my rationalization is sometimes pugnacious but please keep in
mind that it is intended as a highly spirited appeal to reason.
Lastly, I am an enemy to superstitions but I am a friend
to the superstitious. I don’t call into question the integrity
of the religious, for their gentleness and compassion nearly always
exceeds my own. Rather, I make this work for them,
because they deserve so much better than what they’ve been trained
to believe in.
You seem to be under the notion that
god has revealed himself to humanity and that his
essence is contained in the Bible. Let's play a game
for a moment. Hypothetically, if god did indeed instill his words
into the Bible then one must garner that he wanted it to be
understood, correct? If that is the case then all liberal
allegorical interpretations regarding the Bible's passages are false
(such as Purgatory, Limbo, Universal Reconciliation, and the
Catholic concept of hell). How do I reason this? It’s simple. If the
stories in the Bible were meant for deep multifaceted interpretation
then humanity could misconstrue their meaning into a thousand
different combinations whilst missing their true message. Since
humans are not birthed with a sense of "goodness" and “sensibility”
(as demonstrated by the extreme uneven distribution of wealth, and
man's many wars and massacres; some of which are quite recent or
ongoing such as Rwanda, Srebrenica,
and Darfur) and instead are taught it over time, then
any dictator could very well convince people that the Bible’s
message was to do whatever the hell he wanted.
Using that logic, if the Bible is
authentic then one must gather that god wanted it to be taken
literally, because otherwise he would invite confusion amongst
humanity, who couldn't possibly interpret his intended meaning. I
recognize that figure of speech is used in the Bible, but one must
remember that non-literal interpretation threatens to smear the face
of Christianity. Take for example the six days of creation; they are
not figurative because they are literal 24 hour time
periods. How do I know they are literal days? Well, because the
Bible says so. After every day of creation Yahweh says “And the
evening and the morning were the first day (the days change
accordingly from verses 1:5 to 31).” It’s an unsavory proposition to
suggest that god would play mind games with humanity when he
actually says evening and morning!
Obviously however, when it says “All the trees of the field shall
clap their hands” it is clearly not meant to be construed for
manlike trees, but rather identified as the literary use of
personification. At every opportunity the Bible should be read in
the literal sense; if a plainly read verse is understandable then it
should be left alone. Taking this into consideration, it becomes
obvious that Protestant Fundamentalism is the only
form of Christianity; anything else is just watered
down by modernistic interpretation which alienates itself from the
Bible’s actual contents. Take the Roman Catholic
Church for example; the majority of their doctrine comes from church
tradition or the Pope’s ruminations rather than the actual Bible. If
the Bible is god’s word, then it should speak for itself, we should
not remodel its message. Scripture interprets scripture, as used by
Martin Luther’s Sola Scriptura (by scripture alone). Thusly, all the
tales of blasphemy against humanity such as Yahweh’s threat to the
Israelites that if they didn’t butcher the inhabitants of
Canaan (kids included) into bloody giblets then he would
prick their eyes out, are in fact meant to be straightforwardly
read. This coupled with his “smiting” of all the Egyptian newborn
and his approval of Job's children being slaughtered by the devil
just to see how Job would react, all accumulate to my slight
displeasure with this hatemongering Mother Goose storybook. Let us
also not forget the addition of the Biblical god’s merry torturous
inferno of sulfuric acid where the flesh of people (many of whom
lived a virtuous life but merely didn’t accept Christ) are scorched
eternally in a lake of fire. Even with this
decapitation attack on the moral standards in the Bible; I’ve only
made a dent in the armor of atrocity regarding the Bible’s passages
which if genuine, would have to be accepted
literally with no possible liberal allegorical interpretation.
One of many frequently debated stories
in the Bible comes from the Book of Numbers. In it Yahweh instructs
Moses and his Israelite army to attack the Midianites (whom had
vehemently persecuted them). After the Israelites won the battle
they execute all the males, including the children, and they
slaughter every woman whom was not a virgin, all on Yahweh’s orders.
The Israelites then forcibly capture the remaining 32,000 virgins
for themselves as mates. Of the virgins, 32 are sacrificed to Yahweh
as appeasement. Biblical apologists defend this passage by saying
that we’re applying contemporary values on ancient civilizations.
This statement is a superb example of moral relativism, which is the
line of “thinking” that what’s right and wrong changes over time. Is
there some magical benchmark you reach that decides when evil is
truly evil? If one does not acknowledge evil even
during times of strife, then morality is impossible. It would
constitute as saying that good and evil are subjective at various
points in time, that morality is only a deluded ideal that melts
away at the touch of unwanted troubles. I believe in absolute
morality, but apparently the Biblical god views ethics through blood
spattered spectacles. Although it is true that the male children
could have potentially come back to the Israelites when they were
older to seek vengeance upon their dead, it changes
nothing. Doing the right thing sometimes means one has to help
others even when there’s a strong chance of something negative
coming out of it. Although I adeptly understand that the
Israelite culture knew little of morality, their god
did. Yahweh should have imparted wisdom on the virtues of
reconciling with one’s enemies, not teaching them “Eye for eye,
tooth for tooth.” Apologists like to say that god had to be “strict”
at that time so Satan wouldn’t tempt the Israelites and ruin the
Messianic Prophecy. This is insanity! I can think of no better way
to resist the devil’s temptations than for god to impart lessons on
benevolence. To kill defenseless women and children is the most
abhorrent of crimes, regardless of the circumstance, and executing
women just for being “deflowered” is exceedingly outrageous even
amongst the psychotic. The devil is allegedly evil incarnate, but if
the Biblical god kills the innocent then why should the latter
deserve my allegiance more than the former? I can’t help but find it
darkly humorous that people like Mohandas Gandhi, a mere human,
could see and partake in selfless love against his enemies but our
supposed “god” could not. Gandhi would directly contradict Yahweh’s
teachings when he proclaimed “An eye for an eye makes the whole
world blind.” He knew that doing the right thing wasn’t always easy,
and he still gladly died in order to do it. Yet according to the
Bible, Gandhi (a Hindu unbeliever) is cast ablaze in hell to this
day. The quote “Shall mortal man be more just than God? Shall a man
be more pure than his maker?” from the Book of Job seems
particularly fitting.
I fail to
understand why liberal Christian apologists say “Christ was the
‘lamb’ to clear away all the regulations and violence of the Old
Testament.” This is as bad as a misconception can get.
Even thousands of years after the events depicted in
the OT, the megalomaniacal Biblical god would still be unable to
uncouple himself from his fiendish acts of barbarism such as his
summoning of two bears whose jagged claws tore into the sinew and
muscle of 42 children that had “dared” to tease a bald man. We are
told that after Jesus’ crucifixion a new covenant between god and
man was cast. However the heart of this new covenant was built
distinctly on brutish OT laws and values. Jesus is after all, part
of the Trinity, and as thus he makes up the same entity that
committed atrocities in the OT. Those that lived after the NT’s
inscription would not be required to follow the vicious OT
mandates because their salvation was only dependent on faith through
Christ. Although the Israelite laws were no longer obligatory,
exercising them would be a way of more fully obeying and mimicking
god as he intended. Take for example, Yahweh’s paganish Ceremonial
Law that demanded bloody sacrifice. Although no longer needed
for appeasing Yahweh, conducting a sacrifice in his name would no
doubt honor him, for Yahweh never found anything wrong with
sacrifice in the OT, so it would make sense that he wouldn’t “grow
out” of his dead animal fetish. As a show of the OT’s reliability,
many of Jesus’ teachings take directly from the Ten
Commandments. Jesus even said himself that “For
truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota,
not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then
relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so
shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he
who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom
of heaven.” Luke also said that "It is easier
for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the
letter of the law to become invalid." In addition Paul of Tarsus
stated in one of his fourteen letters addressed to Timothy that “All
scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching.” Jesus
would also say again that “Think not that I am come to
destroy the law or the prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to
fulfill.” Right there in black and white he says he came to
fulfill the Messianic Prophecy not
to get rid of the established laws of the OT.
So looking at
just four of the plethora of NT verses that stress OT values,
it is clear that the morally reprehensible OT was always
meant to be depended upon. The horrible acts committed in the OT
were not “washed away” but were rather engrained into the very fiber
of the NT’s covenant.
Another grievance I hold from this
“holy” text is its complete sanctioning of the monstrous institution
of slavery, both in the Old Testament and the New Testament. Not in
one verse does it condemn its practice, and
therefore by default, the Biblical god allowed the propagation of
slavery to spread uninhibited throughout history. So
if a god would reveal commandments on how to function in society
such as not talking back to one’s parents (which consequently was
punishable by death as stated in Exodus) then why on earth wouldn’t
he throw in a tablet on forgoing the owning of people? Indeed
the actions of abolitionists actually went against
Sola Scriptura. For you see, the Ten Commandments
actually encourage slavery within it’s text, such as where it
says every Sabbath a slave shall be given rest by his master, and
where it distinctly states for men to not covet their neighbor’s
house, wife, or male or female slaves (a few Bibles like to replace
the word “slave” with the feel-good term “servant” but the correct
translation and meaning is slave). In concordance with this, any
remaining uncertainty as to why modern nations such as the
Confederate States of America sustained slavery, should be easily
remedied due to the numerous Biblical verses further
advocating slavery, such as Exodus’s regulation of beatings to
“only” within an inch of the slave’s life when it says “and
if a man smite (beat) his bondman, or his bondwoman, with a rod, and
he die under his hand (immediately thereafter or during the
beating); he shall surely be punished. Notwithstanding, if he
continue (survive after the beating) a day or two, he shall not be
punished; for he is his money (property).” Admittedly the Bible does
denounce abducting slaves, however if a man sells
his family it’s okay regardless of the reason. Need five shekels?
Sell your son! Although Leviticus of the Old Testament instructs
that fellow Hebrew brethren that sell themselves are only to be kept
as temporary hired servants for seven years, it also lucidly states
that non-Hebrews who sell themselves or their family (children
included) will be kept forever as property. I guess Yahweh
was a big fan of racial superiority. The New Testament even throws
its hat into the ring when “Saint” Peter proclaims
“Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters
with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate,
but also to those who are harsh.” Although Paul of Tarsus told
slaves whom desired freedom to attain it if possible, he clearly
supports the institution of slavery in general when he says “Were
you a slave when you were called (became a Christian)? Don't let it
trouble you, although if you can gain your freedom, do so.” If Paul
had deemed it fit to condemn slavery as an immoral practice that
would have been an ample opportunity to do so. At the same time,
Paul actually condemns the defiance
of a slave to his master when he says “Slaves, obey your earthly
masters in everything; and do it.” Under Paul’s wishy-washy
instructions one might find it difficult to attain freedom if one
was bound to all of his master’s edicts. In addition, Paul had sent
an epistle requesting the freedom of a man named Onesimus (whom had
befriended and helped Paul after being baptized by him) to his
master Philemon. Since Paul had recently converted Philemon to
Christianity, he readily agreed. It distinctly looks like I just
contradicted myself, but not all is as it appears to be. Not in one
part of the epistle did Paul condemn or even criticize the actual
institution of slavery, nor did he ask for Philemon to free his
other slaves. In the contents of the epistle, Paul
reminds Philemon that he owes him his very self. It was after all,
Paul whom had given him salvation in Christ. If Paul had wanted, he
could’ve easily convinced Philemon to stop holding slaves. Paul did
not help free Onesimus because of the ills of slavery; he did it
because he was his friend and fellow Christian, nothing more.
Biblical passages such as these ensured that
slave traders who would later sell rum to Africans, who they in turn
gave members of their families up as chattel, would be under the
continued belief that they were on god’s side. Although many
Africans were abducted by raiding parties, the only thing southern
plantation slave owners had to do was assume that the African’s
family had sold him, that way they were free to buy the African
under the Bible’s regulations. There was no way to know that he had
been abducted because the African’s word could not be trusted.
Assuming the African even agreed with his family’s decision to sell
him, he still might very well lie once he realized his abysmal
working conditions. In addition to this, obviously any slave traders
who kidnapped Africans would assert that they attained them only
through their families. So after a hard day’s work of whipping their
slaves’ shredded backs, plantation owners could sleep soundly in
their beds at night, for their god smiled over them.
If Christianity is legitimate then it
would seem just mildly unfair that individuals who
existed before the Bible’s inscription were to be
condemned to god’s apathy via the absence of his guidance. People
who may have lived a righteous life if “god’s word” was available to
them, would be forgotten simply because they didn’t live in the
proper time period. It is also interesting that a "benevolent" god
would only be appeased to give means to salvation once the son of a
humble carpenter was excruciatingly sacrificed. If the Biblical god
wished to forgive our original sin, then why not just forgive us?
Are Adam and Eve’s transgressions our fault? What’s the
point of all the theatrics; is it how Yahweh gets his jollies? I
acknowledge that there are positive rivulets of virtue within the
Bible, but the sad fact is they all flow from an evil source.
I could dip into my colors of verity
and further paint upon the features of this bold lie with broad
brush strokes not based on a moral standpoint, but rather on hard
science. The Bible’s guise falls away under reason’s watching eyes,
such as the Bible’s six day chronology of Genesis and its creation
of man negated by the scientific community’s virtually universal
support of evolution as fact. My gripes are further bolstered by the
complete lack of evidence for Noah’s impossible worldwide flood, and
the Bible’s genealogical assertion that the earth is only 6000 years
old proved absolutely wrong by the trusted method of
radiometric age dating. Even the proponents of “Young Earth”
Creationism admit they have no competing scientifically proven
method for dating the earth and instead rely solely on the Bible’s
“authority.” Furthermore, it also seems odd that although the Bible
states that hell is located within the earth, not even the most
sensitive of seismic equipment have located any
findings to support such a claim. This laundry list of misgivings
barely constitutes a thimbleful of points that even by themselves
adeptly illustrate that faith in
Judeo-Christian religion is a
veritable cargo hold filled to the brim with willful blindness.
It is said that scientists draw on
facts to form a conclusion, alternatively; it is said that
theologians draw on a presumed conclusion then find facts (or merely
something not known yet) in order to support that purported
conclusion. One of these is the scientific method; can you discern
which one it is? Kidding aside, it almost
seems as if religious zealots view science as a
subsidiary of reasoning (or at worst, irrelevant), as if proof
can just be shrugged off with an enthusiastic “But the Bible says!”
Such articles of the Bible’s nonsensical madness include Genesis
clearly stating that god made light on the first
day, but created the stars (the source of natural light) only on the
fourth day. Obviously god would have the power to
create light (being the Supreme Being) but in order to create
light he would have to create a light
source first, doing otherwise would be contradictory to the laws
of nature he was setting in motion. It seems apparent then that the
Bible was an artificially manufactured tome whose fallacies
partially stem from the fact that it was written well before the
development of comprehensive astronomy and in fact any
scientific method. To say “Only the Bible’s message
is inerrant” in defense is to imply that god would willingly input
deceptive falsehoods into its text merely to “dumb down” his
message. Such an act would not only inevitably baffle his audience
in the future advancement of civilization, but could potentially
bring skepticism to its very authenticity of being god’s true word
(obviously all this has already transpired).
Rightfully so, because one with any cogent thinking would discern
that everything a supreme being said would be
inerrant in all aspects. The Bible may have been
written by fallible men but it was supposed to have been directed by
an infallible god. I highly doubt he would let
mistakes go uncorrected in its inscription, which is of course
assuming he knew about the errors, but that would create a dichotomy
in the Bible when it says that god knows and sees everything.
I can fully assure you that I’m only scratching
the surface on how incoherent Christianity really is. While as a
Deist I don’t approve of this website’s Atheism (and it often brings
up a lot of dubious and negligible points)
www.skepticsannotatedbible.com
is still a decent website for
helping to debunk Christianity and Islam. If I have
such hard contempt for Christianity then what indeed is my beef with
Islam? Well, besides the Quran being just as irrational and violent
as the Bible, the main bone I have to pick is actually from the two
most “trusted” and “authentic” Sunni Hadiths, (the sayings of
Muhammad) the Sahih Bukhari and the Sahih Muslim. You see, in both
of these it clearly states from the
direct perspective of Aisha (Muhammad’s favored lover) that she
was either 6 or 7 years old when she married Muhammad and
exactly 9 years old when she
consummated her marriage (had sexual intercourse). One may rush to
the defense of the purported prophet, saying that in his time era it
was a common occurrence. That is completely true and I agree with
that; however don’t you think Allah would tell his prophet “Hey
Muhammad, I don’t want to kill your buzz, but maybe you shouldn’t
have sex with kids buddy.” If Islam is true then that means that
Allah deliberately stood by and let the perpetuation of pedophilia
run rampant throughout Muslim history without one utterance of
reproach. Moreover, if Allah would reveal the Quran to Muhammad,
then why wouldn’t he reveal that child molestation is frowned upon?
Those who disfavor the previously mentioned website charge that it
uses too much “argument by outrage.” What they mean is, the moral
questioning of the Bible’s numerous crimes against humanity such as
the bashing of infants’ heads on stones is “ridiculous” because
“they didn’t live in the same time as us.” Do you really believe
that a loving god would authorize and commit horrendous murder in
his own holy book that was meant to be read for thousands of years,
or do you merely not feel comfortable leaving your tethered
Christian roots? While it is true that religion gives many meaning
in their lives and can potentially inspire a person to help others,
it is also true that it is wholly inconsequential. Besides religions
bearing the hallmarks of a Bigfoot hoax, they have consistently over
the annals of human history brought out the worst spirit in mankind
during such happenings as the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades,
radical Islamic terrorism, and an ancient widespread deep rooted
animosity towards others with opposing faiths (just look at the
Pope’s recent quoting of a Byzantine emperor who said “Show me just
what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things
only evil and inhuman…”). While it’s accurate to maintain that
numerous dark eras in mankind’s history have also been secular, as
soon as a man believes that he is doing “god’s work” he becomes
blind to earthly delights and the preciousness of life around him as
he frantically seeks to appease his god through any means necessary.
Why should he care about the physical repercussions of his actions
when he believes he will be rewarded with eternal paradise? A man
without reason such as this is not a man, but a mere beast. I grow
weary of peaceniks expressing their vision of a multicultural utopia
that is united in love but separate in belief. The politically
correct myth that identifies itself as religious tolerance is an
ill-conceived joke, and everyone knows it. Humanity will never truly
live in peace and harmony when each individual believes his own very
“salvation” is at stake, and that his infidel neighbors will end up
burning in hell anyway. The answer then is quite clear: kill
religion, completely and utterly.
While I am by absolutely
no means an “expert” on religious critiquing; I am
however quite proficient in the field of common sense. As a parting
warning, if you are unconvinced that
America
Cornerstone Church
in San Antonio , where the pastor
hysterically preached for war with
Iraq
So I appeal to you sir to renounce
your faith and go with god through the only road that is not clouded
by a fog of falsities. Read Thomas Paine's “Age of Reason,” the
divinely uninspired writings of a flawed man, and then follow him on
the freethinking path of Deism. No organized religion could
possibly approximate the entity that crafted the
blueprints to the universe’s foundation. No mere book could contain
the essence of such a cosmic force, and certainly no half-baked
developed primate could be his “son” and equal in any “Trinity.”
That being said, I personally (I know I can’t
entirely authenticate this) believe that the reason our Deist god
does not intervene and or reveal himself in this realm is
because he loves us. Although it’s exceedingly
doubtful that god is anthropomorphic, I would imagine that he has
some sort of penchant for his creation, otherwise,
why would he commence the Big Bang in the first place? If he
interfered every time earth (and indeed other alien
worlds) had a bit of trouble (even
including such unpleasantries as genocide, famine, and disease) then
we would no longer be “human.” We would lose our independence and
simply be a trained monkey on a string who yelped for help whenever
it was frightened.
This rebuttal to your beliefs is
certainly not a Rosetta Stone to metaphysics, but hopefully this
will illuminate some of the failings and contradictions of your
faith. To me my friend, the “good news” is nothing juxtaposed to the
best news, the clarion call of reason.
-Unfortunately, due to my desire to keep this
as short as possible I was unable to touch base on many other
glaring falsities, contradictions, and heinous acts in Abrahamic
religions and I also had to limit my responses to anticipated
apologist rebuttals. I was also unable to talk about Eastern
religion at all, so make sure you check out
www.religioustolerance.org
for a decent enough primer on general religions (although I guess
you could just go to Wikipedia), or go to
www.sacred-texts.com
for a free look at various religious texts. Don’t forget to look at
the links on
www.skepticsannotatedbible.com
some of their suggested sites are pretty helpful. What I like to do
is after I go to Skeptics I then go to the apologist rebuttal
http://www.tektoonics.com/etc/parody/sab.html
and
sift the truth out myself.
For a
hammering demolition of the unbiblical idea of “age of
accountability” go to
http://members.aol.com/twarren13/account.html.
It’s also important to note that
“Evangelicalism” is a sticky term to pin down. It’s not a
denomination, but rather more of a movement similar to
“Fundamentalism,” for they’re both torchbearers in the race of who
can close off their minds the fastest. For reference, the word
“Allah” merely means “god” in Arabic but it’s almost always
associated with Islam. Muslims say that their god is the same entity
as written in the Old Testament, but if you ask any Jew or Christian
they’ll firmly deny it. Not to mention that the Quran obviously
teaches vastly different tenets than the Bible, therefore the god
depicted in the Bible is not the same entity as depicted in the
Quran. It’s also vital to realize that a few fellow Deists still
believe in the antiquated view that god handcrafted the earth and
the life that inhabits it. Needless to say, I think that view is
deeply erroneous because every venue of contemporary science
invalidates it, and violently so. Just go to
www.talkorigins.org for
superb information on why the natural order does not need divine
assistance (the site even cripples the arguments of Biblical
Creationists to boot). As another trivial side note: Although I said
that humans are not birthed with a sense of “goodness” I feel
obligated to mention that innate human nature is still currently
unknown. The vast majority of psychologists accept the “Blank Slate”
theory, which is what I referred to in my essay. It states that
humans are birthed with no morality and are instead slowly molded by
their surroundings and experiences. There is another theory however
that directly opposes this. The “Noble Savage” theory asserts that
humans are born fundamentally “good” but are corrupted by society
during their upbringing. In the end both of these theories support
me when I said humans could very easily be persuaded that the Bible
meant whatever a crazy despot wanted them to think.
In conclusion, I could be wrong about humans not being born
“good,” but it doesn’t matter due to their ease of corruptibility.
So it would seem quite logical then that god would want the Bible to
be read literally so as not to sow vast confusion to his meaning.
I’m not alone in this line of thinking either; according to a 2002
CNN/Time poll 36% of Americans believe the Bible is to be taken
literally. I differ from them on one key point though. I’m not a
Christian.
“I have found Christian dogma unintelligible.”
-Benjamin Franklin
Deism or Atheism?
I strongly reccomend reading "Born Again Through Reason" First
When I first started my daunting study
on religion and metaphysics, I was a staunch Atheist. If Yahweh and
Allah were such monstrous entities then surely no
god existed. If revealed religion was a sham, then all
theistic thought was preposterous. However such one-dimensional
thinking was infantile and spiteful on my part. I loathed
religion, not god I soon reasoned.
Yet the next encroaching dilemma I faced was why a
god should exist, for every occurrence in nature has a scientific
and non-supernatural explanation.
A common Atheist argument (which
admittedly makes a good point) is the “age” of god. How can the
“creator” have existed forever with no one creating him
in return? Likewise, who would have created that
creator of the creator? It appears to be an endless cycle of
conundrums with no logical solution available. Nothing can exist
independent of time, it’s common sense. However, there is a problem
with this line of thinking. We base all of this on a perception. The
perception is that what binds us, binds god. A creator would have
created the universe and therefore the laws of nature that
co-existed alongside it, so obviously he would be unobstructed by
his own inventions, time in particular. All we have to judge on
whether god exists are the laws of nature he’s left us. To ask
whether god is scientifically impossible is to assume that science
can even answer the question.
If a god didn’t forcibly stabilize the
chaotic expansion of the universe after the Big Bang, the chances of
any semblance of life forming would be akin to a hurricane ripping
through a city and accidentally assembling a Boeing 747 out of the
wreckage. This is due to the universal physical constants that
define the characteristics of the universe. If even the slightest of
variances had occurred in these essential constants then the Big
Bang would not have expanded in the fashion necessary for life to
develop. As previously stated, only a supernatural conscious being
that knew what it was doing could have created the universe;
otherwise, we wouldn’t be here. This is in no way in concordance
with a “God of the Gaps.” The “gaps” I’m referring to are temporary
uncertainties in science that advocates of Intelligent Design take
advantage of to “dismiss” evolution and assert that life is too
complex to be formed just by “random” natural selection and as thus
must be guided by the hand of god. The problem with their thesis
(besides their wild assumptions) is that natural selection is
anything but random as only the most resilient
organisms survive. Evolution is not the haphazard jumbling of a
Rubik’s Cube; an organism’s adaptation is not relegated to the icy
depths of improbability. Rather, as the renowned scientist Richard
Dawkins aptly put “Natural selection is a cumulative process, which
breaks the problem of improbability up into small pieces.” An
organism doesn’t plan on being what it is, it merely happens to
become that way through the unconscious and automatic process of
natural selection. In hindsight a particular
organism’s development into what it is today is improbable, but
evolution doesn’t work that way. Natural selection takes one step at
a time in an organism’s evolution into whatever happens to be most
beneficent. A cactus for example, adapted in relation to the arid
inhospitality of its desert environment. The cactus didn’t set out
to become a cactus, it unconsciously set out to survive, which
coincidentally happened to make it into a cactus. Had the
environment been different it wouldn’t have ended up being a cactus.
Evolution is blind, not random. As thus (and for innumerable other
reasons) ID has been classified as junk science by the “Kitzmiller
vs. Dover Area School District” federal court case and a 2002
sampling of 460 Ohio college and university science professors
revealed that 93% found that there is no valid evidence that
challenges the theory of evolution. 90% of the professors also
asserted that ID has no scientific evidence whatsoever
to stand upon. Only a few deluded pariahs such as the disreputable
“biochemist” Michael Behe hold to ID in the scientific community.
The difference between me and outcasts like Behe is quite clear;
instead of praising temporary unknowns and misusing facts I’m
stating that god is not guiding evolution
but instead merely “seamed”
the laws of nature within the very “fabric” of our cosmos so
evolution and other phenomena would occur. Divine
intervention is not needed for the workings in nature because god
has already put all the gears in place to make the clock of the
universe run.
Atheists still have a way to offset
god of course, and using my very own defense! They assert that if we
can presuppose that god can exist outside of time and space then why
can’t the same be said for random volatile energy. Indeed if a god
can spark the big bang then can’t the unintelligible energy do so
too? Yet this is effortlessly countered using the fine-tuned
universe (universal constant) argument. Ah, god’s existence seems
conclusive then doesn’t it? Well unfortunately in the field of
Quantum Mechanics there dwells the fringiest of fringe theories
dubbed the “Multiverse” theory. Under this entirely hypothetical
theory (no hint of it has ever been tangibly validated) there exists
billions upon billions of parallel universes. Granted, the chances
of any life forming without god in one particular universe may be
atomically miniscule, but if there’s billions then
it becomes much more plausible. So it comes down to two choices then
doesn’t it? Either I’m to believe that there are hundreds of
billions of parallel universes all around us that just so happen
that they can’t be observed, and that we are the
byproducts of random bits of retarded energy that just happened to
be thrashing around in the right place, or I can
take credence in a conscious entity. Using reason, I choose the god
factor.
So after I discerned why there is
almost certainly a god, I proceeded to contemplate his motives. This
is a slippery slope, where one may start assuming and potentially
stop reasoning. After I refuted organized religion I was
consequently skeptical of anything I read afterwards. I came to what
seemed to be an unlikely and unassuming source for the answer of my
metaphysical ruminations: my old high school history textbook. While
nostalgically thumbing through its painfully out of date pages I
ironically found in the briefest of passages what made the most
sense out of anything I’d read prior to it. The revelation of Deism:
the founding fathers’ true “religion.” It essentially said (if one
applies contemporary science) that once god sparked the Big Bang and
steadied its expansion he withdrew and left the universe to its own
devices. This immediately made sense for primarily two reasons.
Firstly, since revealed religion is erroneous, it automatically
showed that god hasn’t revealed himself. Secondly,
no credible “miracles” have ever been factually recorded that didn’t
have a scientific explanation behind them. In addition, if one were
to try to defend miracles by saying something like
“Oh those 20 people who survived the
World Trade
Center
Yet I questioned why
he would leave us alone, and not help his children. As I stroked my
chin, I suddenly was reminded of a mother blue jay exiling her
babies into the cold bleak world. Why did the mother do it,
(probably because it was getting too fat to take care of, but
idealistically speaking) because independence is
required to live life; to always intervene in her baby’s affairs
would be denying her offspring the joy of the unknown. The blue jay
youth would otherwise just be a needy slave to his mother’s
metaphorical teat.
If god were to reveal
himself and give us a doctrine to adhere to, a good portion of us
would just follow it out of fear of his retribution (akin to many
Christians that follow Christ out of fear for hell). Segueing,
imagine if a parent threatened to burn their child with a lit
cigarette, one would denounce that parent as a monster, correct? Yet
conservative Christian parents who force down Biblical passages on
hell such as the Gospel of Matthew’s “Cast
them into a furnace of fire; there shall be wailing and gnashing of
teeth” are not only free from admonishment, but they are
encouraged to mentally abuse their child! Those who would wish
to render Christianity a friendlier demeanor sometimes like to think
that the Christian hell is not eternal and that unbelievers are
saved after being “cleansed.” This is known as Universal
Reconciliation or Universal Salvation, but is more simply known as a
groundless pipe dream. Not in one verse does the Bible say such a
thing, and the entire foundation of Christianity stands unilaterally
in opposition to it. One needs only look at Mathew’s “Enter
by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide, and the way is broad that
leads to destruction, and many are those who enter by it. For the
gate is small, and the way is narrow that leads to life, and few are
those who find it." Then Matthew lays it down so even an inebriated
baby could understand it by saying “These will go away into
eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
It’s highly doubtful that Yahweh would extend
leniency to unbelievers when he actually bellows “For I, the lord
your god am a jealous god.” If somehow one still clings to this
feeble “idea” just ask the overwhelming majority of Christian church
denominations that condemn universalism as heresy. For what would be
the purpose of a messiah if everyone was already saved? The Gospel
of John clarifies this by stating “But these are
written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of
God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.”
Regarding those who don’t believe, John says “He who
does not have the son of god does not have life.”
According to Christianity salvation requires faith, that is a fact.
Faith in Christ is required to negate original sin, or so the Bible
blathers. Jesus himself even goes to exclaim “No one comes to the
father except through me.” Those whom have had the misfortune of
choosing the wrong religion will burn forever; every jot and tittle
regarding salvation in the Bible demands it. If Yahweh
was going to save unbelievers he would have said so when he
forced Moses’ army to slaughter heathen children. He would’ve
consoled the Israelites by telling them not to worry because the
children they had brutally murdered would be brought to heaven once
the Messiah came. As we already know, this did not happen.
As thus, any deity that deems it
acceptable to terrorize children into believing that their bodies
will eternally be charred in a never quenching flame, just for the
mere goal of obtaining their servitude, is no loving god, and no god
of mine.
Despite the potential horrors of the
afterlife in many organized religions, some prospective converts to
Deism are put off by its ambiguous outcome after
death. However, just like the adolescent blue jay leaving its nest
to uncharted landscape, the best things are always
left unknown. I am fully confident that whatever the Almighty has in
store for me after my body ceases to function will be fully
justified. It is in this sense that I throw panoptic scorn upon our
current focus on the afterlife. Too many faithful spend more time
evangelizing than physically helping. This insignificant pale blue
dot of a planet is all we have to call our own; we must strive to
attain paradise through earthly means, not by a divine hand. I know
not what inevitably awaits us in the yawning chasm of the deep, but
I do know that it won’t much matter what happens to our “souls” if
our children are left a broken future. Without leaving our young a
carefully marked path of lovingly trodden footprints, we have no
future, and as thus no “souls” worth saving.
To me it’s evident that our cosmic
creator has some semblance of affection toward us, for if he was
apathetic to us why did he create the universe in the first place?
If he had bloodlust, why would he allow any modicum
of happiness whatsoever in this realm, and not
instead mold it into a festering breeding ground for torture and
pain? Therefore, since I exist, have not seen or heard of any
credible “miracles,” am not tortured routinely, and all revealed
religions are frauds, I then conclude that the Supreme Being is a
loving entity that wishes the best for us, but cannot intervene lest
he take away our freedom.
- I suspect that some will
conclude that despite my ardent defense of god as an affectionate
being, that he is wicked fundamentally. The question of evolution’s
very nature cannot be avoided. Natural selection is a violent and
cruel process that takes no mercy on the sanctity of life’s
diversity. Yet this grievance has a unique perspective that goes
unaddressed. What exactly are evolution’s machinations? The answer
is already known of course, to perfect an organism’s weaknesses thus
allowing it to survive. How does one survive though? Most organisms
evolve by means of convention, such as a curvature of a finch’s beak
that allows it to peck at grub wriggling within a tree’s innards.
However, there is the inevitable chance that an organism will
develop via the unconventional means of intelligence. Cats are aware
of their environments and use this to stealthily approach their
quarry, yet an example such as this only displays fundamentals. Yes,
the cat uses its brain to outwit its prey but the cat is not
sentient. Its brain is only active in the areas that most suit its
needs. The cat does not contemplate its meaning, and hence has no
meaning. To quote the film Donnie Darko “There’s no point in crying
for a dead rabbit, who never feared death to begin with.” As thus,
the unfortunate extinction of inadequate and ignorant species
(although obviously the cat and rabbit are not extinct) is negated
by evolution’s grand ambition. A creator would have most certainly
anticipated the inevitable rise of consciousness in at least a
handful of mentally capable creatures stretched across the infinite
scope of the universe. So it could most certainly be argued that god
intended for sentient organisms to evolve. He would not have to
meddle in the universe’s affairs to make advanced life formulate,
for it would unavoidably do so on its own. I confess that I cannot
prove my thesis that god desired for organisms such as us in the end
result of evolution; I merely believe it. I also admit that despite
my unyielding assertions, I cannot conclusively prove that god is
loving; I just believe it. I also believe that he hoped the sentient
species that would inevitably emerge would assemble civilizations
erected upon freedom and virtuousness. I have faith you see, faith
in a god that deserves it, a god that is not a monster and a god
that upholds our freedom. To harbor the perception that I am
hypocritical is the mother and father of all follies. My faith is
undeviatingly entrenched in rationality and science, something that
cannot be said for religion. Faith and reason are not enemies; it
has merely been a prevailing illusion that has manifested itself for
thousands of years. The only paltry attributes I’ve been “endowed”
are my basic reasoning skills and my adequate writing style; these
are all I have in my possession and they are all I am able to use.
Employing these rudimentary abilities I can demonstrably show how
all revealed religions fail to logically hold up even under the most
cursory of glances. If you ask any Muslim, Jew, or Christian whether
they love god, you’ll be lucky to get off with a disgusted look.
Obviously these people are faithful to their designated religion
partially because they love god (the other part is their fear of
god). If for one moment though, a Christian could prove to a Muslim
that Christianity was the “one true religion” do you not think that
he would drop the Quran and jump to his feet and rush up the nearest
minaret to act as a muezzin for apostasy? There is absolutely no way
to verify that any one revealed religion is genuine. If I love god
with all of my heart and I desperately want to avoid damnation, how
do I save myself? Am I to pull the handle of a salvation slot
machine and hope that whatever dogma I follow is the right one? Am I
to be eternally punished for merely not guessing the intended
answer? Am I just supposed to “feel” the right religion? Any
mentally balanced god would figure out that if he ever revealed
doctrine to humanity via chosen prophets, that it would be
impossible for people to know whether or not future alleged prophets
were authentic or not. How can a Christian assure a Jew that Jesus
was the real bona fide messiah when Jesus didn’t fulfill the
Messianic Prophecy in the Tanakh? How does a Christian know that
Islam isn’t correct when it says that the Bible has been corrupted
and that the Quran is the final words of god? Can a Christian refute
Islam’s assertions that Jesus (although a beloved prophet in Islam)
was not the son of god and that he never died on the cross and will
instead bodily descend from waiting in heaven on the Day of
Resurrection to come to pray behind the Mahdi (the redeemer of
Islam)? Since we cannot logically discern revealed religion’s
validity, then we must conclude that all of them are fabricated. For
if god purposely created man as the “big three” of revealed religion
claim, then why would he make us forgo the use of our brains in the
random guessing to the means of salvation? I condemn not the divine,
but rather this thing called religion. I am an Atheist to the
Godhead, an Atheist to Allah, and an Atheist to Zeus, but I am an
apostle of Nature’s Creator. Lastly, if you wish to read Thomas
Paine’s notorious “Age of Reason” I give you to the winds of
caution. There are actually three sections to his magnum opus and
many books and websites don’t even bother to include all of them.
Parts of his writing have unfavorably aged in the relentless passage
of time, but if you desire to delve into the mind of one of
America’s greatest patriots, writers, thinkers, humanists, and first
abolitionists then I suggest to read it anyway. I humbly implore you
to question and research whatever you believe in regardless if you
don’t agree with what I have written; for meekly accepting whatever
oneself is told would be tantamount to committing intellectual
suicide.
“My mind is my own church”
-Thomas Paine
If you’d
like to reach me, please email me at
AFILLINGMUFFIN@aol.com
Main Menu
Latest News of Interest to Deists
A judge drops charges against a woman who withheld
food and water from her son during an exorcism to the point that the
boy had to be treated in a hospital for dehydration!!
The article makes clear the judge based his decision, not on the rule of law, but on the prevailing superstitions in Gwinnett County, Georgia! The fact that in 2009 people still really believe in devils and demons demonstrates clearly the NEED FOR DEISM AND GOD-GIVEN REASON!
The article makes clear the judge based his decision, not on the rule of law, but on the prevailing superstitions in Gwinnett County, Georgia! The fact that in 2009 people still really believe in devils and demons demonstrates clearly the NEED FOR DEISM AND GOD-GIVEN REASON!
Obama is making the mixing of church and state
worse than ever before.
Obama supporters forget that when all is said and done, Obama is just another politician. This article shows he's proving that he is nothing but a politician by doing more than any other president to mix religion and government, especially through giving tax-dollars to religious organizations.
Obama supporters forget that when all is said and done, Obama is just another politician. This article shows he's proving that he is nothing but a politician by doing more than any other president to mix religion and government, especially through giving tax-dollars to religious organizations.