 |
|
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif) vexen | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Bane Of Monotheism website" by Vexen CrabtreeTags: anti-religion, atheism, christianity, christians, god, islam, jews, judaism, monotheism, muslims, religion, religions, theism, vexen, vexen crabtree
Current Location: Mönchengladbach, Germany
Listening To: "Angel" by Aerosmith
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comments
Page 1 of 2
[1] [2]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| From: (Anonymous) |
Date: September 12th, 2004 07:25 am (UTC) |
| (Link) |
Argument / counter-argument
|
Impressive collection of concise, well-written arguments. But I feel duty-bound to give you a tirade. I am Godzilla and you are Japan. There is a tendency in this gabbling, bourgeois, clever-clever, people-carrier-driving modern world of ours to automatically hate any kind of religious faith, because it requires imagination and unapologetic individuality. You people fear me because I could so easily demolish your luxury homes and replace them with a statue of 83-year old Tony the right-wing Giraffe, sitting atop the bones of TV chefs, reading a hardback copy of Valis. People don't care about death, they either blank it out, or secretly acknowledge that there's nothing inside them worth trying to save from death. With religious belief (and I get the impression that this is what Vexen is thinking, too), you have to be able to defend it to the Nth degree, with no blind spots. You ain't gettin' me on no plane, mo' fu. In 1999, I was awarded the C.S Lewis Cross (first class - that's right, look impressed) for sneering at over two hundred athiests in one night, then escaping completely unscathed into the undergrowth. Interestingly, both my ex and myself both kept obsessive dream-diaries -I can't wait to read Vexen's when I get the time, judging by the headings, they'll read like a cross between Flaming Carrot and George A Romero. Monotheists and athiests are polar opposites; this is significant. If there's one thing Philip K Dick taught us, it's that there's an insurmountable law in this universe that states that anyone with abstract spiritual ideas is forced to sound ever more insane in proportion to how strongly they believe it. I believe the cosmic watch-maker theory, it makes sense. But there's nothing more inane than when Christians proclaim the existence of G. by citing pretty rainbows, flowers, love, etc. The most convincing argument is that physical matter knows nothing of consciousness. I repeat: matter can't be reconciled with consciousness. Neurons, RNA, quantum particiles, the limbic system --granted, all this can explain perfectly how we think, but not the purely abstract region that is the human Mind (this does, of course, hanker back to that old chestnut, 'I know with certainty that I exist, but for all I know, everyone else is no more than a walking, talking puppet --I could argue that belief in other people's consciousness requires as much faith as belief in God. It's as though our existence here has been carefully placed between two big barriers, or two possibilities; existence-for-its-own-sake and nonexistence, oblivion. Perhaps the prospect of Death is like a macrocosmic verson of Schrodinger's Cat Paradox. Vexen might all-but succeed in destroying monotheism, but what good can come of it? Charles Darwin. In schools and in the media, everyone seems to worship him for this one very simple idea. In all probability, everyone in Victorian Britain already knew it, every moustacheoed policeman, every street urchin, every remote control dog, Mary Poppins, Frankie Hedgerow, everyone, especially me --natural selection and evolution do an excellent job of destroying the idea of religion. But what are we left with then? I'll tell you --for anyone with the slightest trace of a personality or an imagination, there's nothing left but the hysterical fear of nothingness. Philip Larkin. That character from The Fast Show who is happily painting the gloriously vivid colours of the English countryside, but then something reminds him of death, and he smashes the eisel and starts ranting like a crazy bitch. It is my opinion that any one who claims they don't have this inside of them - it's O.K, but you are a hippy and a bourgeois. That's why I'm not a Bhuddist --it might work for some people (I was impressed by Aldous Huxley's reconciling it with conventional monotheism in 'The Doors...'). I will try and preserve my personality into the afterlife by any means necessary. My name is J. I don't want to get to Heaven and find I'm a hybrid of J., an Egyptian washer woman, a Roman shoe-shine boy, etc. Anyway, I'm bored now. Goodbye.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| From: (Anonymous) |
Date: February 7th, 2005 03:24 am (UTC) |
| (Link) |
Good Logic But Perhaps Wrong Premises
|
All of your arguments are logical. However, they all assume that God is good or God is all powerful. It may be that God is not evil. Perhaps he is neutral. Furthermore, what is "good" or "all powerful?" Just because the Bible uses those terms does not mean that they mean them in the sense that you use them in. The truth is that God, especially in the old Testament sometimes acts in ways we would describe as "good" or "evil." He doesn't seem to have the unidimensional aspects you are defining for him. FINALLY, AN ALL POWERFUL GOD HAS THE POWER TO LIMIT HIS OWN POWER. Thus, Although God could intervene he choses not to. You might say his noninterventionism is evil, but how do YOU know. We might all really be in some other universe right now. Perhaps we are just Angels who chose to plug ourselves into some video game. Maybe when we suffer God doesn't care as much as we think we should because this reality is not the real reality or perhaps it is a reality but one of somewhat lesser value to a reality that is without the limitations of Time and Space. FINALLY, IF GOD CHOSE TO GIVE ALL OTHER BEINGS EQUAL KNOWLEDGE WOULDN'T HE JUST BE CLONING HIMSELF OVER AND OVER AGAIN? If he has all these other characteristics, he cannot possibly create another being with all the same characteristics that he supposedly has because if he created another all powerful being that being could not REALLY be all powerful, since only one can be all powerful. Thus, God chose to not to make endless clones of himself for no purpose and create other creatures. Over all, the predominate theory about this universe is that it was created - there was a big bang. But what created the big bang? This universe's beginning was the beginning of time and space, thus, there must be some other universe where space and time do not exist in order for this one to have been created 15 billion years ago. Thus, at the very least there has to be something beyond space and time that created this place. And since all the matter that exists existed at that time, there must have been something that planned out how everything was going to ulimately shape out later. The truth is that in size the planet Earth is a quark of a quark of a quark, etc compared to the entire universe. Perhaps we are selfish when we think all of little selfish needs on this planet need to be fulfilled when we want them to. Perhaps we feel a little too special and therefore can't deal with the pain of not having our prayers answered. God is busy; the universe is big, and perhaps he thinks your an asshole or doesn't care, but that doesn't necessarily mean he is "Evil." The creation of life itself and an opportunity to laugh and cry and enjoy food, etc seems like something kind to do. Think about it, God gives organisms pleasureable feelings in the two most frequent and necessary functions they engage in, eating and reproduction. If he was evil, he'd make these most basic functions torturous, not pleasurable. Thus, God can't be all bad. Perhaps he is neutral. But Holiness is not necessarily goodness. And what is "good" in our eyes may be different to God. I think you are just mad that God never helped you enough in life when you needed him or you are just mad that you don't know everything. Well, sorry, God didn't feel like making a bunch of clones, perhaps he did create a few clones and got bored and decided to make us. Perhaps sheer boredom is the reason for our creation. If so, don't get mad at God just because he likes to be entertained! Afterall, humans love their video games. Sincerely, Gar.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| From: (Anonymous) |
Date: March 1st, 2005 02:07 am (UTC) |
| (Link) |
GOD WOULD NOT CREATE CLONES
|
Vexen,
You seem to think that God is evil because he did not equip us with the all knowing, all good, all blissful state he lives in, but if he had done such a thing, he would have just created a CLONE OF HIMSELF. To be all powerful, I guess he would have to have the ability to do that, but it would be illogical for him to do so. Therefore, he decided to create beings that have different aspects from himself, which would of course mean they would not be able to share in such a wonderful state? Sincerely, Gar (I also wrote GOD IS NEUTRAL).
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| From: (Anonymous) |
Date: March 1st, 2005 02:18 am (UTC) |
| (Link) |
ALL POWERFUL MEANS YOU CAN LIMIT UR POWER
|
VEXEN,
To be truly ALL POWERFUL you must have the power to limit your own power. Perhaps God decided to do that in regards to this universe. Thus, an all powerful being can have free will, for it can even limit itself if it desires. One must say if God is willing to limit his own power to intervene, perhaps he is not a powermonger or Selfish. If he is reserved, he may just be NEUTRAL rather than evil. Just because God allows us to live in pain and does not intervene does not mean he is evil, because, afterall, he does allow us to experience pleasure. Furthermore, just because we all must die, does not negate the fact that he has at least given us the OPPORTUNITY TO LIVE which a truly selfish, powermongering being never would do. Also, LIFE has alot of pleasure in it, and evil God would not allow that. Finally, there may be an afterlife, if so perhaps it is devoid of pain. Thus, it appears at the very least God is NEUTRAL, and if you believe in an afterlife that may be devoid of pain, good. Sincerely,
GAR. (I also wrote NEUTRAL GOD and GOD WOULD HAVE TO CLONE HIMSELF AND something like "GOOD ARGUMENT BUT WRONG PREMISES"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| From: (Anonymous) |
Date: March 9th, 2006 09:02 am (UTC) |
| (Link) |
Does it really matter?
|
First of all let me start by saying you are a very intelligent and passionate man, and I love your web-site (in-fact it reaffirms my belief in G-d, and gives me a good position of the atheist view). And I am honored to say that. Secondly I am Jewish, and very knowledgeable and passionate in my views. But I will say your arguments are compelling, but not new. See it comes down to this, I have a reason and answer for every remark that you say that proves G-d’s real and He is everything he is. And then you have a reason and answer to say G-d is not real and everything He says he isn’t. It is this fact that we can not know this for certain. There is evidence for both sides of the coin. It is not a matter of whether we can know if He is real or isn’t. It comes down to the fact if you want to believe He is real. And I say, if you believing He is not real makes you a better person then don’t believe. You got to do what you want to do. But I think people shouldn’t be constantly trying to prove and disprove G-d’s existence. Because in the end, we can’t know. I have an answer, you have an answer. And it will be like that forever, we will always have a counter-argument. So I say why not stop putting all this energy and mental power in trying to prove or disprove something that is unknowable and un-provable. And do something useful, like help people or something. And thanks again for your website I really do enjoy listen to someone that actually has logic in their beliefs, even if they are in contrast of mine. Cya, take care.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| From: (Anonymous) |
Date: March 15th, 2006 06:08 pm (UTC) |
| (Link) |
Re: Does it really matter?
|
A new interpretation of the moral teaching of Jesus the Christ openly challenges 2000 years of theology and tradition.
(PRWEB) February 16, 2006 -- Attracting considerable attention over the past year in discussion forums and momentum from a growing number of web sites is a new manuscript by an unknown author entitled: The Final Freedoms. But this continuing and growing interest may inevitably be leading towards a confrontation of David and Goliath proportions, as religious institutions rarely appreciate anyone subverting their foundations. And at stake are two thousand years of history.
What at first appears an utterly preposterous challenge to the religious status quo rewards those who persevere in closer examination, for it carries within its pages an idea both subtle and sublime, what the combined intellectual histories of religion and science have either ignored or dismissed as impossible. An error of presumption which could now leave tradition staring into the abyss and humble the heights of scientific speculation. For if this material is confirmed, and there appears to be both the means and a concerted effort to authenticate it, the greatest unresolved questions of human existence may finally have been untangled.
Being distributed freely as a pdf download, made up of twenty nine chapters and three hundred and seventy pages is the first wholly new and complete interpretation for two thousand years of the teachings of Jesus the Christ and the Perfect Law. And this new teaching has nothing whatsoever to do with any existing religious conception known to history. It is unique in every respect.
Using a synthesis of several thousand scriptural elements from the Old and New Testaments, the Apocrypha , The Dead Sea Scrolls,The Nag Hammadi Library, and some of the worlds greatest poetry, it describes and teaches a single moral LAW, a single moral principle and offers its own proof; one in which the reality of God responds to an act of perfect faith with a direct, individual intervention into the natural world; making a correction to human nature by a change in natural law, altering consciousness, human ethical perception, and providing new, primary insight and understanding of the human condition.
Also called the Gospel of the Resurrection, this new interpretation reveals the moral foundation of all human thought and conduct and finds expression within a new covenant of human spiritual union, the marriage between one man and one woman. It resolves the most intractable questions and issues of human sexuality and offers possibilities for peace, health and cultural development political process has yet to dream of.
This new teaching is pure ethics. It requires no institutional framework, no churches, no priest craft, no scholastic theological rational, costs nothing and ‘worship’ requires only conviction and the necessary measure of self discipline to accomplish a new moral imperative.
As the first ever religious teaching able to demonstrate its own efficacy, the first ever religious claim to knowledge that meets both the ideal and criteria of the most rigourous, testable scientific method, this teaching represents a reality entirely new to human history.
The beginnings of an intellectual and moral revolution are unfolding on the web. And anyone trying to imagine where solutions to the worlds most difficult conundrums will come from, may comprehend from this material, the catalyst that might very well define the very future of humanity and the earth itself!
Download links: http://www.energon.uklinux.net
http://thefinalfreedoms.bulldoghome.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| From: (Anonymous) |
Date: April 20th, 2006 04:41 am (UTC) |
| (Link) |
Believe First In Yourself
|
Honestly your site had some good points, but in the end faith is a personnal choice for everyone, it should be what you believe in your heart, not what you grew up being told, which is the problem. I particularly liked these quotes on the subject.
Dalai Lama--"This is my simple religion. There is no need for temples; no need for complicated philosophy. Our own brain, our own heart is our temple; the philosophy is kindness."
Carl Sagan--"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe."
As for Satanism, I'm not a huge fan, being as Harvey "Anton" Lavey lied about his ENTIRE biography... a philosophy based on a man who NEVER graduated College (proven by college records of San Francisco City College where he claims to have gone), beat his wife(proven by 1984 San Fransico police records), and who plaigiarized many other authors adopting their ideas as his own(ex. "Might is Right" by Ragnar Redbeard "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand and Aleister Crowley's "Equinox"), many other lies are there I can't fit them all here. so before you believe ANYTHING first look deep within yourself, see if what you believe is the product of some dogma, or your OWN feelings on the matters that mean the most to YOU.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Previous
