Sketches on Atheism

Before there was Light: A Functional Proof for the Omnimalevolent Creator

Purkly-Blackness-iPad-wallpaperNo one but The Owner of All Infernal Names can faithfully claim to know if He is pleased more by the total aggregate of suffering distributed across all of His creation, or whether He is more circumspect and discerning in His pleasure taking, savouring discreet yet increasingly potent, increasingly more complex parcels of sophisticated and intimate misery. Whether it is a matter of quantity over quality, the enormity of the marketplace or the specialisation of product groups and services within that marketplace, or a depraved combination of both, no human mind can determine, or perhaps ever comprehend.

What the Impartial Observer can record with a tremendous amount of confidence is that since the protean cycles of this universe were spun-up and set loose, the urge of all that which moves and interacts has consulted the future with a stubborn enthusiasm, cascading naturally forward, spilling out from the simplest and lightest towards the heaviest and most complicated.  It is a contract, whether they know it and like it or not, to which all contingent things are hopelessly but faithfully dedicated, for Creation has but one state of employment conferred to all but the Creator Himself. It is an industry that has birthed—and will continue to birth—increasingly fantastic product lines and services whose central ambition is wholly devoted to producing even more fantastic products and services; generations stacked one on top of the other with each new contrivance—or variation on an existing contrivance—more adept, more skilled and more talented than the last at experiencing and distributing suffering.

And how could it not be?

How could any other arrangement be possible in this world?

Before there was light there was, after all, only darkness. Before there was light there was only what the Greek poet Hesiod called the “yawning nothingness,” and from within this perfect eclipse the uncaused First Cause moved, constructively interfering with a portion of that eternal void which existed before space and time were named with a temperature. This unending, infinite bleakness—a blackness that the authors of the Vedas collectively identified as a type of swirling chaos, a darkness concealed in darkness[1]—is the Creator’s ancestral home. It is where He resides, within what human minds can only comprehend as the deepest of detestable disorders.

That, to Him, is home.

He—the Creator—did not move on the darkness, vanquishing it and by doing so annihilating His supernal hearth, His residence, rather this universe was fashioned from within and by the material that had never known a morning. Darkness is the parent, the cinderblock, the mortar, and the paint. From this shadow-material colours were shaped and this universe was stretched out, but it will forever be of its parent, dependent and loyal to the end.

The light man and beast alike see is only fleeting. It is a visitor, like temperature and time, which answers to an antipodal, cardinal realm where the Creator dwells: the immortal, unremitting darkness. Darkness preceded the light. Darkness is the source of what men consider the All. From darkness the All came, diseased and corrupted from before the beginning, and to the darkness all things will one day return.

[1] Rig Veda, Mandala 10, hymn CXXIX, Nasadiya Sukta

Advertisements

138 thoughts on “Before there was Light: A Functional Proof for the Omnimalevolent Creator

  1. The book refers on numerous occasions to the fact that the purposed suffering, misery and pain endured by Life is “nutritional” in nature; a source of “nutrition” for the creator. Not only is this a purpose for said suffering but the primary reason.

    This is a matter of nutrition first,…

    This is indicative of a creature that requires sustenance to maintain its existence, to survive. Yet the omnimalevolent creator is also omnipotent. Surely a truly omnipotent being would not require “nutrition“. It would be self-sustaining and utterly exempt from any and all the “laws” that govern the reality it created.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Excellent point, Richard. I believe this is the first true valid rebuttal. Exciting! You’re right, “nutrition” and “sustenance” are, clearly, bad word choices. I feel I might have consulted that thesaurus in my head too much here, unnecessarily extending the commentary beyond the optimal words: “fulfilling,” “satisfying,” and even “exciting” and “stimulating.”

      Have you reached the end, yet? There is a proposition presented there that might, just might, give room for “nutrition,” though. It’s arguable, but I won’t give it away if you haven’t reached that point yet.

      Like

      • Not there yet but not too far.

        I would agree that leaving it at fulfilling, etc would be more appropriate and, because it was being done unnecessarily, with no motivation other than choice, even more malevolent.

        I just left a review at Amazon. Hope it’s adequate.

        Like

  2. What a cheery belief system! Will there be an afterlife reward for acknowledging or worshipping this infernal creator creature? Are you the first prophet? I need to know how this all fits with the history of hitherto fake religions.

    Like

    • …then play it backwards at three-times the speed and you distinctly hear the words, “Strawberries and Cream, Waffles and Chocolate Topping, Crepes and Caramel Source.”

      The Creator is an odd one, that’s for sure.

      Like

      • Bugger. Must need a profit to do the interpreting—all I ever hear is scratchy barking. I guess Dog speaks in mysterious ways …

        Liked by 1 person

  3. I need to find the best belief system, preferably the one with the least mumbo-jumbo and the most ‘save my ass for eternity’ per religious unit of faith. The OP isn’t helping me much, just reinforcing the boogie-man vibe and that is really harshing my mellow. 🙂

    Still looking though. 🙂

    Like

  4. Hi John,

    You spend all of your time proving that God cannot exist, but if he does exist he is a maniac. So tell me what your alternative is? We all are subject to chance. Like plankton in an ocean we go where random currents flush us to. Human beings because of our superior intellect have stronger tails to swim within those currents compared to our fellow travelers, but still with that most of what happens to us is out of our control.

    in your universe chance, luck, fate, are brainless. There is no intelligence out there. That we living and breathing at this moment in time is nothing more than a freak accident? These are only my musings on what I speculate is your version of reality.

    So after you have finished killing God, enlighten me as to what existence is.

    Liked by 1 person

      • I am making an effort to understand the Atheist Universe which is very different than where I live. I hear the attacks on what I believe, and I merely wish to explore what the alternative is. In my Universe I can make the case for my actions mostly by saying God is watching. I will eventually be punished for my sins. In the Atheist view what is the case for basic morality?

        If there is no Supreme Being then even morality is only another form of self interest. If I only care about myself it is in my best interest to behave badly towards my fellow space travelers to get as much good stuff as possible. Morality is a way of getting along with another bunch of individuals so that we can out compete the other groups of selfish humans. Survival of the fittest. We are here because our ancestors out competed, murdered, or out bred the competition.

        Like every other form of life if we do not out compete those who share this space and time , we will not leave descendents. Even if we win, brainless chance can send an asteroid and there will be none of us to even discuss this. Pretty hopeless. A good case can be made for going through life drunk and stoned if you live in this existence.

        So where did I go wrong in my analysis?

        Liked by 1 person

      • Hi Alan,

        I understand this was directed to Makka, and I can’t speak for him, but I’m at a loss as to what exactly your question is. Are you trying to say without a god belief you would rape and kill and steal and generally defile your environment?

        Like

      • Every point of your analysis is wrong.
        And I honestly wouldn’t want to be your neighbour. If the only reason you act decently towards others is because you fear some celestial dictator, then, Alan, you are a lost cause.

        Liked by 1 person

    • I can’t speak for everyone, but the atheist universe is simply what is. This universe is indifferent, without intention, but I have the capacity to find it most beautiful. This appreciation for aesthetics is part of my evolution. Life is a rare occurrence, and I am just another life form acting in accordance with my nature, just as all other plants and luckily for me my complex brain has emerged a high level of consciousness and sentience for me to be aware of it and seek to understand it. To me the very nature of existence knowing that it took the birth of stars, the death stars to create the very elements that exist on this planet that could form life and that after billions of years I am here to talk about it, is so fucking amazing to me I cannot truly explain.

      In regards to morality I am also governed by the behavior of species. Like all life I want to survive, and our brand of primate survives best through cooperation. The feelings of goodness and fulfillment we get by helping others is tangible and real. The guilt and pain we feel by causing harm is also real. As a social animal, being kind and loving seems like the most sensible choice because it allows me to survive well. Reciprocal altruism is the source of morality, and needs little supernatural explanation.

      Liked by 1 person

  5. The atheist’s idea of a “malevolent creator” can be proven absurd quite easily and in multiple ways.

    First Proof:

    Man is the only animal on planet Earth that does not live according to his nature.

    This is obvious from the fact that nature is harmonious and mankind is always at war or conflicted in a variety of ways.

    Since man does not know his own human nature, it is totally ridiculous for the atheist to think he can figure out anything concerning God.

    Second Proof:

    Without suffering there would be no life on Earth.

    That means man would not exist.

    Since man is godlike in his ability to create goodness and beauty one can only conclude that suffering is good not evil.

    If suffering is good than its author cannot be malevolent.

    There are more proofs but they would be a waste of time since the atheist is incapable of understanding even the first proof.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Hi SOM, always a pleasure

      nature is harmonious… Really? Predation, disease, parasitism, thirst, starvation, intraspecific aggression, ostracism, and sexual frustration are endemic in what are called healthy ecosystems. Perhaps you should read up on the ecology of fear, Michael Clinchy, Michael J. Sheriff, Liana Y. Zanette, 2013, ‘Predator-induced stress and the ecology of fear,’ Functional Ecology, Volume 27, February, Issue 1, pp. 56–65

      Suffering is good… Very well done, yes! That is summarised in The Problem of Good. Glad to see you’re on board here.

      Have you read my book yet? You should, because it seems you’re already a believer 😉

      Like

      • You see a meadow rich in flower & foliage and your memory rests upon it as an image of peaceful beauty. It is a delusion. . . Not a bird that twitters but is either slayer or [slain and] . . . not a moment passes in that a holocaust, in every hedge & every copse battle murder & sudden death are the order of the day.
        –Thomas Henry Huxley

        Liked by 1 person

      • “In sober truth, nearly all the things which men are hanged or imprisoned for doing to one another, are nature’s every day performances.” (John Stuart Mill, On Nature, 1904)

        Liked by 1 person

      • Pinky,

        And in the end, life is simply one of nature’s way of cycling carbon and other atoms.

        Stars are also examples of the another stupendously spectacular natural process called fusion.

        It’s how heavier elements are made and life made possible.

        The atheist is called to join modern humanity in the most effective acquisition of knowledge in human history:

        Modern Science.

        Like

      • John, there is significant evidence that, for example, the brain structure is altered in survivors of disastrous earthquakes, causing irreversible brain damage and long-term health issues. So according to SOM and the Bible, earthquakes are good for survivors because it causes suffering, a prolonged stress response, and ultimately brain damage. I hold my tongue, but you, no doubt, know what I’m thinking. 😉

        http://blog.brainfacts.org/2015/04/the-kathmandu-earthquake-will-alter-brain-structure-of-survivors/#.VYbPlEaGNsU

        Liked by 1 person

      • Stands to reason, doesn’t it.

        Here are two papers on the alteration of animal brains after predatory attack, analogous to those seen in human patients with acute stress disorders (ASD) , and post-traumatic stress disorders (PTSD) .

        El Hage, et al., 2004, ‘Impaired memory following predatory stress in mice is improved by fluoxetine,’ Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology & Biological Psychiatry Vol. 28, pp. 123 – 128

        Zoladz, Phillip R. 2008, ‘An ethologically relevant animal model of posttraumatic stress disorder: Physiological, pharmacological and behavioral sequelae in rats exposed to predator stress and social instability,’ Graduate dissertation, University of South Florida

        Liked by 1 person

      • Neuro,

        My arguments are based on modern science, not the Bible.

        The atheist is an example of a strain of humanity that has rejected both modern science and the Bible.

        That makes the atheist a living fossil of pre-modern paganism and demonstrates that atheism is retrograde, not progressive.

        Like

      • To my favorite trolling poe, here’s some modern science for you.

        ““People with greater paranormal beliefs showed lower levels of executive function. Particularly, they had less impulse control and greater disorganization, independent of age, sex, or level of education. These findings support studies suggesting that superstitious thinking involves some degree of dysfunction in the prefrontal cortex,”

        Like

      • John,

        “Predation, disease, starvation, etc.,” are simply part of the harmonious circulation of carbon and other elements brought about by the natural phenomenon called life.

        Like

      • John,

        Since I have proven that your basic premise is absurd, I would have to accept your absurdity as the basic premise for my own argument.

        It is humbly requested of the atheist that the other human being in the conversation be allowed to construct his own arguments.

        Like

      • Well, I’ll certainly give you points for writing words, but I have to deduct every one of those points for the total and complete absence of meaning.

        Want to try again?

        Like

  6. Can’t have heads without tails.
    Can’t have hot without cold.
    Can’t have dark without light (and of course, vice versa).

    Can’t have a unique Creator.
    Can’t have a Big Bang out of nothing.

    All very poetic I’m sure, but the opening salvos of the KJV blows it out of the water for brevity (and poetry)— “the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep”.
    Commonalities? Accuracy?

    Who knows—? Who could ever know? (People with the unique passport to the sole Godhead, please form a queue here …)

    Bugger. I just bit my tail out of sheer frustration.

    Like

  7. But, after all, who knows, and who can say
    Whence it all came, and how creation happened?
    The gods themselves are later than creation,
    So who knows truly whence it has arisen?

    Whence all creation had its origin,
    He, whether he fashioned it or whether he did not,
    He, who surveys it all from highest heaven,
    He knows – or maybe even he does not know.

    Well, buggered if I do then.

    Liked by 1 person

    • 🙂 All of Creation is perhaps a separate matter to the creation of this particular universe.

      This universe, when its done with, when all the helium is spent, will be discarded and tossed onto a midden containing millions, billions, maybe even trillions of other discarded, now cold and dark universes.

      Liked by 1 person

    • When I read your comment, it occurred to me I have read something similar. So, Hariod and John kindly excuse my long response

      Some foolish men declare that Creator made the world. The doctrine that the world was created is ill-advised and should be rejected. If god created the world, where was he before creation? If you say he was transcendent then and needed no support, where is he now? No single being had the skill to make the world- for how can an immaterial god create that which is material? How could god have made the world without any raw material? If you say he made this first, and then the world, you are faced with an endless regression. If you declare that the raw material arose naturally, you fall into another fallacy, for the whole universe might have been its own creator and have arisen equally naturally. If god created the world by an act of will without any raw material, then it is just his will made nothing else and who will believe this silly stuff? If he is ever perfect and complete, how could the will to create have arisen in him? If on the other hand, he is not perfect, he could no more create the universe than a potter could. If he is formless, action-less and all embracing, how could he have created the world? Such a soul devoid of all modality would have no desire to create anything. If you say that he created to no purpose because it was his nature to do so, then god is pointless. If he created in some kind of sport, it was the sport of a foolish child, leading to trouble. If he created out of love for living things and need of them he made the world, why did he not make creation wholly blissful, free from misfortune? Thus the doctrine that the world was created by god makes no sense at all.

      Liked by 2 people

  8. Pingback: Alas! The Problem Of Good Cannot Save Us! | Dead Wild Roses

  9. makagutu says:
    June 23, 2015 at 4:51 am

    Every point of your analysis is wrong.
    And I honestly wouldn’t want to be your neighbour. If the only reason you act decently towards others is because you fear some celestial dictator, then, Alan, you are a lost cause.

    In an Atheist Universe, morally human beings are no different than any other form of life. Every life form struggles to live and reproduce. The only morality is whether you win or not. Are you saying that people are better than animals? If you are saying that, then give me your basis.

    Like

  10. No dilemma at all. Just defining parameters. Thank you for acknowledging my premise. That premise is that with out a God there is no moral difference between us and the other animals. You stated correctly that the business of life is to live and reproduce. That is also our business as people.

    Like

    • I think you are confused. There is no morality in the difference between a cow and a dog and man. They are all animals. Morality is a judgement of effects. Humans and other animals closer to us do this in some degree. Sometimes it does a person good to read other books instead of trusting on the bible alone

      Liked by 1 person

      • I submit that human beings are merely animals who have invented morality for their own selfish ends. Animals form partnerships, the better to battle the other animals. Morals allow humans to trust one another long enough to combine their strengths and win. The immoral loner lacks support and loses food, territory, reproductive chance, or life against his ethical opponents.

        No Bible, strictly biology, evolution, and logic in the natural world. Lions, wolves, and the other social predators like people all behave this way.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Hi Allen

        I appreciate where you’re coming from, I can even sympathise with your position rooted in some fantastic and appealing creation story, but I’m sorry… a sense of comradeship and fair play (of empathy and ethics and morality) has been demonstrated in lesser apes through numerous behavioral studies over the last 30 years. We are risen apes, not fallen angels. It’s all about neurological processing power.

        http://scienceblogs.com/primatediaries/2010/04/22/chimpanzees-prefer-fair-play-o/

        Like

      • You can submit anything you want, Allan. Human beings are animals.
        The loner may not be immoral, especially if the loner doesn’t interact with others. There is no chance for him/ her to be immoral.
        Where do you get the idea the bible is an authority on morals? The Vedas stand superior to the bible in its teachings. The gospel of Buddha stands superior to anything you can find in the bible. The Analects of Confucius are incomparable.

        Liked by 1 person

    • @Alan Scott

      ” That premise is that with out a God there is no moral difference between us and the other animals. “

      I’m kind of curious about your definition of ‘moral’ behaviour Mr.Scott. Your premise seems predicated on the notion that without the threat of eternal damnation/eternal happiness humans cannot act morally.

      I would suggest that morality based on fear of doing wrong leads to a shallow, artificially bifurcated (black/white) understanding of both ethical and moral controversies.

      Moral issues are almost never of a distinct binary nature and thus approaching moral quandaries with ‘me avoiding going to hell’ is perhaps not the best intellectual strategy for determining what is the correct course of moral action.

      Furthermore, can any moral decision made based on fear even be considered a moral decision? Saving oneself from eternal torment and as a by-product doing the right thing is many grades less impressive then a person who makes a moral decision based the best available information and her experiences up till the moment of the decision.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Morality is what ever we say it is. We make it up as we go. Those in charge impose their morality on the rest. That is fact. In the Godless World you need an even more powerful authority than God. Humans left to their own devices will happily rape, murder and pillage one another. That powerful authority is the central government.

        There have been few secular central government in history that did not have overwhelming power. Fear of that power is what prevents anarchy. Cuba, China, N. Korea come to mind.

        Like

      • Humans left to their own devices will happily rape, murder and pillage one another

        Allen, 200,000 years ago (give or take), man became “man.” If your thesis was even remotely accurate we wouldn’t have lasted the first century.

        But tell me, is the only thing stopping you from killing your neighbour and raping their daughters your belief in a god?

        Like

  11. John,

    ” I appreciate where you’re coming from, I can even sympathise with your position rooted in some fantastic and appealing creation story, but I’m sorry… a sense of comradeship and fair play (of empathy and ethics and morality) has been demonstrated in lesser apes through numerous behavioral studies over the last 30 years. We are risen apes, not fallen angels. It’s all about neurological processing power. ”

    I find that some what amusing. Chimpanzees arguably our closest animal cousins are great examples of what I am talking about. I can’t read their minds but I don’t believe they worry about God. They are in fact ruthless savages. The males form alliances to take over leadership of the group. It’s strictly about power. The ethics within the group are only there to strengthen that group so it can make war on neighboring troops to control territory, food, or females.

    Liked by 1 person

  12. Alan tells us

    That is fact. In the Godless World you need an even more powerful authority than God. Humans left to their own devices will happily rape, murder and pillage one another. That powerful authority is the central government.

    and I call bullshit. We have several pages of the bible, his preferred reference, of whole societies killed because a god decrees it. Almost everyone going to war prays that their god will be the stronger one and shall give them victory. There is no power stronger than human reason. Some people like Alan, have less of it, they need their gods. The only guide we have is our reason, it can lead us to fault but with time also self corrects.
    Elsewhere he writes

    They are in fact ruthless savages. The males form alliances to take over leadership of the group. It’s strictly about power.

    and I sympathize with him, truly sympathize. All life is a willing to power. He wants his bible to be authoritative, a strive for power.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. Pingback: Before there was Light: A Functional Proof for the Omnimalevolent Creator | The Pink Agendist

  14. @Alan Scott

    “Morality is what ever we say it is. We make it up as we go. Those in charge impose their morality on the rest. That is fact.”

    This is not refuting anything being discussed as of yet. Human morality is made up by humans – this isn’t exactly breaking news.

    “In the Godless World you need an even more powerful authority than God.”

    I’m glad you think that Fidel Castro is more powerful that the biblical godhead – but again relevancy is an issue here.

    “Humans left to their own devices will happily rape, murder and pillage one another.”

    At this stage you would need to provide evidence of your claim. Many societies have prospered without any acknowledgement of the christain god. Furthermore, it behooves you to prove that our natural state is one of reckless anarchy.

    Most anthropological evidence points to a cooperative existence between humans as long as resources were available.

    “There have been few secular central government in history that did not have overwhelming power. Fear of that power is what prevents anarchy. Cuba, China, N. Korea come to mind.”

    ??? Is this even addressed to me, or just another avenue to rant against the evils of secular society?

    The best I can do is imagine that you are trying to equate North Korea with the notion of the eternal suffering that god willingly applies to people. The problem is that in North Korea there is no way to be eternally condemned, so than the other than the fact that both god and NK society possess dictatorial structures I don’t see how this relates to your thesis.

    Liked by 1 person

  15. Pingback: Before there was Light: A Functional Proof for the Omnimalevolent Creator | Christians Anonymous

  16. I might note that your thesis seems to be supported by modern physics. The omnimalevolent could easily be “dark matter” or “dark energy”. His prehaps decaying body makes up the vast majority of the universe!

    Liked by 1 person

    • Oh, I like that! A central part of the thesis though is for Creation to function there can be no evidence at all for the Creator. If sentient creatures learned that all possible futures were futile then all contingent things would see no option but to deploy the only weapon they had against the architect of their reality: a massive denial of service, Revolutionary Suicide. So, if Dark Matter, or Dark Energy, are traces of the Creator, then that could raise some problems in the thesis. However, Dark Energy and Dark Matter could well be traces of the antipodal material from which this universe was created. Now, my friend, that might work! 🙂

      Like

      • Detective Rust Cohle: I think human consciousness, is a tragic misstep in evolution. We became too self-aware, nature created an aspect of nature separate from itself, we are creatures that should not exist by natural law. We are things that labor under the illusion of having a self; an accretion of sensory, experience and feeling, programmed with total assurance that we are each somebody, when in fact everybody is nobody. Maybe the honorable thing for our species to do is deny our programming, stop reproducing, walk hand in hand into extinction, one last midnight – brothers and sisters opting out of a raw deal.

        TRUE DETECTIVE, SEASON 1 HBO

        Liked by 1 person

  17. Arbourist,

    You guys do seem to be winning the culture war. I wish to be prepared to survive this alien existence and am trying to anticipate all of the ways it could play out. North Korea,
    Cuba, and China certainly are Atheistic societies where extreme authority rules. I see no reason to believe Western Society could not degenerate along those lines.

    The Castro brothers are not religious zealots. They are in fact secular zealots who torture and murder to maintain power. They are in fact as hostile to Christianity as any Western Atheist..

    Maybe you could give your examples of prosperous Godless societies. You specified non Christian societies and I will concede non Christian, but not prosperous Atheist ones. You may know history I am unfamiliar with.

    Like

    • @Alan Scott

      “You guys do seem to be winning the culture war. I wish to be prepared to survive this alien existence and am trying to anticipate all of the ways it could play out.”

      You do realize that you are straying further and further away from what we are discussing, right? To review:

      “I would suggest that morality based on fear of doing wrong leads to a shallow, artificially bifurcated (black/white) understanding of both ethical and moral controversies.

      Moral issues are almost never of a distinct binary nature and thus approaching moral quandaries with ‘me avoiding going to hell’ is perhaps not the best intellectual strategy for determining what is the correct course of moral action. “

      And now we are talking culture war? The issue at hand is the quality of religious morality that is inspired by fear.

      “The Castro brothers are not religious zealots. They are in fact secular zealots who torture and murder to maintain power.”

      Ummm…so the ‘religious’ zealots in the US who torture and murder are okay? I’m not sure what case you are trying to make here, but keep in mind that the US has been doing all of the above, to maintain its interests globally, since its inception. So, I’m not seeing the reasoning for mentioning this.

      “Maybe you could give your examples of prosperous Godless societies. You specified non Christian societies and I will concede non Christian, but not prosperous Atheist ones. You may know history I am unfamiliar with.”

      Canada for one. 🙂 But how this is related to morality – what we were arguing about initially – seems faintly connected at best.

      If you do not have a reasonable case to made for favouring religious morality other than ‘thats how I was raised and it worked/s for me’ that’s fine. Personal preferences are personal preferences. But jumping all over the map isn’t helping the persuasiveness of your argument at all.

      Liked by 1 person

  18. So Canada is a prosperous Godless society? You live there so I take your word it is prosperous. I know you guys have separation of Church and State like we do down here, I question whether you are truly a Godless society. I know you have Churches up there. So your society as a whole is not free from religious influence. You also have the following statement in the Preamble to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. ” Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law “.

    Probably nobody reads a Preamble anyway, yet it is a curious statement in an official Document for a Godless Country.

    However, you are right, I have strayed from the question of fear inspired religious morality. Fair enough. What I decided to do was not defend religious morality because I am sure you are an old hand at ridiculing people like me defending God and those who believe in him. My point is that you guys are no better. You enforce a fear based morality. Your morality is intolerant.

    I believe that if you ever truly achieve a totally Godless society it will be a totalitarian and short lived one. I look at the examples of Lenin and Stalin in Russia and also the Jacobins of the French Revolution. They succeeded in tearing down Monarchies where religion was embedded in the ruling power structure. The problem was with the secular governments they replaced them with.

    The United States Revolution did not replace the British Monarchy with a secular government or society. It merely did not allow a one religion dominated government. The American experiment in a freedom of religion based society has done much better than the Godless Russian and French Revolutions.

    I have tried not to use the ” thats how I was raised and it worked/s for me ” argument. I am sorry for jumping all over the map. I am trying to break that habit.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Alan, just keep in mind that prosocial behavior is not supernatural, and you are completely missing the big picture about dictators who have the same characteristics as psychopaths. Now, if you are a Christian, and believe that Yahweh is the Father, Jesus’ daddy, you will see nearly identical characteristics as the two dictators you listed. And just like those dictators, Yahweh didn’t like competition. He was a jealous god and slaughters anyone who worships other gods. The god you worship was totalitarian.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Alan,

      The United States Revolution did not replace the British Monarchy with a secular government or society. It merely did not allow a one religion dominated government.

      Um, Alan, that is exactly what a “secular government” is.

      Out of interest, can you give me an example where a country (any country) has benefited from applying some specific notion (or principle) expressed by Jesus, and Jesus alone?

      Like

    • From the Bible: “Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

      This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.” Romans 13: 1-7

      It seems the Bible claims, that the governments of Lenin and Stalin were to be obeyed and set up by a particular Biblical god. Was the Roman empire totalitarian, and if it was did it stop to be such when Christians grabbed political power? It certainly did not become a democratic society at any point and the previously enjoyed religious freedom simply vanished to thin air…

      Why is it that correlation and causation are so often mistaken to be the same thing? And especially in apologetics? Did Christianity motivate Pinochet, or Batista? No? How did atheism as a logical position motivate Stalin or Mao to any atrocities? Christianity certainly motivated the crusaders, inquisition and witch hunters to do the most horrid atrocities. Did it not?

      Only totalitarian governments can impose religious systems, or stripping of one from a leading political position in society as a dictated authoritarian command. For most of Christendoms history in most Christian countries on the planet, having some other faith, or even a different sort of view about it has been seen as a crime worthy of torture and death, even burning alive. Was it totalitarian zealotry, or not? It is absurd that the few totalitarian governments, that have stripped their countries from the politifcal influence of religions are set up as an example what an atheist government would look like, just because we have not had a society so free of superstition so far, as to truly democratically elect one. I can only hope this will change in the near future, before it is too late…

      Liked by 1 person

  19. John,

    July 1, 2015 at 9:31 am

    I’m sorry, Alan, but not sure what that comment even means. If you’re enquiring about behavioural studies conducted on primates then there are dozens.

    Here’s a general article on a 2007 study led by Sarah Brosnan at Georgia State University.

    “In a cooperative species, being able to distinguish when one is being treated inequitably is very useful for determining whether or not to continue cooperating with a partner.”

    http://www.livescience.com/2044-monkeys-fuss-inequality.html

    Bronson has led many studies sicne, so that is a good vein to follow.

    You might want to also look at Marc Bekoff’s paper: Wild Justice and Fair Play

    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/sBIPH-004-0539-x#page-1

    And Ken Binmore’s paper, The Origins of Fair Play, is also interesting:

    http://eprints.ucl.ac.uk/14432/1/14432.pdf

    But like I said, there are dozens upon dozens of studies that have been conducted in the last 30-odd years, so perhaps you should read up on these and familiarise yourself with the facts of the argument. ”

    Sorry I just did not find these articles persuasive. I see no morality or sense of fairness in an experiment that excites the jealousy of one individual against another. These merely confirm my point of social predators employing behaviors that allow them to cooperate within small groups. None of these animals will show feelings of peace and love toward outsiders of their own species. Many times those outsiders are more dangerous to them than another species.

    Groups will war on one another for territory, food supply, and females. Human beings with their ” morality ” are able to combine into larger tribes and nations, but all to the same end. If we say there is no God, then it is all science. Everything I just stated is consistent with evolution and biology.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Hi Alan,

      Well, it seems you’re “choosing” to see only what you want to see. You’re free to do so, but it doesn’t make it a correct, or even factual, position.

      You also seem to be dismissing the evolutionary benefits of cooperation. Any particular reason you’re overlooking this rather vital factor?

      Like

      • I am laying out the animal model because humans are only animals with bigger brains. They can combine and cooperate to multiply the power of the individual. Passing on the genes of the group takes over from passing on the genes of the individual. With out God humans are animals. The animal and the Atheist model are almost the same. Animals compete. Cooperation is a strategy to compete.

        The only difference between the animal model and the Atheist model is that in the Atheist model reproduction success does not seem to be a priority.

        The various violent groups who are expanding in the World are examples of cooperating individuals making war on neighboring groups to capture females and take over territory. Chimpanzees do the same thing. That is evolution in action.

        Like

      • With out God humans are animals.

        With “God” humans are the lowest animal.

        “Man is a Religious Animal. He is the only Religious Animal. He is the only animal that has the True Religion–several of them. He is the only animal that loves his neighbor as himself and cuts his throat if his theology isn’t straight. He has made a graveyard of the globe in trying his honest best to smooth his brother’s path to happiness and heaven.”

        ~ Mark Twain, excerpt from “The Lowest Animal” 1896

        Liked by 1 person

      • Alan, you’re speaking from the confines of the dominator culture to which you have evidently become very deeply indoctrinated.

        You’re absolutely correct to claim that humans are merely animals.

        “Human behaviour is widely believed to be essentially rational and therefore fundamentally distinct from the behaviour of all other animals. This leads automatically to a belief system that is best described as ‘anthropocentric’.”

        Anthropocentrism:

        (1) Viewing the world in terms of human experience and values.

        (2) The belief that our species is the star that crowns an evolutionary Christmas tree of Life.

        (3) The belief that humans are the pivot upon which our divinely ordained universe turns.

        “Yet we share the planet with some 20 to 100 million other species, all of them genetically driven. One would think that only a deranged gambler would be fool enough to bet on the presence of a solitary exception in such a vast biota. In other words, anthropocentrism hinges on an extraordinary proposition, one that demands extraordinary proof. Unfortunately, none exists.

        Not the slightest scrap of hard evidence, either morphological or genetic, suggests that Homo sapiens is not, like all animals, a natural by-product of genetic and Darwinian evolution. We should therefore assume that we, like they, are uncontaminated by any supra-natural influences. We may well be excellent communicators and tool-makers, and also the most self-aware, mystical and malicious animals on Earth, but overwhelming evidence shows that all these distinctions are of degree, not of kind. And yet the myth lives on.” (source)

        However, that does not mean they are incapable of living in harmony with each other and Nature without the dubious “benefit” of an imaginary sky fairy looking over them.

        There is tangible evidence of humans and their ancient ancestors acting with great compassion and self-sacrifice even prior to the emergence of the curse of religion.

        …there is strong archeological evidence (1) that at least as far back as fifty thousand years, Homo neanderthalensis were caring for their sick and elderly(2).

        (1)”This individual, who was 30 to 40 years old when he died, had a healed broken rib, severe arthritis of the hip, lower neck, back, and shoulders, and had lost most of his molar teeth. This indicates that Neanderthals may have had a complex social system that included care for the elderly.”

        (2)”These cave-dwellers even cared for the elderly and infirm. An elderly male Neanderthal known as ‘La-Chapelle-aux-Saints 1’ had lost all his molar teeth, making it impossible for him to chew his food. But the bone above his tooth cavities had partially healed, suggesting that other Neanderthals chewed his food for him before feeding it to him.

        Other finds take empathy back much further, 1.77 million years in fact. “…a beautifully preserved skull and jawbone from a Dmanisi hominin of this period who had lost all but one tooth several years before death.” (source) (main source)

        This provides solid evidence that someone must have cared for this individual, perhaps even including pre-mastication of food to prolong Life.

        It was cooperation that allowed Homo sapiens and their distant predecessors to survive and evolve for millions of years. It is the psychopathic, “competitive version of the species, that only gained broad control somewhere around ten to twenty thousand years ago, that has brought the species to the verge of extinction.

        Religion” and “god” have been instrumental in the creation and persistence of ponerogenesis and pathocracy and all the violence and death they produce.

        Liked by 1 person

  20. WrenchMonkey47,

    Thank you for the response. The arguments you and John make, seem to me, to deny the struggle for life that all life must engage in. Even plants do this. On new soil plants grow as fast as they can. They shade the Sun from their neighbors. Trees kill the grass under them. In a mature forest the giant trees have killed most of the smaller trees, which can only wait for some catastrophe to fell their neighbors so light can reach them to grow.

    I am intentionally sticking to biology. You are either expanding or defending territory. Western man is no longer fit to hold onto his territories. He cannot defend what he has. The rise of Socialism, Atheism, Feminism, Marxism, etc. are the signs of his unfitness. As these continue to strengthen Western man will be replaced by newer, younger, more aggressive, more fertile humans.

    Just because man has this big brain he imagines that the laws of evolution and biology do not apply to him. Your point on Neanderthals does not conflict with my ideas. Primitive man developed loyalty and compassion within the family and tribe. They still warred against the tribe over in the next mountain valley. Those Neanderthals were replaced by the newer Cro Magnon. While no longer accepted I prefer those old names.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Hi Alan

      You’re confusing me a little here as to what, exactly, you’re arguing for, or against.

      This post establishes one piece of evidence for the existence of an omnimalevolent creator, a supremely powerful, thoroughly defiled, transcendent being who shaped this universe from a portion of a perfect and eternal chaos, and whose single-minded objective is to amplify His pleasure-taking over time. Some have named a lesser species of this being the Devil, others The Deceiver, Ahriman, Abaddon, Mara, Baphomet, Apollyon, Iblis, Beast, Angra Mainyu, Yama, Moloch, The Father of Lies, The Author of Sin, Druj, Samnu, Mammon, and The Great Spoiler, yet these characters of human literature and tradition do not begin to approach the nature and scope of this entity who may be identified as simply, The Owner of All Infernal Names: a being who does not share His creation with any other comparable spirit, does not seek to be known to or worshipped by that which He has created (or has allowed to be created), and whose greatest proof of existence is that there is no conspicuous proof of His existence—just teleological birthmarks that can be isolated and examined as testimony—for He understands that the trinkets of His greatest amusement, arousal and nutritional satisfaction must be blind to the nature of the world they inhabit so they may act freely, and suffer genuinely.

      That suffering, Alan, is built into the nature of all things. Indeed, this universe is structured in such a way that it cannot help by forge greater and greater experiences of suffering over time. From heat and protons, to hearts, central nervous systems, minds and cluster bombs, this is Creation’s single compulsion, its one and only passion; a relentless passage from a state of ancestral simplicity to contemporary complexity, where complexity—and the specialisation it affords—parents a wretched and forever diversifying family of more devoted fears and faithful anxieties, more pervasive ailments and skilful parasites, more virulent toxins, more capable diseases, and more affectionate expressions of pain, ruin, psychosis and loss. In the simplest possible statement: Creation is a vast entanglement apparatus—a complexity machine—whose single-minded mindless state of employment is geared entirely towards a greater potency and efficiency in the delivery and experience of misery and confusion, not harmony and peaceful accord

      By everything you’re writing here, you appear to be arguing quite well for the existence of The Owner of All Infernal Names. And I thoroughly agree with you: malevolence explains this world without need for excuse or elaborate theodicies. Unquestionably, the gospel of the malevolent hand stands unchaste, uncontaminated, and inviolable. As an explanation for the world that has been, is, and will be, malevolence is complete. Yesterday, today and tomorrow are made clear without a cover story or inventive pretext.

      Alan, my question then to you is: Have you come to accept The Owner of All Infernal Names is the strongest possible explanation we have for this world? From what you’re writing, it appears this is your conclusion.

      Like

      • John,

        Perhaps I am in error. I assumed y’all were Atheists. I assumed that your post was a mocking of all Deities. My argument is from an Atheist view. All is evolution. Survival of the fittest. I have always believed the liberal view is illogical.

        Now you seem to be serious that you actually believe in God. He is just a bastard? Until this point anyone I’ve come across who believes in a higher being believes in his goodness.

        You seem to describe a universe where Lucifer won the great battle against Michael, the Angels and God. We live in an imperfect World. This must be explained. Christians explain it with Satan. Atheists use Christianity as their Satan. Are you using the existence of God to explain why it is bad? If you are, then explain why sometimes good things happen.

        Like

      • Ah, you’re playing Devil’s Advocate? Sorry, didn’t pick up on that. And no, we’re not talking about Lucifer here. That is a human invention, a pantomime. Such characters of human literature and tradition do not begin to approach the nature and scope of this entity who may be identified as simply, The Owner of All Infernal Names: a being who does not share His creation with any other comparable spirit, does not seek to be known to or worshipped by that which He has created (or has allowed to be created), and whose greatest proof of existence is that there is no conspicuous proof of His existence—just teleological birthmarks that can be isolated and examined as testimony—for He understands that the trinkets of His greatest amusement, arousal and nutritional satisfaction must be blind to the nature of the world they inhabit so they may act freely, and suffer genuinely.

        Like

      • And to answer your question, good exists so the terrible can be felt. Good exists so there is growth across all systems.

        Granted, while the urge of the careless observer—the bystander whose ideas of evil have been shaped by extraordinary human fictions, fantastic pantomimes, and inventive folklore—is almost certainly to assume that a maximally debased being would be wholly and hopelessly dedicated to wild brutality and the swift delivery of ruin across His creation, the assumption ignores the self-evident fact that a world driven only by impetuous brutality and scorched earth protocols would resemble more a raging, superheated, short-lived bonfire than a secure, creative, and ultimately profitable marketplace desired by a Creator who seeks to maximise His pleasure over time. Indeed, if the operations of this world were underwritten by nothing but an outwardly violent, reckless policy of uncapped destruction and mayhem—if all life defiled itself and everything around it without regulation—then it would very quickly bring about a reduction, not enhancement, of suffering as continuously savaged life systems (be they chemical, planetary, biological, cultural, economic, or technological systems) would never be afforded the necessary time, space and security to mature and internally enrich, and without self-enrichment, without diversification and specialisation, the Creator’s harvests would be increasingly anaemic over time, and this would represent a failed, bankrupted Creation.

        Like

  21. John,

    Again I just want to be clear. You do believe in a creator? It is just that he is evil? You are not an Atheist? I will adjust my comments to the new reality. There has to be good so that the suffering is more intense?

    What good would the universe be to an evil God if it was only populated by evil beings who were created in his own image? They would expect evil from one another and become inured to it. A maximum security prison filled with hardened criminals.

    Far better to mix in a few innocent and good types and even let them win from time to time. That way when you pull the rug out it is a bigger thrill.

    Where do you fit into this? Why does the big guy tolerate you? I mean he could reach out and squash you, yet he allows you say bad things about him. Are you too small and insignificant for him to notice you? Are you a part of his larger plan to increase suffering? What part does your anti Christian war play in his schemes? Why does he want you to kill belief in Christianity?

    Liked by 1 person

    • Hi Alan

      Whether I believe in The Owner of All Infernal Names or not does not alter in any way the rigidity of the thesis.

      What good would the universe be to an evil God if it was only populated by evil beings who were created in his own image?

      Who said man was created in His image? You are making the error here of trying to superimpose your particular belief system on to that of the Truth. To be clear, we’re not talking about your particular Middle Eastern god, or any other god conceived of by men. The entire concept of a loving personal creator was only ever a secondary invention, a grinning wicker man thrown together in antiquity and stood in place as a chimerical response to a world whose everyday works betray the fantasy in every possible way. The Owner of All Infernal Names does not share His Creation with any other comparable spirit, and does not seek to be known to, or worshiped by, that which He has allowed to be created. Man was not created, but evolved. He is the present day apex of nature’s single-minded, mindless passage from a state of ancestral simplicity to contemporary complexity, where complexity parents a wretched and forever diversifying family of more devoted fears and faithful anxieties, more pervasive ailments and skilful parasites, more virulent toxins, more capable diseases, and more affectionate expressions of pain, ruin, psychosis and loss.

      The rest of your comment is explained in thorough detail in the book, and especially in the chapter The Problem of Good, complete with a number real world case studies. I would recommend you read the treatise so you actually understand what is being discussed. I’ll endeavour, though, to give you a brief reply:

      Yes, good exists. It is encouraged. Now, granted, while the urge of the careless observer—the bystander whose ideas of evil have been shaped by extraordinary human fictions, fantastic pantomimes, and inventive folklore—is almost certainly to assume that a maximally debased being would be wholly and hopelessly dedicated to wild brutality and the swift delivery of ruin across His creation, the assumption ignores the self-evident fact that a world driven only by impetuous brutality and scorched earth protocols would resemble more a raging, superheated, short-lived bonfire than a secure, creative, and ultimately profitable marketplace desired by a Creator who seeks to maximise His pleasure over time. Indeed, if the operations of this world were underwritten by nothing but an outwardly violent, reckless policy of uncapped destruction and mayhem—if all life defiled itself and everything around it without regulation—then it would very quickly bring about a reduction, not enhancement, of suffering as continuously savaged life systems (be they chemical, planetary, biological, cultural, economic, or technological systems) would never be afforded the necessary time, space and security to mature and internally enrich, and without self-enrichment, without diversification and specialisation, the Creator’s harvests would be increasingly anaemic over time, and this would represent a failed, bankrupted Creation.

      The chief purpose of Creation is not therefore misery alone, rather the accretion of suffering through the positive diversification of life and culture and technology over time, and for that to be realised then Creation must be seeded with the capacity to birth and nourish goods, and this includes love and hope and optimism. You see, Alan, to the Omnimalevolent Creator, hope is to be favoured over ruin, dreams preferred over nightmares, for in the larger narrative—the only narrative that truly matters—it is hope and pleasant forecasts that is the surest possible path to the greatest possible harvest. Where hope is fertile the trinkets of the Creator’s amusement are compelled forward, and they move not because they are being instructed to move, but rather because they perceive from where they stand a degree of safety, security, and predictability ahead. Whether real or simply anticipated, safety and stability stirs in the more forward thinking of individuals’ thoughts of greater investments in future enterprises. Larger, bolder, longer-term investments are made (families, cultural infrastructure, exploration, empire building) and this appropriately services the Omnimalevolent Creator’s hunger to see the fields over which He will take his profit ripen and diversify in new and fascinating ways.

      I would suggest you read the book.

      Like

      • John,

        I try to judge the truth of your beliefs. I can only judge by comparing them against what I have chosen to believe. Whether you believe the in existence the owner of all Infernal names matters. If you don’t then you are merely creating your own private Mythology.

        Life is blessed with the overwhelming drive to survive and continue through procreation. That means suffering. Better to be a suffering life form than a dead rock. Most of the Universe is dead matter and empty space. No desire, no intelligence, no instinct, and no suffering.

        That for infinitesimal time periods groups of molecules function as lifeforms is a miracle, to me. Once those small time periods are over life can never be breathed back into those masses of dead atoms. Why not?

        You can murder a machine by disassembling it, then reassemble it and start her back up and she comes back to life. It has no spirit, no soul. It was never alive. All life has some spirit, instinct, desire to be alive. To me that is evidence of meta physical existence. If there is a metaphysical universe, then God is possible. If he is possible, then he chose to create all of the life I see every day. How can he be such a bad guy as you choose to view him?

        Liked by 1 person

      • Hi Alan

        I can only judge by comparing them against what I have chosen to believe.

        Apologies, but that’s a nonsense statement. Does what you have “chosen to believe” alter the veracity of anything? Of course not. If you have chosen to believe the earth is 5,000 years old does not alter the fact that its 4.8 billion years old.

        Better to be a suffering life form than a dead rock.

        Existence is “Positive,” declared Spinoza boldly, but is it? Is existence positive? Upon what grounds is such an assertion made?

        Naturally, it is inevitable that conscious, curious, self-orientated minds will eventually double back on their awareness and confront the existential questions of “where,” “what,” “who,” and “why” am I? and the urge of any self-respecting mind is to assign some positive meaning to its being, but has a rational justification ever been established for this proclamation? Has there ever been a credible and maintainable reason supporting the declaration? The principle that existence is greater than non-existence—that light is greater than dark—has stood unchallenged up through the centuries, the axiom seemingly beyond question, but on closer inspection such honeyed precepts are far less certain than men have convinced themselves to believe.

        All life has some spirit, instinct, desire to be alive.

        All life is stained with a most ancient paranoia—a gentle but persuasive insanity known to all—which drives men, mice, mushrooms, and microbes to resist a naturally hostile world. Resistance does not equal joy or happiness.

        If there is a metaphysical universe, then God is possible. If he is possible, then he chose to create all of the life I see every day. How can he be such a bad guy as you choose to view him?

        “A scheme which permits thousands of generations to live and die in wretchedness cannot be absolved from the charge of awkwardness or malevolence … it is impossible to call that being Good who, existing prior to the phenomenal universe, and creating it out of the plenitude of infinite power and foreknowledge, endowed it with such properties that its material and moral development must inevitably be attended by the misery of untold millions of sentient creatures for whose existence their creator is ultimately alone responsible.” (John Fiske)

        Alan, consider this simple fact: suffering is very nearly omnipresent. As expressly detailed in the Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness, suffering has existed for at least two billion years before the first semblance of something that might be mistaken for “happiness” was ever experienced. With the first experientially tangible action potentials pain was introduced to this world. Although not cognitively aware of the sensation of pain, protozoa can skirmish with that which threatens it, resisting organised and not-so organised assaults launched against its existence. By this fact alone—by this animated attitude towards a menacing world—we see that this primordial expression of life knows it is suffering, yet it is simply incapable of any reaction that may be mistaken for love or altruism.

        Would a benevolent Creator who is fond of laughter and delighted by happiness arrange his great masterpiece in such a way that suffering is omnipresent and inescapable? Would a benevolent Creator who has the best interests of life forever in the fore arrange his great masterpiece in such a way that compounding, aggravating suffering is guaranteed over time?

        An honest teleological survey of this world, of a naturally self-complicating Creation, contradicts every sweet smelling theological opinion ever forwarded by intrinsically blinded commentators; their ever-so-carefully worded considerations often little more than ornate excuses for why things are not as they should be if matter had been persuaded to behave by a benevolent hand, rather than a coherent explanation for why things are as they are in the unignorable presence of a Creator.

        Alan, nothing you have offered up so far has even scratched the veracity of the thesis. I would urge you then to meditate on this revelation.

        Like

  22. John,

    I do not choose to take the Bible literally. I do not believe the Earth is only 5,000 years old. I choose what I believe. You have the advantage. I do not know of the works of Spinoza. If that reveals my lack of education relative to your education I apologize for taking up your time.

    Again I choose to believe existence is preferable to non existence. If not then why is all life not perpetually suicidal? Why is there this drive to survive and breed at all costs? From the lowest bacteria mutating to become resistant to antibiotics, to ourselves evolving to become masters of our world, all life fights to continue. It is much easier to just go extinct. In the next big bang your atoms might come back as part of a comet. No worries. No suffering.

    Actually in your version of the universe suffering does not make sense. If it is an Atheist world suffering is meaningless. Things suffer to survive to what purpose? Or if yes it is all the work of an evil God, who yet allows life to continue and grow, at some point it must evolve to become his equal and could then challenge him.

    In Christianity suffering is explained as part of the growth of the spirit. Entirely consistent with reality. Since we have suffering it must have purpose. The only purpose it can have is for the growth of the spirit which continues on after life. Then why not inflict as much suffering on yourself and friends as possible in order to reach greater spiritual growth while still on Earth?

    That is the conundrum. God charges each believer to return kindness even while suffering. Most of us fail miserably.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Hi Alan

      If not then why is all life not perpetually suicidal? Why is there this drive to survive and breed at all costs?

      Great question, and it’s answered in the book. It’s actually very simple to explain. The Creator is anonymous for a reason, Alan. Do you not wonder why the Creator is invisible, inaudible, and undetectable? From the book:

      ….if sentient life recognised the futility of its existence, if it recognised that it had been born on the line and was eternally bonded to the perverted servitude of another who does not—and will never—hold council to discuss emancipation, then it is inevitable that birth rates among all self-aware creatures would plummet as reproduction itself would be viewed as an unconscionable and outrageous act of unforgivable selfishness. Being freely acting, morally autonomous, and presented with an insufferable reality, complex conscious life would find no option but to rebel, and to rebel completely by deploying the only weapon it had against the architect of its unforgiving world: a massive denial of service; self-administered, intentional extinction. Revolutionary suicide.

      To get the answer you’ll have to read the thesis.

      In Christianity suffering is explained as part of the growth of the spirit. Entirely consistent with reality.

      No, this is not consistent with reality. Consider the suffering of animals. What role do they have in spiritual matters? Predation, disease, parasitism, thirst, starvation, intraspecific aggression, ostracism, and sexual frustration are endemic in what are called healthy ecosystems. As the 19th Century philosopher, John Stuart Mill, observed: “In sober truth, nearly all the things which men are hanged or imprisoned for doing to one another, are nature’s every day performances.”

      Alan, with all due respect, this thread is growing quite tiresome. If you want to actually engage the thesis then you’ll have to read the thesis. Your objections and questions are good, they’re worthwhile, they’re meaningful, but they all addressed honestly (and thoroughly) in the book. If you can bring yourself up to speed then we can have a real conversation, one which actually advances the subject. I’d love this conversation to continue, but right now we’re just spinning the tires as you don’t actually understand the thesis.

      Like

      • John ,

        Better back and forth than I expected. I got something out of it, though not what you intended. Thanks for putting up with my Apostasy. I too see no reason to continue the discussion.

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s