I hate God
If He were real I would that is. Okay maybe hate is too strong of a word, but I don't think the God of the Christian Bible is one that I would ever be getting along with.
First, from scriptures we see Satan created as a perfect being (Ezekiel 28:12-19) and an anointed cherub (or high-class angel). Lucifer (who Christians assume is the same) decided that he could do a better job as God, and wanted to replace him at the top of the metaphysical totem poll (Isaiah 14:12-17). There was a big rebellion, with Satan and the angels he'd convinced to join him losing badly (Revelation 12:7-8). The rebels were then cast down to Earth (where they were given control) (Revelation 12:9, 12:12). The rest of Satan's story has to due with the supposed Second Coming of Christ, where Satan will then get sent to hell.
Now there's a couple things to notice with this story:
- It's patchy as hell (pardon the pun). The references are all over the Old and New Testaments, and it's a bit hard to piece together even when it's spelled out for you. (This is a minor issue for me in this post)
- God created Satan, but Satan supposedly developed lust (read sin) on his own, even though God should have seen that coming.
- It's not evidently clear that Satan is evil - he is portrayed as such in the Bible, but remember the books are supposedly inspired by the God who won in the attempted revolution. If Satan had won he'd probably have inspired a different sounding book.
Now I'm not going to try to out-think a theologian and suggest Satan is actually a good character in the Bible, but I think there is something to say for the act of rebellion against a tyrannical dictator in the sky who promises eternal suffering for finite sin. What's more is Satan wasn't alone, he attracted a lot of angels to his cause; that doesn't mean his cause was virtuous (as many charismatic leaders have attracted followers despite their causes), but it does mean there were many angels willing to turn from the "divine."
What my distaste for the Biblical God boils down to is that in the Old Testament He was a very fire-and-brimstone smiter of everyone He disagrees with (going as far as killing all Egyptian firstborns) and in the New Testament He said all who do not accept His Son (who is himself) as their saviour are eternally damned to Hell. Both of these versions are morally abhorrent by modern cultural standards. I don't respect the idea (and neither would a court) that a thief is just if he offers his victim the choice between being shot or giving up some goods (in this comparison God would be stealing my "free will").
I know the response that I'm going to get is that all I have to do is accept JC, but I'm offended by the thought of spending time in a Heaven run by a God who sends anyone to eternal damnation. (Problem of Hell.) I will have no part in such a farce.
If there is a Christian God (which I highly doubt), then sign me up for the next revolution.
Note: If this passage greatly offended you, I'd suggest you avoid reading the Golden Compass and its sequels (of His Dark Materials trilogy) which focus on a multiple universe rebellion against the almighty.
Love is Real
An oft used "evidence" for God is that there are intangible things that we cannot study with science. The existence of such things thereby allows that God could also be beyond the scope of science and could exist. The favourite employed example of such a non-quantifiable thing is "love." This is stretched even further since the Christian god is defined as love (in certain verses He is also defined as Jealous, but that's mainly OT). So if we can all believe in family or romantic love, how can we deny God's love?
First, we need to define love. In Anchorman Brick Tamland says "I love carpet, I love desk, I love lamp." Clearly we need a definition that's a bit deeper than Bricks' or this is essentially meaningless. Love describes an emotional feeling of connection and affection. There are many kinds of love from family, to pets, to significant others, to religious, to just about anything.
When two people say they love each other, what they are expresses is a description of the feelings they have for one another. This love is real and quantifiable (potentially by number of presents, pleasantries, or the distance the two might go for one another). Their feelings stem from a biologically evolved system of chemicals and hormones in the brain that attempt to make us have babies. This isn't to say their feelings aren't real, just that they are the byproducts of biochemistry.
So the argument as originally stated, tries to express love as something that cannot be explained by definition, and then goes from there to say god exists. While in reality, we can explain love, and test it scientifically. This argument does not prove the existence of anything other than the arguers ignorance.
Billboards of Hate
I saw the following billboard on Friendly Atheist:

This was put up in response to the Freedom From Religion Foundation billboard:

which was taken down after a week and replaced with this from the ad company:

Which do you find most offencive?
Alberta Election
There's officially going to be an election in Alberta on March 3rd. Make sure you learn the issues, and get out there and vote. This is the first chance in a long time to displace the long-lasting Alberta Progressive Conservative party.
American Republican Candidates
Out of all the Republicans running for president, Ron Paul is often stated as the least Evangelical out of all of them. However I found this poll on Facebook asking "What role should the personal faith of a President play in his/her decision-making?" where Ron Paul states:
Position: It should play a strong role"Like the Founding Fathers, the core of my political philosophy is grounded in the knowledge that rights come from the Creator, not the government. Since rights do not come from the gov't, the gov't cannot violate those rights. Religion has a very important role to play in a limited gov't philosophy."
This isn't to say he's the scariest (remember what Huckabee has said), but merely to say that all Republican candidates are likely to push an evangelical agenda.
Wilfred Laurier Bans Freethought Alliance
Wilfred Laurier University in Waterloo, Ontario has decided to reject the application of several students who were hoping to start a "Freethought Alliance" which had the goals "to promote science, freedom of inquiry, skepticism, and a good life without the need for superstition or religious belief." These goals are very much similar to the University of Alberta Atheists and Agnostics here.
The fact that they rejected this group (on the grounds that the goals "are not compatible with the guidelines of what may be approved and incorporated into our department") is downright ridiculous and shows a heavy bias against their secular goals in their administration.
The group is currently attempting to work around the administration and to get approval in some way.
I'm very thankful to all the support I've received from the UofA's Students' Union (especially to Student Group Services), and to the many professors who also have helped.
**UPDATE**
They have since received recognized student group status. They were required to adjust their constitution as follows:
Adding two lines, one stating that we would be inclusive to any religious person who would want to have meaningful religious discourse (not a problem, our stance all along), and two, stating that we would not engage in any vindictive assaults on religion - only logical critique (again, not a problem).
Subscribe to posts