Monday, 27 August 2012

A hypothesis about death

I have recently met a very fascinating man over the weekend. We were cross-walking (commonly referred to as j-walking) and I noticed that a motorcycle was speeding towards us as we were heading for the other sidewalk while I was having a conversation with him. I jumped immediately onto the sidewalk while he casually walked on to the other side of the street without reacting to the motorcycle, almost as if he didn't notice it. But I knew that he couldn't have been unaware of the motorcycle because of the loud sound that the engine was making. As I was crossing the street, I was merely shocked at his non-chalant attitude and, being unable to ask anything, I waited until he started talking.

"Hey, you worried about that bike?"

"I like my legs, I don't wanna break them."

"Notice how I didn't run?"

Of course I did, I thought, but I decided to let him continue. He proceeded to tell me a story about how he nearly got killed getting run over by a tractor-trailer. He told me the full list of injuries: two broken legs, a ruptured rib-cage and a displaced spinal disc about two inches away from a coma or immediate death. He kept saying that the experience made him indifferent towards the prospect of death. If I die, he said, then I die. He was basically saying that he wasn't going to run away from death anymore (at least not anything sudden). He also said that death might not be such a bad thing either, considering the burden that all people have to go through just to keep themselves alive (food, shelter, discretionary spending, etc.)

I've heard people declare this doctrine before. It wasn't the first time. But the fact that even the uncaring and indifferent will feed themselves when they get the opportunity also helps to prove a point that I'm going to be making in a few moments.

The brain emits several chemicals that we aren't even aware of to keep the body running. It accounts for around two percent of the human body, yet it needs to use twenty percent of the entire volume of blood in your body because of the energy it uses to keep human functions optimal.

Yur brain , at this very moment, is sending signals to antibodies and white blood cells to mercilessly kill any bacteria, viruses and foreign objects that have managed to penetrate the considerable acidic and basic defenses around and inside of your mouth, nose and skin. Your antibodies and white blood cells, while working together, could kill on average fifty thousand strains of viruses and bacteria an hour, let alone the viruses and bacteria that die from contact with the skin and mouth. All of this is done to keep you alive.

The human brain has been aware of the entire composition of our body long before any civilisation could grasp the concept of surgery. The strain on the brain to keep the human body alive is more significant and considerably larger than any other organ in the human body. Only the heart comes close, with the burden of delivering oxygen and nutrients to every other organ, including the brain, using blood as a medium. Yet, most healthy brains will still continue to do the incredible workload needed to sustain the rest of the body.

Every cell in the human body contributes to the survival of the human being, playing their part in avoiding death as long as possible. Perhaps we should be listening to our own bodies instead of the weird and contradictory thoughts that come from our imaginative complex. What if nothingness, the true destination after death, according to open and even closeted atheists, is more terrifying than anything that your body would have to endure while living?

All of the cells in your body decompose after death, including the ones that hold your memories, personality and disposition. Everything about you dies with you. You don't go to an eternal slumber, you disappear. Otherwise, why would there be neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer's disorder that destroy your memory, if your memories and actions should be carried within your "soul" as long as you're alive and even after that?

Death is a tragedy that should be avoided as long as possible. And while I do believe that we should "live life to the fullest", I also believe that we should be mindful of our own life-spans. Our imaginative and reflective parts of our brain should be as considerate of the potential tragedy of our own death as the rest of our body is. I don't feel this to be a pessimistic or irrational view. In fact, I believe that death is merely a problem that we, as humans, haven't found a solution to as of yet. And if there is in fact a solution to the problem of death, knowing that there are in fact no after-lives and second chances at human life, then it would be wise to do the best that one possibly can, in order to remain alive long enough to see it.   


http://www.cafepress.com/theantigodshop



Wednesday, 22 August 2012

The Anti-God Logo

I've always wondered how to design the perfect logo for the Antigod blog, one that would show a clear representation of the anti-religious stance that I have taken a few years back and continue to believe in right now. Whenever I thought of this, I always came to think of the first admitted atheist, or more specifically, antitheist, ever.

Although I never knew what era he was born in or what lifestyle he lived, it always fascinated me to think of whether he thought it was important to profess his beliefs, to justify them to the public and even perhaps to change minds in a positive way. I wondered if he knew about the importance of the visual arts in portraying a powerful message to the masses and, even occasionally, to the elite few.

That's when I decided that the best way to portray the true foundation and essence of antitheism was to assume that the first antitheist lived in an era when the first recorded paintings were drawn. I imagined that he would try to project his opposition to a thunder god of some kind through a newly discovered art form, which at the time would be wall paintings. How would he voice his opposition? What story would he tell? How would he show his views to be the right ones?

Here is the first and current Antigod Logo, which is what I thought the first antitheist would paint. It tells a story of a man who refuses to submit to the will of a malicious god. When the god attempts to make an example of him, he fails because of the protection that the rebel has set for himself beforehand. I think it would be nothing more than a cartoon in our era.

However, this would be a pvotal and important message in his era, and in all of the moments in human history to come. The message would be that the truth and reverance of true morality is universal, unailing and is absolutely essential to the progression of our society. Although it wouldn't bring the majority of closeted atheists and antitheists out of the shadows, it would set a course for the current 490 million strong atheist core that will set humanity on the right track towards true societal progression.











The logo will appear on the Anti-God google page, on the facebook page, and on The Anti-God online shop, so plese, don't hesitate to tell me what you think of the current Antigod Logo and don't forget to comment on it. I would love to hear what you guys suggest and think, regardless of your opinions.

http://www.cafepress.com/theantigodshop   

Monday, 20 August 2012

An apology to Alexander Aan

I would like to make a formal apology to a man that has been forgotten among the atheist community. His name is Alexander Aan, a 32 year old who was beaten and imprisoned for revealing his beliefs on the internet while living in Indonesia. Even though nearly every atheist organisation, including Atheist Alliance International and the Secular Student Organization, backed the petitions and advocated for his release, only a mere eight thousand people actually signed the petition to free him, while the required amount was in fact twenty five thousand. I personally wasn't even aware of the petition and Alexander Aan's imprisonment until this weekend, when I was informed at the same time that it had already failed.

The petition wasn't about the atheist movement, the antitheist movement or even the need for a truly secular government. It was about freeing a man, who was wrongfully imprisoned, through whatever means possible. We have failed so far, because we have not done what we could. Whether having enough signatures would incite the Canadian or U.S. government to act or not was irrelevant. The fact that we didn't even get close to the requisite number of signatures proves that we, as openly atheist individuals, are not united or motivated well enough to make any kind of impact on society even though we have the requisite numbers.

We have a clear need to defend ourselves and each other, and this was the opportunity. Even though we might not be living there at the moment, every single professed atheist was branded an Indonesian criminal under their distorted law and interpretation thereof. If enough people signed the petition, then at the very least we would be sending a message around the world to all of our fellow atheists that we would no longer tolerate any of us being indiscriminately and erroneously branded as criminals anywhere in the world. Especially if it is simply over our insistence on declaring the truth about the nature of the world itself.

Right now we are all Indonesian criminals under their law, and whoever failed to do whatever was in his power to revolt against what happened to Alexander Aan has either passively accepted it or was simply ignorant to the important developments around them, like I was. However, ignorance cannot be a valid excuse in important matters like these. A complete and utter failure from the base of the atheist community to even attempt to defend one of our own has occured and might have even discouraged other Indonesian atheists from revealing themselves out of fear. The possibility of such an unacceptable outcome must be atoned for.

I don't know if Alexander Aan was expecting much from his fellow atheists around the world. I doubt that he even imagined that there would be a considerable openly atheist community on our planet. But one thing is certain. Alexander Aan did not consider his actions, actions that led to incarceration in an Indonesian prison cell, to be wrong, nor did he have a reason to. He would not have done it otherwise. This law is unjust, and there is no shame in disobeying it. I doubt that the words I post today will ever reach Alexander Aan, but just in case, I want to say something important.

There is great shame from what happened to you, Mr. Alexander Aan. But the shame did not come from disobeying an unjust law. The shame lies on the indonesian government, who creates and enforces the national laws, and in the atheist community, who failed to fight for you through whatever means necessary. For that I am truly sorry. I personally promise to redouble my efforts in trying to get you released from prison. I don't know how I plan on doing it, but I promise to be as proactive as possible from now on. I hope that others in the atheist community will feel the same way, and will act accordingly. And for those that do and are already fighting the way that they are supposed to, please accept my apology as well.

Let's pledge from now on not to tolerate any more injustice anywhere, especially amongst our fellow atheists. The day we assert ourselves will be the day that we will legitimize our movement and hopefully, albeit more importantly, save a man from the cruelty and injustice of his own government.


http://www.cafepress.com/TheAntigodShop

Wednesday, 15 August 2012

Funny Atheist Pictures

Here are some good atheist pictures that will also go to my designs in the Antigod Shop. I hope that you like and/or will comment on them, regardless of your opinion.





Monday, 13 August 2012

The Unsung Truth

The admitted atheists around the world has risen. Now, according to the latest poll, we have about 7 percent of the entire world population admittedly seeing the light and rejecting the ridiculous notion of a god, a rise of about two percent from the last poll. This is a momentous occcasion, a significant rise of around 140 million people, meaning that there are 490 million people in total who profess to their atheism right now. There are more people who admit the truth about any god's existence than there are people in Canada and the United States of America, two of the most powerful countries in the world, which is proof that there are enough of us to make a significant impact on the world today.

Notice that I used the words "admittedly" and "profess". I used these words because I firmly believe that there is in fact a majority of our world's population that is truly atheist, in the correct definition of the word. The three most popular religions in the world are Christianity, Islam and Judaism. About half of the population in the world claim to be christian or muslim. I believe that if you have ever broken the ten commandments while claiming to be a jew, that if you have ever tried to strike it rich while claiming to be a christian or that if you have ever broken the ten commandments or any of the other laws of the Quran while being a muslim, then you are in fact a closeted atheist. These conditions would apply at the very least to the majority of practitioners.

When humans are presented with real negative consequences they try to avoid them. When laws are written by a government, then the majority of the population will follow those laws. And even if they feel inclined to break those laws, then they will do their best to conceal their indiscretions because of the consequences they would face at the hands of their government.

Imagine a scenario where it is impossible to avoid the consequences of your actions. Imagine a scenario where concealment is impossible and the consequences of your actions are more severe than any punishment that any government in the world can deliver. You could die the moment that you commit that action, and the instant you die you will face eternal damnation and pain at the hands of an omnipotent being.

If the majority of our population truly believed that there was even a possibility of this punishment, considering what we know about humans when trying to avoid punishment from their own governments, then there would be no crime amongst any so called religious practitioners or even agnostics, and no supposed theist would have even committed a sin that was not a crime under their country's law.

The Judeo-Christian God and Allah, according to scripture, are omnipresent and omnipotent. There is no way to avoid any penalty that a god like this gives or to avoid his witness of your transgressions. Both the Quran and the Bible recount events of the deity executing humans on the spot, meaning that there's a possibility that he would do this sort of thing at any time. Imagine a person knowing that he could be executed on the spot at any time yet still try to steal a car, let alone a chocolate bar. If the majority of the population truly believed that one of these gods had even a possibility of existing, then nobody could do the crimes that have been happening for thousands of years. The fact that there is crime or even sin in the first place proves that a large majority of our population doesn't even believe that a god exists.

This is why I don't believe that my previous declarations about the Judeo-Christian God are extreme or irrational. I do understand the true reason, however, that people claim to be offended when they hear me say that God doesn't exist or that their God is immoral to worship. The reason is that people are uncomfortable hearing or seeing the truth declared or stated in such a blatant fashion. They resist change because of their natural human instinct not to trust something unfamiliar right away, which is entirely justifiable.

However, I plan on continuing to project and speak to what I know to be true until I appeal to another natural human instinct: curiosity. That instinct has propelled society through means of science to unprecedented levels of sophisitication and knowledge, and it will one day grant people the right to be honest not only with themselves but each other. Remember that you can support the Antigod blog, promote secularism and just get a good laugh in general by clicking the following link to the Antigod shop at cafepress and ordering some atheist apparel.
Buy t-shirts, mugs & gifts from my shop.

If buying a shirt's not your thing, but you still want to support this blog, then donations using paypal will be greatly appreciated as well.

Thursday, 9 August 2012

Who the psycho from Wisconsin belongs to

Make Custom Gifts at CafePress
     I have a serious problem with Pat Robertson, the televangelist from some area in the United States that would do well to be embarassed by his very existence. Now normally I don't go so far as to call out public figures directly, because, quite frankly, I do not know them. I don't know if what he said was truly what he believes in his heart or not, because I don't know him well enough to deduce that, and even if I did know him well, the chance is still likely that I still wouldn't know.

     Unfortunately, this verbal trash fest that he has orchestrated for over ten straight years with his vile vocal chords has gone too far and has now hit me personally. Never mind the fact that he had the nerve to insult the surviving and suffering New Orleans and Haitian residents with his absurd premise of divine judgement for the sins of "homosexuality" and "witchcraft" or that he has made several outlandish prophecies concerning impending doom and disasters which, quite frankly, happen every year around the world. He had the nerve to blame a psychotic terrorist attack in Wisconsin on a growing sector of the population of which I am now apart of: the secularists.

     He did it for no apparent reason and it has incensed me beyond the point of rational thought. That is right. I will not use a rational and calm demeanor in this blog post. This one comes from the heart. A heart fueled by pure and unadulterated fury. I will tell you what I really think of this loud-mouthed, intolerant, senial old man pretending to be a man of Christ while he basks in the riches he receives from citizens fooled into believing his garbage.

     I believe that this man does not give a damn about scripture or the word of Christ. I believe he saw a business opportunity and took it. I believe that he spouts this garbage from his mouth on a frequent basis to incite prolific reaction from the media which would gain an audience, infamy and an income that he would not have received otherwise. For all I know he could be a non-believer just like myself. But one thing that I know for certain is that he is not, nor does he even believe that he is having visions from God while he speaks.

     When Pat Robertson was eviscerating common sense when he proclaimed that a one man rampaging gun assault against believing practitioners of Sikhism was caused by the secularists in the United States, he essentially proclaimed that I, along with all of the other atheists in North America, should be held accountable for the shooting because he is our responsibility. Our secularist movement inspired a one-man insanity fest.

     Now, I have always believed that an insane charge can only be nullified with an equally insane question. I don't believe that this psycho in Wisconsin belongs to us, but if we follow Pat Robertson's logic, then one question still needs to be answered: Who does the psychopath from Wisconsin belong to? If not ours, and if not the Evangelicals, then who? Does he belong to the religious, or the anti-religious?

     I want to propose a hypothesis. I believe that due to excessive watching and listening of bad television like The 700 club, with outlandishly outrageous rhetoric from yours truly, the psychopath from Wisconsin (I refuse to address him as a human being, with a human name) took out his rage on the nearest non-Christian church in his vicinity. He would have been more likely to be watching The 700 club than secular propaganda, after all. Thus, the only conclusion you can draw, if my hypothesis is correct (assuming that any of Pat Robertson's logic makes sense), is that "the psycho from Wisconsin" belongs to...(drumroll)...Pat Robertson!!

     I know that Pat Robertson will never pay for his inflamatory rhetoric. However, I sincerely hope that his television show, The 700 club, will end from a real, irreperable controversy. I hope that people, Christian or not, will see the error in providing this man any kind of living by watching that disgusting program, with that disgusting rhetoric.

Tuesday, 7 August 2012

How I became an atheist

This decision wasn't easy for me. I never thought it was going to be easy, because atheists are, to put it mildly, outnumbered, at least in the amount of people that will admit that they're atheists (I read and somewhat agree to an argument from Julian Johnson that stated that every person who has acted immorally at anytime doesn't truly believe in God because if they did, then they wouldn't act immorally in the first place).

I have to admit that it was more difficult than I imagined that it would be. Although I haven't received hate mail for my views as of yet, I know that it's very likely that my family might have read my blogs. Even though they've known that I was an atheist for quite awhile, I still might be getting the cold shoulder because of how vehemently I have declared my views on the internet. However, I didn't think that it was enough just to secretly know that the Judeo-Christian God isn't real. I felt that I had to be honest with people from the beginning, and show the world how immoral the Judeo-Christian God is to worship.

I will tell you how I came to the conclusion that the Judeo-Christian God isn't real. It started with the conventional reason for denying his existence: the inconsistencies of science with the Judeo-Christian creation story. An omnipotent God would, in theory, be able to create the world in seven days. If he has unlimited power, then it would not only be possible, but it would have been done if he had told the traveling children of Israel that he had done it that way. An omnipotent God would not need to lie about his creation process.

However, the discovery of fossils, the complete lack of emphasis in the book of Genesis for any prehistoric animal discovered as a fossil, and the scientific fact (established through the effective process of carbon dating) that has determined that life is at the very least five hundred million years old has disproven the Judeo-Christian creation story. If the creation story has been disproven, then you are left with only three possible conclusions: either King David, the man who ordered the writing of the first bible, recited a fairy tale about a deity capable of creating the world in seven days, the Judeo-Christian God told his creation story in a metaphorical sense or the Judeo-Christian God lied about how the Earth was made.

I knew that the Judeo-Christian God could not have possibly lied about the creation process. There was already human testimony of him causing a global flood, turning a stick into a snake, turning water into blood, reshaping the physical development of humanity and dramatically reshaping the planet. All of those demonstrations of his power prove that he was more than capable of manifesting all of the life on Earth in a mere seven days, which would also have made it pointless for him to have told the creation story in a metaphorical sense. There were units of time in Israel at the time of King David, meaning that a day as they understood it would had to have also been a day as the Judeo-Christian God proclaimed it to be.

The only logical conclusion you can arrive to is that the very god that King David decreed that we should write about, the god that even Jesus himself believed in and worshipped, was nothing more than a fabrication by an ambitious Hebrew warlord to justify his noble family lineage and maintain his authority. He created a god that was fearsome. And that god, according to him, has chosen David, therefore David, along with all of his descendents, must be feared and obeyed.

After reading all of his violent acts, I came to realise that I never really loved God, even though I thought he existed. I was merely afraid of him. I decided that logically he didn't exist, therefore there was nothing to be afraid of. And I later decided that even if he did in fact exist, then his acts were too immoral to worship in the first place. Even though I came to deny the Judeo-Christian God's existence before I came to the conclusion that he was immoral, I believe that it is more important to acknowledge his immorality first. Then people will be more open to the facts posed by science afterwards, which will mean that we will all arrive to the same conclusion: that the bible was written to ascertain the power of an ambitious warlord, not to recount a miracle that happened over a two thousand year span. God doesn't exist, and with the ingenuity of humanity, he will never need to.