Damn the Consequences
Often, we make rash decisions. We make choices in emotionally-charged situations that we would not make were we to sit and think about it. I remember once reading that the only way to fully enjoy life is to live utterly in the present – to discard all thought of past experience and future consequence. Whoever wrote that was, without a doubt, immersed in the philosophy of Red.
If you have no idea what I’m talking about and are wondering who Red is, I suggest you read my post from six months ago, where I talked about how I’ve started thinking of people’s philosophies in terms of the five colors of the card game Magic. I wrote that post with the explicit purpose of writing down all the aspects of each color of my own outlook, starting with Black, and that’s still my overarching goal, but I’ve decided to use my own philosophy more as an example of how Magic’s colors apply to our real lives rather than the series’ focus.
Before we stop – or rather, sprint – and plunge headfirst into the red zone, note that from this point onward, at the end of each color’s post, I’ll be talking about the relationship between that color and the colors I’ve written about previously. Today, that means only the affinity between red and black, but expect these posts to grow in size from here on.
Damn the Consequences
I believe in being true to who you are. I believe in following your gut. I believe in not letting others stand in your way. I believe in doing what feels right.
That’s how Red would describe itself. The concept of Red describing itself could be paradoxical to some; a red person is often stereotyped as unintelligent, reckless, perhaps even slightly insane, and will rarely string together a relevant sentence. In this, Red is misunderstood. Last time I wrote about how we view the blacker fragments of our personalities – rarely do we consciously hide our deeply private and frequently brutal beliefs. More often, we forget they even exist when having fun or in social situations. Red, on the other hand, is the side that we love to hate. Every time we regret a hasty decision, wish we hadn’t followed an emotional impulse, groan about a drunken mistake – that’s our non-red parts hating our red part. If we were all completely red, there’d be no regret. More likely, there’d be a longing to continue feeling the surge of euphoria that briefly accompanies all those moments. While the rest of our mind is thinking about the consequences, Red is only interested in the present.
What happens when everyone follows their emotions, and only do what they feel is right for them? You get anarchy. No one is willing to step down and let someone else govern what they can and can’t do, and so conflict arises, usually of the violent sort. A red person doesn’t only act on whims, but believes that acting on what you feel is an inherent part of human nature. Anger, love, satisfaction – Red would tell you these are all vital parts of human experience, because we only ever experience life from our own point of view, and nothing trumps that. You only ever know what you feel. Anyone who tries to take that away must be forcefully stopped, and this is the essence of chaos.
Talking about one’s red side is often more personal than coldly observing the semantics of blue thought and the immoveable determination of white objectives. Most of the time, when we intimate red moments to one another, they’re accompanied by embarrassment, and we’re usually seeking advice on how to reverse the consequences. Yet contemporary society is becoming increasingly red, demonstrated aptly by the roaring nightlife, party culture and drug abuse prevalent in the news every day. Not that Red is inherently opposed to quietness: a red person would be the first to tell you to relax and take a break if you were stressed about a work project, and also the most likely to encourage you to confront problems directly. In short, Red is about short-term, unabashed self-satisfaction, and is simultaneously praised and demonised for being such. I’m sure everyone knows someone who constantly complains about how human society revolves around “instant gratification”, yet that same person will read “Body and Soul” magazines because, in their words, “it’s important to meet your personal and emotional needs”. The only difference Red sees between these two things is that the former contains the word “instant”, which as Red will tell you, is a very attractive word.
My experience with Red will be similar to anyone else’s: in the heat of a moment, I have made decisions that I would not have made under different, more relaxed circumstances. Most of these decisions, I have regretted. Most of those, I have been able to remedy. The rest, I have been forced to move past. In the end, though, I would have to say that I am far less red than the vast majority of people, and there’s a strong possibility it is my “weakest” color (that is, the color least responsible for my “color wheel make-up”). However, as I outlined in The Stirring Shadow, I don’t believe anyone is completely devoid of the influences of any color. I share Red’s intolerance of restriction, and believe dealing with emotional problems is far healthier than sweeping them under the rug. Note that I said dealing with emotions, and not blindly satisfying every feeling of desire, lust, anger, revenge, and so forth. It is this destructive, mindless side of Red that I am most at odds with, and this is the part of Red that Black also dislikes.
Black and Red are “allied” colors; that is, they are adjacent in the color wheel and have overlap between their philosophies. Where Black and Red most overlap is in their the belief in the all-importance of the self; for Black, it is the survival of the self, and for Red, it is the satisfaction. Both colors share a common enemy in White, the incarnation of law and order, absolute morality, and the well-being of the group. So, we can postulate the basic characteristics of someone with strong roots in Black/Red: they live utterly for themselves, have no rules and no reservations, and no belief in right and wrong. In short, you end up with hedonism; at its most extreme, you end up with someone who will kill to survive and kill for pleasure. Granted, that extreme is thankfully rare in the real world, but just consider someone you may know who lies frequently, sometimes to further their own gains and sometimes, for no discernable reason at all. Fans of 2008’s The Dark Knight will probably have no trouble in accepting my word that The Joker is the epitome of fictional Black/Red characters.
It’s fitting that this post should be delayed for so long simply because I didn’t have the motivation to write it and therefore, did not. Hopefully the next instalment isn’t similarly delayed. Join me then when I talk about answers that lie within, the appeal of returning to nature, and the idea that we are all pieces in a grand, complex puzzle.
Until then, remember that playing with fire might leave you singed.
The Stirring Shadow
Are things only simple if you limit your exploration of them? Is every person a complex, multifaceted being? Is this balance between simplicity and complexity simple, or complex?
Recently I started seeing people as colors. Not hallucinogenic colors. Colors of the trading card game, Magic: the Gathering. Each of the game’s five colors has a different philosophy. The color wheel is aligned so as to create common ground and conflict between these five philosophies. When I first started playing the game, the colors were simple concepts. White is ordered. Blue is curious. Black is selfish. Red is chaotic. Green is natural. Even if you’ve never played or perhaps even heard of Magic, the concept is basic enough.
But when I started categorising people as a certain color or combination of colors, things started to grow more complex. Some are very easy to place; others take more thought. As time went on, I started wondering if it was even possible to define every individual’s philosophy in terms of these five colors, or if anyone was truly devoid of a particular color. Then I wondered if it was correct to create such boundaries; if I classified a friend as blue/white, does that mean they lack all traits of green, red and black altogether? Surely no one has such clear-cut beliefs. I eventually decided that while all colors will be present in some way in every person, nearly everyone has one or two major defining colors, and in all my categorisation so far, this has proved true.
Then, finally, I asked that inevitable question: what colors am I?
I have not yet been able to answer that question. My favourite colors within the game are blue, black and red. Should this directly align with who I am as a person? Most players I know of do share some major personality traits with the colors they most enjoy playing, but never has it aligned precisely.
Yet the more I considered the question, the more impossible it became to answer. I have, at one point or another, seen parts of all five colors within myself. Perhaps my colors are very obvious to my friends – certainly I rarely have trouble placing them. Most of the time, I imagine that they would see me as primarily blue and secondarily white. But is that really me? There are many aspects of white I dislike.
Obviously, the vast majority of people will not have a thorough understanding of Magic’s colors. Neither can I pursue this question any further on my own. Recently while listening to two of my most like-minded friends discussing their beliefs, I realised that while I understood exactly what each of them meant with every word, I didn’t have any personal opinion on any of it. I cannot recall ever feeling so impartial to such deep-rooted philosophies. One of those friends was utterly blue, perhaps with traces of white and black. The other was nearly entirely green. The major conflict between their viewpoints exactly matched the traditional conflict between those two colors. I won’t go into details, for those who don’t understand that conflict, but after this series, perhaps you will understand better and perhaps I will understand myself better.
Yes, a series of posts. I already mentioned that I recognise traits of all five colors within me. By writing them down, by having them read, I hope to figure out exactly what my beliefs are, because at the moment I feel like I have none at all. So, five posts, one on each color and how it relates to me. I decided I would do black first, because it confuses me the most. Sometimes, deep down, I feel very black; brutally honest thoughts that never rise to vocalisation. Obviously, they are the type of thoughts that are not heard by friends, just as black is the color that has none. If you knew someone who was easy to identifty as black, chances are slim that they would be a close friend. That’s why I want to get it out of the way. (Please note that at no point in this series am I referring to skin color or anything beyond the colors philosophies in Magic.)
The Stirring Shadow
My philosophy is simple: You have to learn to adapt to the world the way it is, not the way you want it to be. I accept that people are selfish. My philosophy takes this as a given. We can sit and moan about how it isn’t fair, or we can take steps to give ourselves the best chance to thrive within this environment.
From the words of the color Black itself, “interviewed” by Magic designer Mark Rosewater as part of a series. It’s this series that originally caused me to begin looking at people through the lens of the color wheel, so I’ll be quoting from it fairly often.
Black, to summise in several words, looks out for itself. In its purest form, it shuns hierarchy, it shuns morality, it shuns law and order. Black believes that humans are inherently selfish, and that to believe otherwise is self-delusion. Black has a very nihilistic outlook on existence. There is nothing beyond what you strive to create for yourself, and you cannot trust others to create it for you. You can never fully trust others, period. Black believes that capitalism is the only working form of government: to give each individual the opportunity and the motivation to build themselves up, in the form of materalistic reward. It’s up to each individual to put in the effort and be rewarded in return. No teamwork, no one enforcing their beliefs upon anyone else. Violence must be used as necessary in one’s own pursuit of power. Some attribute Black with the the quality of “evil”, but Black does not recognise such concepts, which require the necessity of absolute truths in their definitions.
It’s easy to see where my more prominent black beliefs come from. I do not believe in any higher power. I do not accept anyone forcing their beliefs upon anyone else. I do not recognise universal, objective truths or a system of morality that is objectively superior to any other, nor do I recognise much objectivitity in general, and in that sense I am at least influenced by existentialism.
This is not to say that all atheists or even existentialists have large black segments in their philosophy. Both atheism and existentialism often go hand-in-hand with humanism, but such a suggestion of each individual having an intrinsic worth and importance is white/green, completely against black philosophy, and it is here that my differences with Black are brought to the fore. I always consider others – perhaps too much for my own good – and would not step on them or exploit them for my own gain.
Or, perhaps, so I would like to believe. I may not use people blatantly, but that isn’t to say I don’t manipulate them. Perhaps one could describe it as being careful with one’s words. Sometimes it will be for my own gain, sometimes it will be because I believe I know what’s best for them better than they do (a black/white trait), but usually it’s just a reluctance to offend anyone – to keep as many connections and friendships open as possible. This is because there is no sense in terminating a relationship that could prove fruitful in the future, which is essentially a selfish motive. This blue/black way of thinking doesn’t surface very often – as I said above, it’s not the sort of thing you go around warning people about – but I think it is one of the more black parts of me.
If you were to look at all the characters I’ve created in the past couple of years, a theme would emerge: they are all cold towards humanity, all completely without relationships, all utterly self-consumed – all black. I become so involved in creating these characters that it often makes me feel ill with anxiety that I may, deep down, be one of them. But Black often crosses paths with postmodernism, and in this case I am black once more in my belief that everything is a mask. When I’m with others, I’m friendly and always willing to meet new people. When I’m alone, I’m dark and brooding and consuming, sometimes so much so that I’m afraid that writing it here will convince my friends that I am a sociopath. Neither is my “real self” with the other being a “mask”; they are all me. One side belongs to this world, human society, and does what it can to fit in. The other side is utterly detached, ruthless, hidden and ambitious, not belonging but doing what it takes to fit in.
Does that make me radically different to others? No. I am certain that most people have such a black facet to them, but by its very nature, it remains under the surface. It may vary in intensity; I have several friends who I am sure are far more black than myself, and I can see the difference in how they think with friends and how they think alone. It is not that they are putting on an act or a mask – they are sincere in their friendship – but rather that different aspects come out at different times. It is not a question of sincerity, merely visibility.
Hopefully you managed to get through all that without either becoming too confused about what Black entails (or being convinced I’m an evil megalomaniac). If you want some examples of black characters in popular culture, I can give some classics: George Constanza is probably the most iconic, always willing to stoop to any level to further his own motives; Daffy Duck shows that you can have a likeable black character. Bart Simpson and Lex Luthor are also very black.
Well, that’s all for now. I don’t know when I’ll post the next part, but I have a lot of free time now. Join me then when I talk about pyromaniacal urges, wild sex flings and rebellious attitudes.
Otherwise, remember that even that the most black and white of issues are just that: black and white.
On Meteors and Miracles
The October meteor shower was the most exciting thing to happen to the small city of Ven for several decades. The reason for this was not because meteor showers look pretty at night, or because there were so many meteors large enough to create craters; it was because the craters had roughly formed the shape of a skewed five-prong star.
It was I who first saw the crater field, several kilometres out of the city, while filming it from a helicopter for the local news station. As I reported on it live from the helicopter, I laughed and jokingly said that if you turned your head and squinted, the craters could form a star. It turned out that not everybody thought it was as funny as I had.
Back at the news station, our crew had a casual discussion about the crater field. My co-reporter agreed with me that the sight of the shower itself was more amazing than any vague shape it might have happened to form. But when I spoke to the chef in the tuck shop, he seemed to be certain that the star shape was a sign of communication from an alien race, and that to hit Earth they must be aware of our existence and on their way here at that very moment.
The gardener had other ideas. He also thought the meteor field was the intentional work of aliens, but he was certain that the meteors had been aimed for the city and that an unforeseen circumstance had ‘blown’ the meteors slightly west. He also asserted that the aliens were on their way to Earth to finish the job.
The news anchor wasn’t sure who had ’sent’ the meteors, but she knew one thing for sure: the largest crater, at the tip of the star shape, was pointing to Russia. When I asked her why it wasn’t ‘pointing’ to any location between Ven and Russia, or even past Russia, she seemed unable to answer me but nonetheless remained sure that it was a sign to befriend Russia.
When I asked the weatherman, I was under the impression that he agreed with myself and my co-reporter, but this belief was firmly dashed when he informed me that this meteor shower, the largest seen in centuries, was a supernatural warning of even larger, more devastating meteor ‘attacks’ to come, despite historical records of even larger meteor showers colliding with Earth.
The news editor, who was also a religious priest, assured me that the crater star was a sign from a supernatural deity. The multitudes of religious figures I interviewed in the coming days agreed with this as the shape’s origin, but every single individual had starkly contrasting views on what the star meant. Among these interpretations were imminent apocalypse, condemnation of the newly-elected mayor, confirmation of the newly-elected mayor, the imminent return of a deity to Earth, the marking of Ven as the new ‘holy land’, and dozens more. What they had in common was that each was absolutely certain that the star was confirmation from their chosen deity that they were believing in the right thing.
People seemed inclined to believe one of these religious figures rather than those who were in the same mind as the chef, gardener, anchor or weatherman, though I couldn’t understand why. All were making guesses with no evidence, all believed an invisible being had ’sent’ the star, all drew a conclusion from the vague shape that suited what beliefs they already had, all believed they were one hundred perfect right, and all are capable of human error. Each claimed they had all the answers, and none seemed annoyed that this lame, vague shape was the best that this powerful invisible being could muster.
The government took advantage of the huge tourist attraction of the crater field, and set up fences and boardwalks to protect the craters. There was also expensive helicopter rides to see the star shape from a good vantage point, which was a very popular activity. I wondered if those thousands of dollars spent on seeing vague geomorphic shapes could be put to better use in the world.
Eventually a church, with its mounds of untaxed capital, bought the meteor-hammered land from the government and put signs all around the site advertising the supposed truth of their religion. This angered other religions worldwide, and shortly afterwards the crater field was devastated by a series of bombing attacks. The star shape had been erased, the craters were indistinguishable from bomb scorch marks, and what physical reminder had remained of that beautiful twilit meteor shower was lost.
I partially blamed myself for the whole affair, having acknowledged the vague shape live on air, and I often wonder if anyone would have noticed it had I not voiced my thoughts. What I had planned to be a story on the beauty and natural wonder of meteor showers had turned, with the help of dogmatic and fanatical beliefs, into more global religious conflict resulting in the utter destruction of the greatest natural event that would happen in my lifetime. Sometimes, before I go off to sleep, I wonder what would have happened if people had believed the gardener.
Excerpt from the Journal of Eve
When I was four years old, my father shot me.
I know that it was not his fault. He asked me not to play on the new slide, but I disobeyed him. I didn’t listen to his warning about what would happen if I did. When he found me sitting on the patch of dirt at its foot, he sighed, but without hesitation pulled out his revolver and shot me in the stomach.
Three weeks later, I came back home from the hospital. The incident was covered up. My father was a very influential man. Rumours floated around town, but they were not enough to puncture my father’s charitable image. Even I didn’t hold anything against him. But from then on I was always the girl with the scar.
For my father’s birthday the following year, I painted my love for him a rock, even though he had asked for a wall of paintings. He didn’t like my rock. He said I should be more thankful to him. I tried to tell him that I couldn’t paint a wall. He said I would have no dinner that night, and I would be locked in the basement furnace if next year’s gift wasn’t to his liking. I knew that he was allowed to, because he was my father and I owed everything to him.
When I started school, I had a nice teacher called Mr Lee. When he found out who my father was, he seemed sad and told me I could ask him for help if I was ever in trouble. So I told him that the previous month, my father had bought me a puppy, then told me to drown it. Crying and with trembling hands, I had lowered it into the bathtub, but as soon as it touched the water he had stopped me and said I could keep the puppy.
I think Mr Lee told the principal, because the next day my father was very angry. He had me transferred to another class and said not to talk to any teachers about personal things again. I asked where my puppy was. My father told me that he had put her in the furnace, for my own good. I didn’t believe him. But I never saw my puppy again.
For the ten years I was in school, my father gave me different lessons at home. He would give me rules that I hadn’t learned in school. The first thing he said was that I had to always love him, or he would punish me. He told me that I must spend one day each week at home with him to prove I loved him. He told me never to question him, and to hate anyone who did. He told me horrible things would happen to me if I ever disobeyed him. I was afraid.
When I was sixteen, I made friends with another girl. Then one time something happened between us. My father found out, and whipped me. Then we packed up and left town. I was too scared to go near a girl again for a long time.
My father owned a mansion in another town. There were a few families renting rooms in it. My father took their money and kicked them out, so we could live there. I saw a woman crying with her baby. There was nothing anyone could do. Except my father.
My father invited over some men he knew. They were all a lot older than me. He offered me to them as a wife. One of them accepted, and we became married. I had no choice. But I knew my father was doing what was best for me.
The following month, our country went to war. The army was not afraid of defeat. My father’s company made their weapons. Their weapons were the best in the world. All my father asked in exchange for the weapons was that he chose which country was attacked. I heard stories about rivers of blood left in the army’s path. I heard stories about children impaled against rocks, and thrown off cliffs. I didn’t believe my father would let that happen, just so he could get more land.
When I was twenty, I finally parted with my father. He was too old to run his company, so he chose someone in his place while he lived in another country. He chose a man named Chris. Everyone agreed Chris was nicer than my father. When he came for dinner with the other company members, he would tell stories. Everyone looked up to him. He put some of the company’s funds into a new medicine. He saved some lives, but eventually became too busy. Sometimes I wondered if he could save more if he wanted to.
Then the riots happened. There were riots against the company’s weapons, which had killed thousands of people. They attacked the main building. Chris was shot in the struggle. They attacked our mansion and I was forced by another man.
My father returned to deal with the disaster. He and my husband hated me. They said I had committed adultery. They didn’t care that it wasn’t my fault. That I had no choice. My father had finally had enough. He grabbed me and pushed me into the furnace. I was in there for half a minute before someone pulled me out.
I opened my blistered eyes, crying from the pain, and saw a squad of policemen. Two had my father handcuffed and pinned against the wall. One was calling for an ambulance. Another was telling my father that he had got away with crimes for too long, and would be tried for hundreds and hundreds of cases of abuse, war crimes, and even more. My father received more than fifty life sentences in jail. He was only there for two years before he died.
I spent seven years receiving counselling for twenty years of what I learned had been terror on every level imaginable. I had bad scars all over my body from the burns, to join the one where my father had first shot me for being too curious. Despite that, I had opened my eyes to everything else. For the first time in almost thirty years, I tasted more freedom in the air than pain or fear. I knew that it wasn’t all lost.
A Word on Morality
A common question posed to non-theists is, of course, “Theists get their morality from God. Where do you get your morality from?” or alternatively the more blatant “Atheists are immoral because they don’t accept God’s written rules of morality.” Other humanistic writers have shattered this insulting assertion utterly and brilliantly, but I still wish to refute it for my own liberty.
The first and foremost response to this question is simply pointing out that theists, even under the same denomination, can hardly be said to be in agreement on exactly what God’s idea of morality is. There are literally hundreds of different “interpretations” of the Bible alone, the most extreme of which spit on the very idea of morality. And ironically, it is these fundamentalists who are following God’s written laws most precisely. I have no doubt that most theists who ask atheists about their “missing” morality have not read the Bible, which is of course one of the most effective methods of deconversion. A simple retort would be to ask the original questioner if they would consider the following things morally acceptable: bears mauling children as punishment for teasing; the genocide of seven civilisations for being in the wrong place; the slaying of innocent children and “ripping open” of pregnant women; and of course throwing ten thousand unarmed captives off a cliff. That’s God’s written idea of morality.
Following this, a common answer I’ve received is that these are all Old Testament shenanigans. Everything’s much better in the New Testament, they say. Jesus teaches love, compassion and ultimately all morality.
This is effectively an admission that the Old Testament is indeed brutally immoral much more often than not. To claim that God had a “change of heart” between Old and New, or that Jesus managed to convince his wrathful father that maybe humanity wasn’t so bad after all, is incompatible with the well-accepted notion of God’s infinite benevolence. It doesn’t work. To admit that God was, at some point, immoral, destroys this basic definition of the Judeo-Christian God.
This forces Christianity back onto perhaps the most frequently-heard lay apologetic: “The Bible is not meant to be taken completely literally.” The obvious problem with such a statement is thus: how are we to know which verses to take literally, and which not to take literally? As far as I know, God hasn’t left any hints. Using this ideology, I could also claim that the evil verses are the literal ones, and the verses of love “aren’t meant to be taken literally”. Taking into account that there are more of the former, this would actually be a more realistic claim. Yet I have (fortunately) heard of no one who would do such a thing. In any case, look at the above examples of outright immorality in the Bible. What on earth are we supposed to take from these verses? If not literal, are they metaphorical? Please, Christians, enlighten me on this. These are verses of injustice, bloodshed, and the slaughter of innocents. I’m not seeing a loving “message” behind it at all.
The question of which verses to shrug off as non-literal is of course synonymous with the question of which verses aren’t likely to be featured as “Bible Verse of the Day” at a church. It’s synonymous with the question of which verses are kept quiet and pushed behind the curtain by preachers and evangelizers. It’s synonymous with the question of which verses are left out of the (Christian-written) ”children’s Bible”. What does this mean? Christians are not just getting their morality from God. More accurately, they are flicking through God’s written word and pulling out the verses that they want to get their morality from. And on what basis do they decide which verses are good examples of morality? Why, the same basis as atheists, of course.
While I am thankful that Christians effectively decide their own morality rather than taking all of God’s (rather controversial) written advice, I also hope that the stereotype of the immoral non-theist will be replaced with the more accurate image of someone who intrinsically desires to minimize suffering and maximise happiness, and knows it.
Forever Will Ye Burn
It is a general consensus among atheists and critics of religion that the doctrine of Hell — an afterlife in which wrongdoers and/or opposition of a particular religion will suffer horrific, conscious pain for an infinite amount of time — is the lowest and most disgusting fabrication of religion.
While words cannot even begin to describe the horror and disturbed “purpose of justice” behind such a place, allow me to give you an example of exactly what Hell is supposed to be. Imagine, for a moment, that you were to commit adultery, and as punishment for this, you had to live the rest of your life with a machine attached to your arms that crushed your bones, healed them instantly, then crushed them again, and so on until you died. Well, that’s absolutely nothing compared to Hell. Hell is not a two-year prison sentence for minor assault. Hell is infinite. If one lifetime of constant pain sounds horrific, multiply that by a trillion, and…well, you’re still nowhere close: any finite amount of time is infinitely small compared to infinity.
Putting the actual characteristics of this gruesome realm aside, there’s no mystery as to its purpose. The threat of eternal punishment is the most obvious method of scaring people into following you. Putting the punishment in a place where no one can ever prove or disprove its existence is the next obvious step. Then label anyone you dislike as destined for this mythical torture chamber. “Join us, or forever will ye burn!”
However, Hell’s purpose (and similarly Heaven’s) is somewhat diluted by the fact that most religions claim to have their own version of such a place. Visual representations may change (ranging from the Bible’s lakes of fire to Dante’s artistic rendition of the “nine levels” of the inferno), but ultimately each religion gives Hell the same purpose. It is only the “List of the Condemned” that really changes — each group puts forward a different set of criteria that one must follow to avoid this undesirable fate.
This is the main reason why nonsense such as Pascal’s Wager (the ”better safe than sorry!” of religion) falls laughably short. Think about it: at this very moment, there are millions, likely hundreds of millions, of people who think you are going to some sort of Hell (or at least, their beliefs dictate it; it’s not something said in light conversation). It’s possible that several people in your life are among these people. And atheists? We’re basically only being condemned to one more version of Hell than anyone else. Amidst the thousands of versions of Hell in existence, that doesn’t make us much worse off than theists in terms of Pascal’s Wager. And I for one would gladly add one more Hell to the list of supernatural realms I’m “destined” for, if I receive in exchange the life of freedom, happiness and caring that accompanies atheism.
Hell is both a disturbing and problem-causing part of religion. It is not enough that followers believe they are destined for an eternity of happiness; they must also specifically believe that anyone who thinks otherwise is not only shunned from this paradise, but condemned to suffer forever. I don’t doubt there would be a fair bit less tension between religions if they could simply believe they were headed for eternal paradise, whilst others simply faced unconscious oblivion. Perhaps then, one human being would not look into the eyes of another, perhaps a life-long friend, and sincerely tell them that they deserve to burn in a lake of fire for all eternity.
No Questions Asked
I recently stumbled upon a hilarious collection of common (and satirised) “proofs” for the existence of a divine being. Of these 500+ arguments, I have heard at least half from theists, and for that reason I advise both humour-seeking atheists and explanation-seeking theists to have a look at them. Theists using these arguments: no doubt you have heard this before, but none of these arguments are going to convert anyone, especially anyone who has taken the time to read the far stronger reasons as to why they are flawed (Ebon deals with the less-absurd-sounding arguments beautifully here).
I’ll leave it up to you to tackle the whole list, but here’s some of my personal favourites (some jokes, some frighteningly used seriously by theists).
49. ARGUMENT FROM PAROCHIALISM
(1) God is everywhere.
(2) We haven’t been everywhere to prove he’s not there.
(3) Therefore, God exists.
79. ARGUMENT FROM PERSONAL SANITY
(1) I’ve had religious experiences that can’t be explained unless I’m insane or God exists.
(2) Therefore, God exists.
89. BENDER’S ARGUMENT (II) (ARGUMENT FROM DAVID BLAINE)
(1) If David Blaine does real magic, then God exists.
(2) It looked real on his TV special.
(3) Therefore, God exists.
99. ARGUMENT FROM OFFENSE
(1) God exists.
(2) [Atheist makes counterarguments.]
(3) You know what? I am offended.
(4) Therefore, God exists.
174. ARGUMENT FROM STUPIDITY [Perhaps the most convincing of all.]
(1) I am stupid.
(2) God made man in his own image.
(3) There are all horrible disasters going around the world.
(4) God is omnipotent in power.
(5) God is too stupid to do anything about these things.
(6) Therefore, God exists.
211. ARGUMENT FROM WOW
(1) When I look into the sky and see all the pretty stars, all those galaxies…
(2) Wow.
(3) Therefore, God exists.
441. ARGUMENT FROM MESSED UP TRINITARIAN REASONING
(1) God is three.
(2) Three’s a crowd.
(3) A crowd consists of people.
(4) People exist.
(5) Therefore, God exists.
544. ARGUMENT FROM NEGATIVE DIVINE JUSTICE (II)
(1) If there is no God, then gays and others who do things I don’t like may never be punished.
(2) I want them to be punished.
(3) Only God could give us Divine Justice and punish them.
(4) Therefore, God exists.
Finally, one with interesting connotations:
39. ARGUMENT FROM NONBELIEF
(1) The majority of the world’s population are nonbelievers in Christianity.
(2) This is just what Satan intended.
(3) Therefore, God exists.
This is indeed what Satan intended! And he’s winning! The endless numbers of Christian sects make up only 33% of the world’s population! The remaining 67% have been tempted from the Path of Christ by Satan! Is God really that powerless to stop Satan from tricking these people into evil lives, bound for eternal torment at God’s reluctant-but-necessary hand of justice? For someone who was once second-in-command to God, old Lucifer’s doing pretty well for himself. Oh, and that’s not including the fact that a great deal of said Christian sects think the other Christian sects are also under Satan’s dominance.
Of course, this 67% as a whole doesn’t particularly offend Christians; no, it’s the 2.5%-strong atheists who are the real danger. All these others have at least some sort of divine belief — but atheists are arrogant enough to claim there’s nothing divine at all. How dare they stand opposed to the religious wars, church bigotry and indoctrination, creationist pseudoscience and discriminating dogma that are part of most world religions? How dare they abandon the restraints of a worship-bound existence, to seek self-fulfilment and humanistic goals? How dare they think themselves so much more intelligent than us?
No, these arguments for God make as much impact on atheists as our arguments make on theists, for two completely different reasons. Regardless, I urge theists to look not to proof of a divine being in words or holy books: look to the world; to what religion truly is and to what it strives for; to what has come about as a result of faith-dependent superstition; and to the impact it has had on your own moral urges and your own life.
Is it coincedence that a person’s religion is directly derived from the religion of local, surrounding people? Is it coincedence that religion tells you that all arguments defying their doctrines are indisputedly false? Is it coincedence that religion’s ultimate reward — eternal life — is in a place where no one can ever disprove its existence? Is it coincedence that your religious leaders “forget” to enlighten you as to the darker verses of your holy book? And is it coincedence that you have absolutely nothing except their word and “a fuzzy feeling inside you” that what they’re telling you is true?
Of course, from an atheist’s point of view, none of these things are a coincedence – just religion.
New Halo Video is Up
It’s been nine months since my first Halo music video, which was “Lost” by mainstream metal band Red (proof that I can indeed still enjoy hardcore Christian metal), and my second video, which has been in the making for two weeks, is now up: “Child’s Play, Pt. 2″ by Norwegian alternative/progressive quartet Green Carnation.
Hopefully you’ll enjoy it; it’s considerably more mellow than the previous one, and is themed around the Master Chief’s struggle on Earth.
Meet Harry Potter, Occult Extraordinaire
No doubt you are familiar with world-renowed book series Harry Potter, seven books detailing the teenage years of Harry Potter, a boy who discovers he is a wizard and is pitched against the Dark Lord Voldemort. The success of the bildungsroman fantasy novels has made author J.K. Rowling the highest-earning novelist in history, and with fair reason: the novels are extremely enthralling and unique and lead the reader on a twisting journey from start to finish.
As a “children’s series”, Harry Potter has drawn considerable attention to its aspects of evil: the villains of the series are not your bumbling, evil-laughing, constantly-thwarted typical children’s villains, but are truly cruel, violent and cunning, symbolised in the murderous main antagonist Lord Voldemort. Notable, the books’ violent content increases from first to seventh book, and with obvious reason: with ten years between the first and last instalments, Potter’s original readers have matured, and Rowling has emphasised that it is this associated journey and maturing of her original audience along with Harry that leads to the latter books’ bloodshed.
As part of that original audience, I was a true follower of Harry Potter from its beginning in 1997 to its end almost two months ago, and my gratitude to Rowling extends likewise. Unfortunately, but not unsurprisingly, more religious segments of the world have heavily criticised the series, for not only its themes of death and scenes of horror but for the mere presence of magic.
Harry Potter is set in a magical world. Harry attends Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry for six of the seven books, and the school remains the main setting for the whole series. This won’t settle for hardcore Christians: in their eyes, Harry is “desensitizing children to the Occult” and “leading children to be fascinated by magic, however ‘white’ or ‘dark’ it may be”. This article by typical fundamentalist website ChristianAnswers is a fine example of such a response.
Of course, Christians have long condemned witchcraft. I need not remind you that Christians were responsibly for the medieval burnings of innocent people who had been fanatically identified as “making pacts with the Devil”. Their justification was as such:
When you enter the land the LORD your God is giving you, do not learn to imitate the detestable ways of the nations there. Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. Anyone who does these things is detestable to the LORD, and because of these detestable practices the LORD your God will drive out those nations before you. You must be blameless before the LORD your God. The nations you will dispossess listen to those who practice sorcery or divination. But as for you, the LORD your God has not permitted you to do so. [Deuteronomy 18:10-14]
Naturally, the fact that God detests these practices yet is unable to do anything about them is evidence against God himself, but putting this aside, it seems that Christians believe that the Bible not only applies to people, but also to works of fiction. The aforementioned article claims: “Furthermore, if one were to use the reasoning that such objectionable material can be included in fantasy literature, then ‘that line of reasoning would tell you that you could include in fantasy any violence, pornography, whatever you wanted, and still defend those books by that very same statement’.” This asserts that practices that offend religion (notably, practices that don’t actually function) are on the same level as practices that offend human nature (of which pornography can barely be classified, offending Christians for the same religious reasons).
This is the sole basis of Christian dislike of Harry Potter: the supposed presence and promotion of Occult practices, moral relativism, violence and fascination in “witchcraft”. This seems to hinge upon their belief, which ironically originates from God’s belief, that the Occult is actually a functional practice and actually allows the participant to use Potter-like magic. The fact that Harry Potter is fundamentally a magic-infused reflection of society is ironic in this sense, and thankfully the majority of Christians can accept the series for what it is — a fantasy series. (Maybe the real reason fundies despise Harry is because he’s challenged the Bible as the world’s highest-selling book.)
To finish on a different note, ChristianAnswers’ article concludes with this:
Parents, whether Christian or not, must take an active role in what their children are being exposed to and determine what is appropriate. Christians especially should be guided by God’s Word, the Bible.
I doubt this article’s author has read the Bible. If so, he would be urging parents to keep it hidden and read only from verses based around the love of Jesus (otherwise known as the one-verse doctrine, John 3:16). Isaac Asimov says it best: “Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived.”
All About Everything
Consider this list of websites.
- AllAboutArchaelogy.org
AllAboutHistory.org
AllAboutLifeChallenges.org
AllAboutLiving.org
AllAboutLove.org
AllAboutParenting.org
AllAboutPhilosophy.org
AllAboutPopularIssues.org
AllAboutReflections.org
AllAboutScience.org
AllAboutSpirituality.org
AllAboutTruth.org
AllAboutWorldview.org
Seems fair enough, doesn’t it? An About.com-like chain of websites dealing with various contemporary issues? How about this list?
- AllAboutCreation.org
AllAboutCults.org
AllAboutFollowing Jesus.org
AllAboutHeart.org
AllAboutJesusChrist.org
AllAboutPrayer.org
AllAboutReligion.org
AllAboutTheJourney.org
AllAboutTheOccult.org
As part of the same web chain, this leads to the absolutely correct conclusion that this is a Christian chain of websites, operating under the major domain of AllAboutGod.com, and proselytising fundamentalist, Young-Earth creationist, Christian faith on every page. Most amusing of all is the link at the bottom of each page, “Learn More Now!”, leading on to the next chapter (usually cross-site) in the reader’s journey. The end of all of these paths? A page aptly titled “Become A Christian”, which no longer offers a “Learn More Now” link at the bottom but instead displays “Did you become a Christian today? YES or NO?”
The pro-creation, pro-Christianity, anti-evolution arguments posed on this All About God chain of websites are, of course, nothing new. Every single page on AllAboutScience.org discusses why evolution is false, why creationism is science, and why we should all convert immediately to Christianity. Some despicable pages on AllAboutWorldview.org promote the old Christian vendetta against homosexuality, pre-marital sex and atheism. And look no further than AllAboutParenting.org for raising obedient, unquestioning Christian children.
One would imagine the calm, matter-of-fact manner in which All About God poses fundamentalist Christian values (guess what’s on AllAboutTruth.org) would be less disturbing than the vocal discrimination employed by groups such as Westboro Baptist Church. However, in its own way, All About God is an atheist’s nightmare, promoting creationism as science whilst twisting facts to remove evolution to the back stage; beginning in questioning, appealing tones but quickly shifting into blatant evangelism; ignoring the Bible’s violent cruelty and promoting one-verse doctrine (John 3:16) ; and enforcing some of the more ridiculous Christian notions such as Young Earth creationism and absolute literal (albeit selective) Bible interpretation.
All About God (or perhaps more accurately “Christian Wiki”) is a classic example of modern online proselytisation (indeed, I have yet to come across a more deceptive instance), but, as per usual, twists the most basic principles of science to its own will and defaces both real science and any non-Christian belief, atheism most of all. I urge anyone reading any of its websites to look to less biased sources for the information AAG presents.