Christianity and Liberalism

The influence of the Christian church seems to be decaying, at least in west (in Africa it is still rather strong). Nonetheless, the Christian church, who in this case refers to the Catholics, Eastern Orthodox or Protestant communities, no longer holds the same power and influence it had centuries, or even decades ago.

It is no secret that Christianity has been dying in the west. Any statistic or census shows that religion has been on a rapid decline, and that for the most part people are becoming ‘secular’, or ‘non-religious’.

This is both a good thing and a bad thing. Obviously, given my antagonism towards organized religion (especially Christianity, which I view as one of the worst religions created), one would think that I would be joyful in knowing that Christianity is dying. And personally I am, but like with all things, something inevitably takes the place of the old once the old disappears.

Liberalism, and liberal ethics, seem to have dominated the west. Anyone familiar with my work will know that I strongly dislike liberals, and to be more broad, all leftist doctrines in general. The problem that I have with the death of Christianity is that the influence of Christianity, namely in ethics, is still very much present. Now, the right-wing loves to claim that Christianity is a conservative religion, but this is only true in a traditional sense. For the most part, Christian ethics are extremely ‘liberal’ in the broad sense. Sure, Christianity does condemn homosexuality and abortion, but it also promotes a universal love and to leave judgement to God. In other words, I believe that, as a whole, Christianity has liberal ethics (egalitarianism, non-violence, universal love, forgiveness), whereas certain aspects of Christianity, like any movement, have some traditional or conservative elements, but not enough to reconstruct the main teachings (which are liberal).

Nonetheless, the modern liberal ethical code is merely a modern manifestation of past Christian ethics. Simply because many diluted, Christian conservatives preach ‘anti-liberal’ political opinions does not negate the leftist tendency of Christianity. If anything, leftists are the ones who are ‘true Christians’ in the sense that they at least seem to follow the ‘big picture’ of Christian ethics, whereas the Conservatives, who are diluted and idiotic, promote Capitalism, nationalism, and violence, despite Christian ethics clearly opposing most forms of those three ideas.

Liberals, for the most part, tend to be anti-war, anti-capitalism (at least compared to the American right), pro-human rights, pro-equality, pro-coexisting, pro-multiculturalism, anti-violence and they also tend to be much more accepting of others than their ‘Christian’ conservative counterparts.

It should be noted that many liberal principles, such as equality, kindness, acceptance and this idea of sharing and caring are, in all respects, Christian ethics. The European pagans that existed before the arrival of Christianity lacked many of the same ethical codes that their descendants today carry. So whether the liberal is an atheist or a Christian, it still stands that the liberals abides by Christian-like ethics.

So, even in a decaying Christian society, the ethics of Christianity, a weak and, as Nietzsche best referred to it, a ‘slave-morality’ mentality, is still present. It is interesting to note that many far-right thinkers were, in many respects, anti-Christian. The Italian and German fascist leaders were all well-known admirers of the Roman/Germanic paganism, and Hitler himself even remarked that he believed, had it not been for Christianity, the German race would have conquered the world.

Thus, to be a Christian means that you abide by liberal ethics, and vice versa, to be a liberal means that you abide by Christian ethics. There are of course some noticeable differences, but as a whole, Christianity and liberalism are very much compatible. And it is for this reason that I believe the decaying of the Christian church is both a good thing and a bad thing. Good in the sense that it is an end to superstitious dogma and illogical belief systems. Bad because the influence, particularity in regards to the weak Christian ethical code, is still being promulgated by the popular liberal parties.


The Holy Land

Does no one else find it ironic that the Holy Land, the Land of God, the land where Judaism, Christianity and Islam originate – doe no one else find it ironic that these lands have perhaps the longest, bloodiest and most brutal histories of warfare, turmoil and conflict? It just seems strange to me – that a land so ‘holy’ and ‘divine’ would in turn be a land dominated by violence and destruction. One would think that Holy Land would be a peaceful place, no?

Thoughts on Islam

Image result for praying mujahideenOf course I am critical of Islam. I am against almost all of its tenets and beliefs. I am an anarchist, I am a nihilist. I don’t care for morals or ethics. I do not believe in ‘one true God’ and I certainly don’t believe that Muhammad was ‘chosen’ as some special prophet. I don’t have anything against homosexuality or promiscuity (I strongly support sexual experimentation and free love). I am against the notions of government, marriage, taxes, and other forms of bondage. I don’t believe in an afterlife. I don’t believe in prayer or in fasting. I am certainly not a conservative, or a traditionalist. I am, above all, a radical, anti-religion, misanthropic anarchist with strong leanings towards nihilism.
So, please do not think of me as a ‘Muslim apologist’ or as a ‘Supporter of Islam’. I am neither of those things. I do not care for Islam in the same way that I do not care for Christianity or Judaism.
However, there are some characteristics of Islam that I greatly respect – namely their practice of Ramadan, their courage, their ‘warrior’ spirit, and their lack of fear regarding death. Unlike their weak, apologetic Christian counterparts, the Muslims are not afraid of war and violence. They accept that humans are inherently violent, and that violence can be used as tool to further their goals. The Islamic religion trains men to be tough, brave, strong and courageous. It teaches them to never accept defeat and to not fear a violent death. The respect I have for Islam is the same respect that I have for fascism; in that it creates a strong individual with an unbreakable willpower.
Islam is like a suit of armor, whereas Christianity is a thin rag. The problems though with this suit of armor is that it is too heavy and too burdensome. My goal is to create a lighter suit of armor (by discarding the supernatural, monotheistic, and ethical constraints), but keeping enough of the metal in tact to be used as a protective layer against outside forces. In other words, I encourage that every person adopt the Muslim spirit of no surrender, no compromise, and no fear of death. However, the many ‘religious’, ‘moral’ and ‘conservative’ aspects can be discarded.
So, I admire the Muslim spirit and courage, but this does not mean that I am a supporter or apologist of Islam.

On Spirituality

Image result for nicholas roerich artI believe in ‘spirituality’ in the sense that it is a psychological perspective. In other words, I do not believe in the ‘spirituality’ which encompasses an objective or existent ‘other-world’ inhabited by sentient spirits.
When most people think of ‘spirituality’, they assume things such as speaking to the dead, or being possessed by spirits, or coming into contact with God. This is largely a result of the Judeo-Christian influence on our western world, which teaches of spirits and angels and the objective existence of non-human entities that live in different dimensions.
However, this is definitely not the kind of ‘spirituality’ I am referring to. Mostly because, as anyone familiar with my work can attest – I am mostly an atheist.
There are other types of ‘spirituality’ which are professed by shamans and spiritual gurus – another group of individuals who, like Christians, expound ideas that I believe to be false or largely imaginative.
Sam Harris, a contemporary philosopher whom I greatly respect, has said that ‘spirituality’ is a psychological phenomenon – one does not need to be religious to follow it or study it.
For almost all religions, spirituality involves some form of altered consciousness. That is my primary concern – the altered states of consciousness. I am interested in the different states that exist within the human mind and how one can achieve them. Obviously, drugs are a great way to do this, but it should be noted that many monks and gurus have had similar states of consciousness without using drugs. Ram Dass, for example, went to India and gave a group of ascetics LSD – he reported that the monks acted normally and that they had experienced these types of visions and thought-processes before. However, while drugs are certainly a good starting point, I feel that one must also try to obtain this altered state without the use of drugs – namely, on their own will and practice.
Spirituality also aims to ‘recover the original shape of man’. In his book Waking Up, Sam Harris writes that’s ‘people of every faith, and of none, have had the same sorts of spiritual experiences. While these states of mind are usually interpreted through the lens of one or another religious doctrine, we know that this is a mistake. Nothing that a Christian, a Muslim, and a Hindu can experience – self-transcending love, ecstasy, bliss, inner light – constitutes evidence in support of their traditional beliefs, because their beliefs are logically incompatible with one another. A deeper principle must be at work.”
In other words, Mr. Harris has noted that spirituality exists as different types of mental states – the problem is that these states are often described by fitting it into a religious dogma for the sake of the religion. However this does not mean that these different states do not exist – rather it simply means that the state was interpreted in a religious way.
Mr. Harris also notes that many altered states of consciousness expounded by Hindu and Buddhist methods require no faith at all in an external, separate entity or spirit. Many of the eastern methods of spirituality rely on a personal, internal will and introspection – not on praying to spirts or submitting to some God (cough cough Abrahamic religions).
Spirituality has, for the most part, been a central tenet of mankind. Even the most primitive of people had some sort of spiritual belief system, and simply because one is an atheist does not mean that one cannot learn a thing or two by studying ‘spiritual’ belief systems.
As mentioned above, many Hindu and Buddhist spiritual techniques do not rely on faith and are thus accessible to anyone.
So, when I speak of spirituality, I mean it in a non-supernatural way – indeed, I mean it in a natural way. Spirituality to me is simply a psychological quest – a journey into the reaches of the mind and what it is capable of. For me, everything spiritual is connected to something personal – something mental – something that is residing in ones psyche.
Since my primary focus and teachings revolve around self-discovery and self-knowledge, it would be a mistake of me to disregard spirituality as merely ‘religious mumbo-jumbo’.
I have an interest in spirituality for the same reason that I have an interest in the occult – not because I believe it can unlock doors to a supernatural other-world, but because it can take one to different realms of their mind and experience things that are not present in ones typical day-to-day consciousness.

Nietzsche: God is Dead (Part 1)

Image result for nietzsche art

In order to better understand Nietzsche’s ideas on the Ubermensch and Eternal Recurrence, we must first start with the phrase that precedes the conditions for an Ubermensch (God is Dead). The phrase ‘God is Dead’ is usually misinterpreted. Many people seem to assume that this implies God was once a living creature, and he has since passed away. But this is a misconception. Nietzsche was an atheist, and thus never believed that a God existed in any form except as a figment of the human imagination.

The phrase does not mean that God was an actual living creature who has now died. What it means is that the idea of “God” is now dead. We have realized that there is no God, and thus he is now ‘Dead’. His essence no longer has meaning to us. As we advanced and became less reliant on faith and more reliant on logic, we came to the conclusion that there is no God, and that there will never be a God. Since we no longer believe in God, he is therefore ‘dead’. He is no longer a part of our lives, he has faded away and can no longer hold influence over us.

As Nietzsche wrote ‘God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers?’ Basically, Nietzsche is saying that since we no longer believe in God, we have metaphorically killed him.

Given Nietzsche’s strong animosity towards religion, you would think people realizing that ‘God is Dead’ would make him happy. After all, Nietzsche was dedicated in his quest to try and rid the individual of dogmatic and supernatural beliefs. Surely, people disregarding religion would be a comforting sight to Nietzsche. But this was not the case. Nietzsche was deeply troubled by the lack of a God, he feared that this may lead to the destruction of our society.

Since God never existed, that would imply that there is no afterlife and no soul. It would also mean that there is no objective morality. As Dostoevsky wrote ‘If there is no God, everything is permitted.’ Nietzsche feared that once Europeans abandoned their Christian faith, the world would sink into nihilism. By realizing that there is no God, this would cause individuals to lose all hope or any sense of respect or belonging. Humans would go mad and there would be chaos everywhere. The current structure of society would fall apart as nihilism swept across the continent. This is what Nietzsche feared. That the masses would not be able to handle the notion that there is no God, and thus would use their newly discovered freedom on harmful and destructive ways. The impending nihilism of the future appeared to be coming closer and closer. Thus, Nietzsche began to search for an answer to nihilism (without using religion). The answer was the Ubermensch.

If God is Omnipotent, Omniscient and Benevolent – Then Why Is There Evil? (AKA the Problem of Evil Dilemma)

While there may be many different propositions as to why God exists, there are also a fair amount of propositions that attempt to disprove the existence of God. One of the most famous propositions in the “Problem of Evil” dilemma. Basically, God is often described as a being who is omnipotent (all powerful), omniscient (all knowing/all seeing), and benevolent (compassionate). Despite this, the world is filled with evil, vice and suffering. The “Problem of Evil” states that if God really is omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent, then there should not be any evil or suffering in the world. In other words, if God is benevolent, then he would not allow suffering to occur to other humans. If God was omniscient, then he would be aware of all the suffering and would therefore know who was suffering and why. And if God is omnipotent, then he would be able to eradicate suffering. But since suffering and evil continue to exist, some philosophers claim that this is proof there is no God. For if God does exist, and if he allows suffering in the world, then he would be neither benevolent, omniscient or omnipotent. And if God does not have one (or any) of these qualities, then that being is not a “God”.

So, this argument technically states that there is no God because suffering and evil are qualities that would not be present in a world with a benevolent, omniscient, omnipotent God. And if God does not exist, that would mean that the design argument is false, and that scientific phenomena and the natural laws of physics were created from a non-intelligent mechanism.

Personally, I agree with the non-theistic philosophers who state that God could not exist because there is suffering in the world. If God is omniscient, benevolent and omnipotent, that would mean that suffering and evil would be nonexistent. There are some counterarguments to the “Problem of Evil” claim, such as the one that God allows suffering because it helps us become better people and it teaches us to be morally virtuous. In other words, this claim states that “in a paradise without pains, harms, injuries, needs, suffering, dangers, or difficulties, ethical concepts would be meaningless and people could not develop into virtuous beings” (Velasquez 266). However, in my opinion, if God is omnipotent, why doesn’t he just create a human species that can be morally virtuous without having to experience suffering? According to the designer argument, God created everything for a specific purpose. So why can’t God create a human species that is programmed to be morally virtuous and good natured? Why does God have to create humans as ‘imperfect’? If God can do anything, then surely he can create a perfect world where human beings are morally upright and righteous without having to experience pain and suffering. A watch, for example, never goes through intense feelings of pain and misery, yet it still works. Why couldn’t this same concept be applied to humans when “God” created us?

There is also the argument from Saint Augustine which states that evil occurs because God is perfect, and anything that is not God is therefore imperfect, and this is why humans must suffer – because we are imperfect. But in all honesty, again I must ask why did God create us as “imperfect?” If God created a “perfect” human, then, according to Saint Augustine, the human would be just like “God”. But how is this a bad thing? If God is benevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent, why wouldn’t he want to create other beings just like him? Why would he make us “imperfect” on purpose?

Saint Augustine also claims that evil is a result of human actions (or our imperfection), and that “evil [is] an aspect of the world that a good and benevolent God did not produce and could not prevent” (Velasquez 264). But if God cannot prevent evil then he is not omnipotent. Or if God ignores evil, then he not benevolent. And if God is not aware of all the evil in the world, then he is not omniscient. In other words, Saint Augustine attempts to put all the blame on humans while simultaneously excusing their creator, “God”, from any responsibility.

So, in my own personal opinion, the fact that humans are flawed and that there is suffering in our world is proof that there is no benevolent, omniscient and omnipotent being. And since these three qualities are essentially what makes a “God”, it would therefore seem a logical conclusion to presume that God does not exist, and that there is no intelligent design behind our universe. However, while I remain rather firm in my belief, I will admit that possibly (and this is just speculation), there is a God who is merely above human classifications. Words such as omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent are, for the most part, just abstract words of the human language, and therefore it’s possible that “God” does not fit these descriptions because “God” is technically supposed to be above the material world, or in other words, above the world of abstract human language. Perhaps, God does exist and he did design our universe, but this God does not fall into the ‘omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent’ categories simply because these categories are human creations and therefore only applicable to human beings (which God technically is not). Again, I do not believe this, but it is an interesting devil’s advocate topic that I felt should be brought up.

Religions Are Not Equal

Saying that ‘all religions are equal’ is like saying ‘all political opinions are equal’. They are not.

Of course, the ‘superiority’ or ‘greatness’ of a religion is a totally subjective opinion – it depends on a person to decide which religions are ‘better’ than others. Nonetheless, to say that ‘all religions are equal’ would be like saying ‘all political opinions are equal’. If you believe this (that all political opinions are equal) then you may also say that all religions are equal – however, if you do not believe that all political opinions are equal, then it would be hypocritical for you to say ‘all religions are equal’.

Just like political opinions, some religions are much more dangerous than others, some have a much more violent history than others, and some are much more logical or reasonable than others – nonetheless, they are not equal.