Thursday, 10 January 2013

Religion, the greatest affront to God

The most disrespectful thing against GOD is religion. Religion has imposed on the Supreme Ultimate, on the prime mover, on the clock maker, on the principle which subsumes the universe, the ideas that god has a favorite corner of the universe, a favorite planet, a favorite people, a favorite religion, a favorite sex, a favorite sexuality, a favorite familial system, a favorite political-economic system, a favorite country, a chosen one or prophet, a favorite calendar, a favorite hat, a favorite day, a favorite “vicar on earth”, a favorite army, a favorite constitution, favorite leaders, parties, factions, and policies – that god has nothing better to do than catalog, prioritize, and discriminate between selfish human prayers. Religion is a sin against god and all creation.

That being said, it’s time to tackle atheism. Agnostics are not even worth mentioning, neither are the pantheists, who believe that the creator and the created is one and the same thing. By that reasoning, nature is god, and we are god. Last time I checked, the carpenter was not the same thing as a carpet. Nature derives from god, but it’s not god. God is the first spark, the first cause. In lack of this you only have circular logic. Leibniz’s clock maker example is the best. If an observer would shrink himself to go inside a clock to see how it works, all he’ll witness is the wheels working in perfect synchronization. The observer witnesses correlation not causality. The true cause lies in the one who made the clock, and winded it, in order to set its wheels in motion. The whole is more than the sum of its parts. If I have all the pieces of a table, and pile them up together, I’ll still have all the elements of the table, but I won’t have the table. What’s missing? The principle of organization.

I’ll just sum it up like this: even radical empiricism accepts the possibility of the existence of transempirical beings. But given their superior nature, such things are not worth the pursuit. That’s the view of radical empiricism. So if you’re an atheist and you’re being posed the question, “Is it possible for god to exist?” don’t say NO, and don’t try to beat around the bush. Say that transempirical entities may exist, and if they do, they’re certainly not the almighty, wroth, bigoted, patriarchal, human incarnated, or buddha characters of religions. But if they were, would you seriously pray to them and worship them? Would you pray to a human being who’s managed to go beyond his finite and weak form, and achieved another plane of existence? I, for one, wouldn’t. I’d rather invoke the words of dead men and or principles which define my character and beliefs. To quote Dante Alighieri, “Consider your origins, you were not meant to live as brutes, but to follow virtue and knowledge.” Virtue and knowledge cannot work as separate notions. Having virtuous people, who lack knowledge, who are ignorant, make for perfect slaves/obedient workers. However, in nature, if you stand still, it’s the same as going backward. So a virtuous and ignorant people will sooner or later descend into barbarism. Knowledge without virtue is as perilous. Why? Because such individuals are solely clever devils.  They’ll use knowledge only to further their own ambitions, their greed. They won’t care about the consequences of their actions. They’ll use all the means to steal, guard, protect knowledge, and attack all others who want to possess it as well. Progress and peace can only be achieved through the observing and practicing of virtue and knowledge.

The only likeness between the human being and the nonreligious concept of god, is the human being’s willful creative reason. Just as the biosphere is organized by a higher principle, and has a fundamentally distinct quality compared to the abiotic sphere, so does the noosphere (the sphere of human ideas/thoughts) over the biosphere. Living matter is distinct but not separate from inanimate matter. Ideas are distinct from matter, but not separate. To quote Gottfried Leibniz, “Everything that is in the mind came first through the senses, except for the mind itself.”

Therefore, whilst we are part of creation, we’re also a willful creative force inside that creation.
Note: I can’t stand those who don’t believe, seeing themselves superior to those who do believe. And I can’t stand those who believe, seeing themselves as superior to those who don’t believe.  Thus, religion (aka institutionalized faith) is the greatest affront to the Supreme Ultimate.


  1. I completely agree with your first statement but take issue with "However, in nature, if you stand still, it’s the same as going backward." Most of nature may move but actually it remains stationary relative to the rest of creation, like plants the universe expands and is in constant motion yet remains virtually unchanged unchanged and continues like clockwork. I believe we advance when we stop and appreciate our surroundings and avoid the rat race called progress. What have we actually achieved after our ten thousand year romp? I found the rest very interesting. Thank for the insight.

    1. Life has been and is growing. There's a permanent exchange of matter and energy between the Earth and its surrounding space. Life takes in abiotic elements and converts them into new biomass.
      All species that have failed to adapt to change have been wiped out by nature. More than 90% of all creatures that have ever lived on this planet are extinct. The only sustainable development is constant development. Unlike other creatures, the human being has changed the relationship between himself and his environment at a fundamental molecular level via the use of fire. The increase of quantity and quality of energy has allowed us to increase our numbers and live better lives. Historically speaking, all societies who have failed to protect and increase their productivity have been violently disbanded through civil strife as well as natural calamities. The lesser your means to survive, the more likely nature will kill you via a myriad of methods - volcano eruptions, heavy winters, desolating summers, floods, pestilence et all.
      That being said, many of the world's "technical" problems are caused by the use of antiquated technology. The replacement is there, the only issue to that is money (aka, politics).
      I don't know if you are familiar with Chartalism or MMT, but it explains how fiat money is created, how governments with monetary sovereignty are not households, how the government deficit equals the net savings of the private sector, and how taxation does not finance spending. MMTers are concerned with the democratization of public finance, with full employment, price stability, regulating private banks, and explaining the real constraints of a society. Basically, so long as you have people able and willing to work (unemployed free labor) and unused resources, the government is either taxing too much, spending too little or both.
      Here's a vid with Warren Mosler and Stephanie Kelton explaining about MMT and how the modern economy actually works. It's worth the watch, I promise you.