Pushy Hypocrites

There comes a time when a christian would damn someone, telling him to "Go to hell" for his atrocities towards the christian god. Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist followers are undeniable examples of this but there are also some less extreme christians with minds of temperamental 16-year-olds who say the phrase without meaning it... Or sometimes actually meaning it.

So they're the polar opposites of well-wishers, wishing instead for a person's eternal punishment. When atheists like George Carlin and Christopher Hitchens died, there's the typical "He is now in hell" send-off. One thing is clear: they expect people to be sent to hell.

Though, if they really expect people to be sent to hell, then why do they have to try to mess with their lives and push their "values" unto them? If they're pretty much okay with condemning someone, why can't they just simply leave them alone? They're going to hell (so they say). They're gonna live their afterlives in hell anyway so why not just let them live their "sinful" lives in peace?

If they seriously cared for a person's afterlife, they wouldn't wish for his eternal punishment - not that I believe in any of that bullshit.

Suicide

Like murder, suicide is also taboo. The traditional Catholic way of thinking condemns those who have committed suicide, saying that it will automatically send them to hell without any chance of salvation. However, more recent Catholic ways of thinking state that one shouldn't condemn suicide victims but should be prayed for. Indeed, that is a better thing to do than flat-out damnation but still, I'm not really a fan of prayer.

Most people commit suicide due to mental instability and thus, have lost control of their rational minds. Others who do it with a rational mind, however, have stronger feelings than just being unwanted and unloved. Take for instance the Japanese soldiers who commit the honorable seppuku or the atrocious kamikaze. Muslim terrorists also commit suicide with bombs and take the lives of others with them in the name of their god. That being said, people usually think "Is there really no way for an act of suicide to be moral and just?" In fact, there are.

Picture this scenario: Two hikers were walking on a rope bridge when the bridge suddenly snapped. Hiker A was luckily able to hang on to Hiker B's leg but the latter was not strong enough to pull them both up and both of them will eventually fall. Hiker A decided to let go because he thought that it would be better if at least one of them had lived.

Suicide that leads to a better good is just. Anything that leads to a greater good is always just. The end doesn't always justifty the means, but in cases like heroic suicide, it does.

"Thou shalt not kill" is bullshit

Murder has always been a taboo subject since it is the act of taking the life of another human being. Truly, it is a bad thing, but there are times when the act of murder is the most moral thing to do in certain situations. Humans have realized this and act accordingly but the moral stencil brought by the god of Moses known as the Ten Commandments (ironically) prevents us from making these moral decisions based on our own judgment.

Euthanasia is justifiable. Comfort is always preferrable to pain and for extreme pain and suffering, one will need extreme comfort, even if it means death. The only real decision to make is whether the sufferer is past his/her suffering threshold that euthanasia would be the only escape. Take Terri Schiavo for example. In that situation, the only two choices are more suffering for her and her loved ones... or euthanasia.

Revenge is a bit tricky but it still can be justifiable. Some revenge murderers have been set free while others were punished. It all depends on the gravity of the situation. In revenge, the murderer actually prevents further atrocities by killing the perpetrator.

Survival is justifiable. Self-defense is the most common example of this. But there are also life-or-death choices when limited resources are at stake; the death of some will ensure the survival of the rest and inversely, choosing for everyone to live will make everyone suffer or (ironically) die.

Laws are the foundation of society but there will be situations where one should decide for himself. With a critical and compassionate mind, humans can make the right decision when faced with this predicament.

After the Rapture

The rapture may have failed but one can't say that there are no victims in this "tragedy". Yes. The rapture indeed claimed lives and livelihoods though not for the non-believers.

Some christians have actually sold off their possessions and discarded their futures, thinking that there will be no tomorrow after May 21 of 2011. The concept of the rapture itself may be laughing matter but the effects aren't. I have no pity for the believers but I do pity those who have been dragged into this mess.

Still nothing wrong in believing?

_____

It's a good thing that most christians didn't believe what the crackpot Harold Camping had foretold. They are open-minded enough to doubt the claims of a mere man though not open enough to doubt the roots of their faith. It's somewhat a good thing, in my opinion but if these christians have the courage to doubt more than just the rapture prohpecies, that'd be even better.

It's somewhat similar to fanfiction. Camping, being a fan, merely coupled his own fantasies with pre-existing fantasies that had been established by most people as canon. But even the canon itself is mere fiction. The holy texts themselves are mere fanfictions of a story called Reality, as the writers wrote out how they wanted the world to be.

One more step.

Indulging in Materialistic Pleasures

I don't understand why some hardcore conservative Christians (or conservatives of any other religion) refuse to give in to their materialistic desires. I do understand that indulging too much in material pleasures isn't a good thing but to willingly discard even the slightest thoughts of it... that I do not understand.

They claim that their god had created and fine-tuned this world for all humans to enjoy. If they shun the material world, they're spitting on the face of the one who provided the world for them. If they argue that shunning the material world will cleanse their souls for the path to heaven, then what is the sense of god having to create and "fine-tune" a world in the first place?

What I don't like about conservatives is that they impose their boring lifestyle upon others who are having reasonable fun. In other words, killjoy.

I don't believe in gods or heaven. I believe that humans are a part of nature, not rising above from it. Partaking what the world has to offer is human instinct.

Why a Massacre is Needed

Children in some countries in Africa are growing malnourished with some even starving to death. Some of the more powerful nations reach out to the impoverished and provide them with their necessities which will only satiate them for a small amount of time. Once their supplies run out, those nations will have to provide for them again.

With the worldwide human population growing along with the scarcity of food, at this rate, everyone will starve to death, not only those in Africa, but the whole world. We will have to pick a post-apocalyptic ending for ourselves, the most likely one being "Soylent Green".

Killing these impoverished people off not only reduces the demand for food, but it will also ease their suffering. So-called "moral" people will think that the act of killing is immoral but why is it immoral? Must we wait for everyone to starve before we take action? Isn't killing off suffering people an act of mercy rather than barbarism?

Faith versus Faith

I find it annoying sometimes when some theists state that "it takes faith to be an atheist". But then I realized that the statement can either be right or wrong depending on the definition of the word "faith".

What is faith? There are a few definitions in my version of Webster's dictionary:

1. unquestioning belief that does not require proof or evidence
2. unquestioning belief in god, religious tenets, etc.
3. a religion or a system of religious beliefs
4. anything believed
5. complete trust, confidence, or reliance
6. allegiance to some person or thing; loyalty

Among these, definitions #1 to #3 define the religious faith the theists have. Devout theists follow their religion without question and it is a well-known fact that they don't bother searching for real evidence other than the contradictory statements of their sacred books.

Atheist faith, or my faith at least, however, falls under the fifth definition. I, as a human being, will have to trust another in order to get by in life. Of course, atheist faith isn't anything like in the first definition as trust is normally gained through evidence and time. Though, this deal about faith and trust might not be the case for unreasonably paranoid skeptics who go as far as to not believe that the floor they're standing on is solid.

As an atheist, I do have faith and by faith, I mean trust, confidence, and reliance on other humans. There are times that I trust others and there are times that I don't. I'd rather put my faith on beings that I can see, hear, and touch rather than an invisible being whose existence I don't even have proof of.