Poem: The Broken Heater

God up in heaven was freezing his holy ass off.
Frozen for way too long,
he decided to fix the heater.

He used his omniscient mind,
and he knew the problem.
Then, he worked his omnipotence
and the heater was fixed.

God was no longer frozen and he felt good for a change.
Yet there was something that he hadn’t paid attention to.

God had changed reality by tampering with the heater,
he had extended the magnitude of warmth,
for the heater’s warmth was infinite.
And God had done the same to the infinite cold,
for as he suffered, freezing
–the coldness had been eternal.

Then again,
he had been the furnace all along,
and the broken heater was his heart.

There was no love left.
The tepid benevolence
was of no use to the people
it was supposed to touch.

–We’re fucked!

Nothing to see here,
only a broken heater.
–It should be fixed!


God has no Common Decency

If a god would be true and he would reign over his kingdom in heaven.
I say, let him rule over the afterlife and the dead. For no matter how fervently someone believes in divine rule, god should stay out from the governments and our laws. For if he god forbid exists then he has no say or clue of matters pertaining to ethics, or human civility for that matter.

So let him damn me for all I care, as I would rather keep my self-respect than sell-out to fear. I will do my best to cherish this life I have and love the people around me. If I deserve to go to hell in the opinion of god or his flock after my death, then so be it. Let my soul take that punishment.

As long as there is no evidence for a creator, there should be no glory to be shared with ignorance. No amen for theocracies, no hallelujah for those who indoctrinate. I will never agree with them who damn differing opinions, curiosity, and creativity.

Tolerance of intolerance is not a virtue. Heck.

Human Importance and Religion

Existence 1

Existence 1 (Photo credit: Vincepal)

One of the main problems I see in religion is the utter self-importance of the believer when it comes to the teachings of the religion. One must always work to save themselves from the torture and sin that is life, by living according to the will of a god or the soul. Most religions, if not all, say that this life is a waste and thus glorify the release from this supposedly wretched existence which lies in death. It is preposterous to believe that this world is hopeless and full of sin, despite this world unarguably being full of something that could be described as evil, but the problem I see here comes when one surrenders their will to an almighty divine, spiritual purpose. As there is no hope then one must save themselves from this existence to prosper in the next one.

Are we or are we not important then as individuals of the human race? I would say we are, but not in the sense that there is some divine plan where we are meant to sing Kumbayah next to the almighty creator of existence. We are animals that have been gifted, by a series of accidents, a brain that is capable of surprising feats of knowledge and understanding. So I do not agree one bit with an ideology that would relinquish that gift to a menial purpose, like giving praise to a human sacrifice supposedly done a few thousand years ago.

I will go back to the issue of self-importance within religion and the paradox that it forces upon the person. As religions teach, humans are supposedly very spiritual beings that for whatever reason is stranded in the mortal plane. Therefore humans are of a higher consciousness within this material world and as such important in the eyes of the universe. In a sense given the freewill to make the wrong choices in a semi predetermined world. The truth is then supposedly placed right in front of us, so that we could not miss it. The truth being eternal slavery to the great unknown and that which is to come inevitably –be it death, nirvana, or the will of the almighty one. Our choices do not matter anymore and we are reduced to vermin who must do right according to the teachings, so that we could be redeemed to our deserved glory.

Even before I knew of evolution I always thought that humans were animals. This got me into a lot of trouble growing up and landed me a few undeserved detentions at school. The answer I received when I protested was the notion of humans being, exactly, something much higher from an animal, because of the will of God. I thought it was good to give a name to chance, humans thank their luck as much as they thank the lord.

Humans are subjective and most opinion can never be truly objective, so it is easy to accept a certain personal relationship with the mythical and become a humble champion of a cause. God is with us, always, and we love big brother for he looks after us and inspires us. I would like the idea of humans being lost to be discarded, because it is a very medieval concept that humans are powerless and lost in a bleak world where punishment only exists. When no knowledge of the world exists it is comforting to know that there is something out there that knows.

Now we have books and more information free to us everyday. Just like Louis Armstrong sang in What a Wonderful World, they’ll learn much more than I’ll ever know. So it is high time to let go of myths. Humanity has reached that point where it can understand itself. There is no need for a kingdom of the lord, moksha, or spiritual enlightenment anymore. It should be understood that there is hope in this lifetime and its shortness should give it inherent value, so it is good to not waste it. Rather cherish it and cherish the lives of others that surround you. Seek knowledge and understanding rather than quick answers within dogmatics, for there is only outright cynicism within those ideologies and, what I would call, complete rejection of the value of nature, or existence.

German Ban on Circumcision

circumcision set

circumcision set (Photo credit: istolethetv)

According to Reuters, Angela Merkel has been thinking of alleviating the ban on child circumcision in Germany. The Germans still seem rather weak when someone plays the Nazi card, or compares the decisions of the government on religious or racial hate. The controversial law was a great secular decision to promote children’s rights, but religious people saw nothing of that sorts. I quote from the Reuters article:

Pinchas Goldschmidt, the Swiss-born chief rabbi of Moscow who organized the meeting, said the ban was a fresh example of creeping prejudice in European law against non-Christians, after a Swiss ban on minarets, French and Belgian bans on Islamic veils in public and an attempted Dutch ban on halal meat.

“Circumcision represents the basis for belonging to the Jewish community. It has been practiced for 4,000 years and cannot be changed,” said Goldschmidt.

I find it outrageous that he says that the ban of circumcision before the age of consent is part of a creeping prejudice against non-Christians. In what Medieval age does his gracious holyness Pinchas Goldschmidt live in? When I read that comment I felt that a new low had been reached by a leader of a religious community. Of course he does not see the wrong in his own doing, for God is on his side.

No religious organization should be allowed to do genital mutilation on their children, by the same logic that would allow such acts many other acts and rituals should be legalized, but apparently genital mutilation is not that bad. When Goldschmidt says that genital mutilation and sacrifice has been practiced for 4,000 years and cannot be changed, he fails to realize that the tradition began during very savage times.

Another issue is brought to my mind by the same Reuters article, and I quote:

European rabbis ended their meeting in Berlin on Thursday in a defiant mood. They plan talks with German Muslim and Christian leaders in Stuttgart next week to see how they can fight the ban together.

The ruling by the Cologne Regional Court applies to the city and surrounding districts with a total population of just over 2 million people. The total population of Germany is about 82 million. Cologne is home to about 120,000 Muslims, whose plans for a new central mosque has stirred anti-immigrant sentiment.

The head of the Conference of European Rabbis urged Jews in Germany to continue carrying out circumcision despite the ban.

Defiance and dissent, though very admirable when used towards a worthy cause, in this debate on circumcision I am sad to see them reduced to a form of bullying done by a party that should not have political power. The tactics of their defiance aren’t even playing fair and are leaning more on advocating extortion. Either you let them perform the genital mutilation at a hospital or then they will do it underground illegally. They are holding their own children hostage in essence.

One of the problems here is that these people are being dishonest. They are touting religious freedom, but really they just can’t wait to get their hands on the genitalia of little boys, or so it seems. It is more a sick obsession, the same sick obsession that most religions have on sexuality, and the way I see it is more a fight between a completely amoral right against an ethically sane right.

Which would you have? I pose the question on to you.
The right to cut pieces of skin off your son’s genitals or the children’s right to be untouched.

Commentary on the God of the Trinity

Christopher Hitchens speaking at The Amazing M...

Christopher Hitchens speaking at The Amazing Meeting 5, Las Vegas (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

When it comes to arguments on the existence of God and the nature of this divine being. The debates are usually riddled with redundant arguments coming from both sides of the table.

I am an atheist, despite there being no significant proof for or against the existence of a higher power, but I believe that humans should not live their lives enslaved to such being that does not really affect our daily lives. I solely see that human beings themselves should be accountable for any injustice they may partake in, as each individual in our species does have a rational brain that has the capacity to decide on one’s actions, whatever the situation may be. Of course this doesn’t take into account sociopaths or psychopaths, who could have an incapability to see the difference between just and unjust by default.

I ran into an article by Jacob H. Friesenhahn, a theology teacher at John Paul II Catholic High School in Schertz, Texas; called “Evil, the New Atheism, and the God of the Trinity”The article was mostly about Christopher Hitchens, who was known to be a loud and proud anti-theist, journalist, among other things. He garnered many enemies during his career for his strong opposing views towards religion and public figures. Hitchens was slandered by many articles written by theists after his death, but this one was slightly different. I would even say there was admiration towards opposing arguments and views. A very nice read.

Yet the article is written by a person who has a deep belief in a loving Christian god and most of the argumentation is as lost in fantasy as most of the rest out there, most of which referencing to the doctrine of the trinity. Though I do find the argumentation even leaning to the fanatical, the way the text is written is quite agreeable. Though I hope you read it, if you are interested in Hitchens and the whole religious debate.

I will share one of Friesenhahn’s arguments against one of my favorite arguments that Hitchens ever made:

Despite the frequency with which Hitchens seemed to repeat this polemic against God as dictator, I always found this particular aspect of his argument against Christian theism markedly weak. It is almost as if the Christian doctrine of God were formulated for the precise purpose of refuting this false concept of God, in relation to which we all ought to be atheists. The God of the Trinity, the God of interpersonal love, the God whose very essence is love selflessly shared among distinct persons, is the utter opposite of the image of God attacked by Hitchens, just as the God of the cross is the exact inverse of Hitchens’s God who stands by with folded arms as we suffer. -Jacob H. Friesenhahn

In this argument we are supposing that God is the exact opposite to the one Hitchen’s offers. The God in the bible is very capricious and wants to be loved by his creations. This sounds very much like a dictator rather than a loving father. To the North Korean population Kim Jong-il was as much a loving father as God is a loving father to a believer.

The only proof of a loving God is in the Bible, which was written by believers a long time ago. Written during times of suffering where a small hope for a miracle was a person’s only chance at slim survival. It all comes down to human empathy. No one would follow a savior who has not gone through greater suffering than themselves. In essence it was a marketing trick of the dark ages.

I would like to finish by saying, that dressing up a human sacrifice with grand words of selfless love, along with redemption for all in death sounds absolutely fanatical.

Of course something will seem markedly weak, if one assumes that the facts are on their side. If one allows themselves to be brainwashed into believing in a deity, be it done by one’s community or self, it is completely the same process as being manipulated by a despot with fear and lies.