Category Archives: religion

Leftist approach to reason and evidence

Posted on by
Reply

It’s interesting how some people, usually on the left political and intellectual spectrum, recommend that we all disregard our prejudice and make up our minds based on reason and evidence, and yet, when people do just that, and based on reason and evidence come up with conclusions different from theirs, they go absolutely fucking nuts.

Well, you can’t have it both ways. If you say that I should reject prejudice, I will do exactly that. I will reject the prejudice that people are equal and see the evidence. I will look into the statistics, I will look at the results, and I will make up my mind. If I don’t come to the same conclusion as you doesn’t mean that I did anything wrong. Maybe it’s you who are not following your advice. Maybe it’s you who are prejudiced, only your prejudice is that of equality.

If you say that people should reject religious dogma and make up your own mind about the existence of God based on the available evidence, and I do exactly that and conclude that God indeed exists, and that religions are just a primitive way of dealing with that truth in an inept and clumsy way, similar to the ways in which cavemen dealt with subdural hematoma. They actually invented trepanation, removal of a part of the skull in order to let the brain expand and relieve intracranial pressure, and it was widely ridiculed in medical circles until quite recently the modern neurosurgeons discovered that craniotomy is the best way of dealing with that exact problem. So yeah, the cavemen were the stupid dumbasses who bored holes in people’s skulls to let the evil spirits out, except that the modern doctors also bore holes in people’s skulls in order to… what? So yeah, we follow the evidence. But I will also make up my own mind on what I consider to be evidence. If I’m to make up my own mind, I’ll be damned if I’ll allow someone else to dictate what I’m to do with this freedom. I will see for myself. So, if God exists, are there people who can attest to that? There are. Are they credible? Yes. Are there multiple testimonies that can be correlated? Yes. Do I have personal experiences that confirm that God exists? I do. So well, there you have it. I followed the evidence, I approached those things rationally, and I made up my own mind.

The fact that my mind didn’t turn out into a replica of yours should not surprise you, since you profess your support for “multiculturalism” and accepting differences. But that isn’t really the case, isn’t it? It’s only a pose. You only accept different opinions if they are the same as yours. You only say we should follow the evidence and reason and reject prejudice because you think you can order people around and dictate what the prejudice are, what the evidence is and what is the reasonable conclusion. Essentially, you have a playbook you want to impose on everyone, and the story about freedom and reason and evidence is just a collection of nice words that are supposed to cloud one’s judgement and blind him to the ugliness of what’s actually going on.

Can atheists go to heaven?

Posted on by
20

There’s that recurring theme with atheists who, wanting to portray religious people as close-minded, intolerant and limited, ask if they think that atheists can be good people, and, alternatively, if atheists can go to heaven.

The answer to this is to first define “good”, and then to define “heaven”, or salvation.

Accepting the most usual definition for “good”, the answer is yes. Most atheistic solutions to ethics are benevolent, tit-for-tat ones, which will be aggressive only if provoked, and even then only in a limited way, in order to deter further provocations. The dynamics of the cold war were essentially an example of two inherently godless camps doing self-serving things and thus avoiding any widespread violence and evil. There are, of course, very evil atheistic ethical frameworks, which we can see in the history of the age of enlightenment and socialism, so let’s not delude ourselves: atheism is actually wide open to bad ethical choices if they are seen as reasonable and self-serving.

The answer to the third question, whether atheists can go to heaven, is more difficult. If you define heaven as a state of permanent, eternal union with God, then my answer is a decisive “no”, because an atheist simply doesn’t have the kind of internal urge that makes one explore everything related to God because all his motivations drive him there, as if everything depends on it. If you really want God, you will find him, and then I can be quite certain that you’ll go to heaven when you die. If, as atheists often proudly say, you feel no need for God, you won’t go to heaven because what you are looking for is not in heaven. It’s that simple. You may now answer that it’s not right, but my response is that it’s exactly right, and it wouldn’t be right to put you in heaven so that you can annoy saints and angels with your sarcastic remarks about how stupid they are to love God so blindly when you see nothing special about Him. Since you see nothing special about God and nothing attractive about heaven, get the fuck out. It’s only logical.

Since you don’t need God anyway, you won’t be missing out on anything, apparently.

Bad ideas that refuse to die

Posted on by
8

I was thinking about socialism and how wrong ideas never seem to die, regardless of how harmful or useless they proved to be. For instance, at one point more than half the world tried to implement socialism in one form or another, and it invariably produced widespread human misery. It simply does that by design, with its “eat the rich” paradigm. It eats the rich and then everybody is poor, there’s nobody to blame, and then the infighting begins, millions die, everybody is poor, and eventually people completely give up on the system and adopt some form of social Darwinism, which works excellently, produces enormous wealth and prosperity, but, of course, not everybody succeeds and then some fucking idiot re-introduces socialist ideas, like, how about redistributing that wealth so that those few poor people don’t get excluded from the widespread prosperity, so taxes are increased, the state bureaucracy is increased, free market is stressed by taxation, the worthless people get welfare and reproduce exponentially (because they are rewarded with more welfare for reproducing and failing at everything) while contributing exactly jack shit, the state goes into debt, scientific and high-tech programmes are curtailed because the socialist politicians think that all money must go to social programmes because socialism, and if there are problems, blame the evil black beast of capitalism and ask for more state control and socialism as a solution. The problem is with the concept that the poor possess virtue, that God is on their side, and that people are equal and therefore deserve the same outcomes regardless of their actual abilities and choices.

If you try to introduce some alternative to socialism or use common sense, you’re immediately attacked and “de-platformed”, as it is called – you’re a x-ist and x-phobe and all the tolerant multicultural people want to kill you. Somehow, there’s an implication that they are good, that they are progressive, despite the fact that what they are proposing was actually all tried in Stalinist Russia, and is by definition regressive because it’s a step backwards in history, and despite the fact that their socialism is probably the only political system that was scientifically tested and tried, and proved not to work, so basically if someone wants to benefit mankind, socialism is the only system he should never attempt to use because it’s worse than useless.

There are, of course, other ideas that are a disaster; determinism, for instance, which basically states that whatever you do, the end result will be the same because it’s determined by outside forces, be it God, destiny, karma or societal circumstances. By adopting such attitude you are guaranteed to fail, and this is the main reason why Catholic countries are economically usually worse off than the Protestant countries, because the Protestant countries are closer to the Jewish belief that God will reward the righteous people with wealth, while those who are not in his favour will be poor. The Catholics believe that God doesn’t work like that, and that wealth can actually be a hindrance or a temptation. Be it as it may, beliefs of this sort influence people’s work ethics and attitude, and if they believe that wealth is a reward from God, they will try to attain it, and see their success or lack thereof as feedback. I actually see the Catholic position as a contamination with Cathari beliefs that were semi-officially canonized together with St. Francis and St. Claire, where worldly possessions are seen as a spiritual burden and avoided altogether. How useful that is in a spiritual sense, it’s difficult to tell, but as an influence to economy it’s a disaster, because the wealthy and successful individuals are shunned in favour of ragged demagogues. If the wealthy aren’t respected and admired, the end result will be social apathy and widespread misery. But determinism causes an even worse problem: those who actually invest effort in order to change their situation are seen as “not having faith” or “not accepting the will of God”. This gives apathy and despondency an aura of spirituality and elevates it to the position of almost-holiness.

I understand that such negative attitudes about wealth might have been the result of unity of church and state, and that the church was so preoccupied with amassing wealth and power that it neglected its spiritual role, and that those who preached poverty might have played a constructive role of redressing an imbalance at one point, but such ideas are actively harmful from the position of economy. If you see wealth as a snare of Satan, well, nobody wants to be ensnared by Satan. I personally believe that poverty is a snare of Satan and that wealth means freedom to pursue forms of spirituality that are not pre-determined by the shackles of poverty, but I’m the enfant terrible of spirituality and nobody really listens to what I have to say.

The problem isn’t social injustice. The problem are the bad ideas that produce misery, suffering and death wherever they are implemented, but somehow still get to wear a halo of sainthood.

And regarding sainthood, it might be a very good showcase of all the widespread misconceptions and illusions which hinder spiritual and personal growth of individuals, because when you think of it, sainthood seems to be defined by poverty, self-denial, extreme compassion, self-sacrifice, detachment from all worldly issues, celibacy and, essentially, removal of oneself from all practical matters of society.

Wanna hear my definition of sainthood? A saint is a person who has a first-person realization of God, and attained success at harmonizing his/her entire life with the nature and character of God.

Which means that for me, an ideal saint is Krishna, the warrior-king who lived a life of first-person godhead and who fought, had sex, fooled around with his best friend, and inspired holy scriptures of the highest order. He wasn’t poor, he wasn’t celibate, he wasn’t self-denying, he wasn’t dedicated to “fighting his ego” or “controlling his thoughts and desires”, and to whom yoga was the art of correct action, not denial of action or removal from the world. To me, St. Francis and St. Claire are worthless examples and worthless people, because they did exactly jack shit to improve anything in the world, and if one tries to emulate their lifestyle it will be a personal disaster. The thing is, Bhagavad-gita wasn’t a result of two renunciate monks discussing haute spirituality in some cave. Bhagavata-purana wasn’t inspired by the life of Shuka the renunciate. It’s about Shuka the renunciate praising the life of Krishna the warrior king as the perfect example of what God looks like when he comes into this world.

So yeah, being a saint isn’t about being poor and naked and celibate and “controlling your ego”. It’s about being in the flesh what God is in His pure spiritual nature, and while we’re at that, we should have in mind that the probable reason why all the renunciate sages fail to understand true spirituality is that they fail to take notice of the fact that Vishnu is married to Lakshmi, the goddess of wealth and fortune. So the next time you think of how spiritual some poor person is, or how spiritual you must be because you’re poor, or how spiritual you are because you are ignorant of worldly affairs, remember that that the perfect image of God in this world fucked the goddess of fortune (who looks like a billion dollars BTW) while not otherwise preoccupied with waging wars, manipulating politics and inspiring holy scriptures. And the barefoot sages, they merely wrote it all down while trying to figure out what the fuck they were missing in the entire picture.

About snobbery in art, and a spiritual message of “Twilight”

Posted on by
1

The most revealing, accurate and scathing criticism of modern art is something I read in Robert Heinlein’s “Stranger in a strange land”, where the author, through one of his characters, says that the main reason why modern art is worthless is that it doesn’t communicate, that it amounts to pointless exercise in navel gazing by pompous pricks. You see, art is supposed to be a form of communication, where the artist communicates his ideas, emotions and other aspects of his psyche with the audience, and this is possible only if they share a common language, in this case of visual symbols, meanings and hints. Where modern art got it wrong is when every artist started making up his own visual language, and the critics applauded because they wanted to have their ego stimulated by being part of the “in” crowd, the ones who “get it”, while it is often the case that they don’t get it because there’s nothing to get, because the emperor is indeed naked. The modern art tries to imply that it is an encoded message that requires possession of the “decryption key” in order to figure it out, but if the “secret key” isn’t shared with the audience, if the audience is required to guess it, in reality there will be no difference between an encrypted message and random noise.

So, if a modern artist has indeed created a piece of art with a secret encoded message, all the while providing no clues for its decoding, he is a pompous ass.

Alternatively, it’s all bullshit without any value whatsoever.

Let me illustrate the difference between bullshit in modern art, and modern art with a message:

This is random bullshit without any value whatsoever, created by Jackson Pollock

This is a message about the state of modern society by Banksy

See the difference? Banksy uses commonly intelligible symbols, like words, sentences and figures. If you’re reasonably intelligent, you’ll have no problem understanding what he wanted to say. With Pollock, you can’t understand what he wanted to say, because it’s just random blotches of paint on a canvas. What it does show is that the author got lost in his own bullshit and no longer knows what he’s trying to do. Basically, he’s just getting drunk and going crazy.

Banksy’s art has a strong message, and this message is conveyed in the manner intelligible to his intended audience. The only thing that’s missing in his art, is pompous pretense and snobbery.

What I actually find funny is that I can often find a more profound message in works that are massively popular and are not commonly seen as art, than in works that are presented as art. The stuff that’s presented as art is usually just stupid and crazy; the message, if it even exists, is trivial and shows only the shallow and superficial nature of the author.

Stuff that’s widely popular in the general population, on the other hand, is usually popular because it has a strong message, something that strongly resonates with the audience. I’ll use the “Twilight” series of books as an example, because it’s an excellent example of a work that’s commonly frowned upon by the artistic “elite”.

On the surface, it’s a “young adult” book series about teenagers and vampires and werewolves and it’s as shallow as a piece of paper. But on the surface, “David” is just a piece of marble. Let’s see what’s packaged inside the superficial content. First you have the concept of self-control as the way of overcoming one’s lower animal nature and attaining higher forms of existence that are not possible if you immediately go for the quick gratification of senses. If you’re a vampire and you simply follow your thirst for human blood, you end up killing your future wife and your life is permanently altered for the worse. Furthermore, it’s a test of resolve: Edward, the male protagonist, wasn’t given a common level of temptation to overcome, he was given an almost impossible level of temptation, and at the most sensitive, vital spot, in some form of incredible cruelty of destiny, because that is what is needed to crush his arrogance. He knows that if he eats her, he will betray his father Carlisle, who is some sort of a vampire saint and his perfect role model of restraint, love, wisdom and intelligence. Later, as he actually falls in love with the girl, his instinctive bloodlust still threatens like Damocles’ sword, and now it’s no longer about possibly killing an innocent stranger, it’s about possibly killing the love of your life, and the temptation is still so bad it’s always a close call, and he needs to acquire a supernatural degree of self-control in order to be harmless enough not to destroy his life by accident. And this is not all. Unbeknownst to him and his family, the Volturi, a super-powerful ruling family of vampires, are set on their path at some unknown point in the future, where they will attempt to acquire some of them for their guard, while destroying the others. Bella, the super-tasty human girl, is the only possible defense, with her supernatural mental shielding ability, but nobody knows that. As far as everybody knows, she’s merely a human with incredibly bad luck, which forces Edward and his family to constantly get into trouble by trying to protect her, and if they do everything right, not only saving her life, but being the kind of people she would love enough to exceed all normal limits of her shield and instinctively expand it to protect them against supernatural attacks, only then do they have a chance of surviving. It’s very obviously hinted that destiny played a hand in things, and it’s not a destiny that just happens, it’s a destiny that demands that you make a choice, a choice that would prove you worthy in the eyes of God… or not. If you are worthy, not only will you get the instrument of your salvation, you will also gain fulfillment in your life, and by the virtue of your choice you actually become worthy. If not… the mechanism of your destruction had already been set in motion and it will reach you with the inevitability of sunrise, and you will have killed your only defense. And the thing is, you don’t know it. You don’t know how important the test is, you don’t know that absolutely everything is at stake. And there is more, of course: the implied hints that Carlisle is looking for a sign from God that he’s doing the right thing, because as much as he tries to be a good person, he can’t ever be sure of how his actions will be received by God – is he a doomed, soulless monster whose attempts are in vain, or is he merely a different child of God, who will be judged on his choices and efforts like everyone else. He doesn’t know whether his choice to make other vampires is a grave error or an act of kindness; however, now the fate has placed a person in his path, who can and will save him and his family if, and only if all these conditions are fulfilled: if they protect her with their lives, if she gets to love them beyond reason, and if she is turned into a vampire. If any of those conditions aren’t met, they all die. So, turning her into a vampire is God’s test to see if they are worthy, and, implicitly, it’s approval of their worthiness for salvation, proof that they are important enough and precious enough to be saved by such an elaborate setup, but only if they choose to be the kind of people that deserve salvation. So, Bella isn’t just a teenage girl his son falls in love with. She’s not just a remarkable person with special gifts. She’s a sacrament from God, a visible sign of invisible grace of God, but she’s also a dire warning about the supreme importance of restraint, free will and choice.

And it’s all there, if you put your snobbery aside and actually read into it. I didn’t invent this interpretation, it’s implicit in the works, and some parts are actually explicitly stated. It’s not encoded, it’s there for everybody to see, but people need to put their arrogance aside and have faith that there’s something worth seeing, and this, apparently, is the test on which almost everybody fails, because they are too arrogant about their sophistication in art and literature to look for deeper meanings in teenage romance books about schoolgirls and vampires. But a hint about that is also given in the books: if you see Bella only as a tasty snack, it all ends there, and for you she’s nothing more. However, it’s a fail.

And this might as well be the reason why “Twilight” is so massively popular – it’s a subliminal message that God has something wonderful in store for us, if we are restrained, subtle, patient and prove to be worthy.

God as the way

Posted on by
Reply

The way some people see spirituality is as a definition of their goals that justify their methods.

I see it as a limitation on methods, and total freedom in setting your own goals.

Let’s see what this actually means. For starters, it means that I don’t see God as a goal, I see God as a way. To me, God is not on some glorious throne in the heavenly kingdom of far, far away. God is between every two atoms, and yet he is the “hardware” that runs this and all other Universes. God is the layer zero of all reality, the fundamental reality compared to which everything else is some kind of an illusion.

The nature and character of God is sat-cit-ananda, or, in rough translation, reality-consciousness-bliss. In order to be closer to God, you need to be closer to his nature, you need to be closer to sat-cit-ananda, you need to be made of it and you need to manifest it in others. This limits your means, but it doesn’t limit your goals; it’s essentially what St. Augustine meant by “love, and do what you will”. In this understanding, God doesn’t tell you what to do, he is the way you do things. God doesn’t order you to be kind, God is the special type of kindness that you manifest. In some cases, God is the destruction of some things in order for them not to stand in the way, and to allow the better things to grow. God is not necessarily gentle; sometimes God is the wonderful, glorious way of dealing with some cruel evil. God is the path of wisdom, truth, reality and bliss on which great and glorious goals are achieved.

God is not the one to tell you whether to be straight or gay, to have one partner or several. God must be the the way you treat your partners. In the way you live with them, sat-cit-ananda must be manifested. God doesn’t tell you whether to wage war or not, but you must wage war in a way that manifests sat-cit-ananda. What does this mean to your enemies, and to your prisoners? It’s not a rulebook. You must decide what is the most satcitanandamaya (made of satcitananda) thing to do in a certain situation, but in order to do that you must personally, directly feel the living God within your consciousness, and allow this awareness to guide your actions. What will those actions be, it depends on the circumstances. Bhagavata-purana is full of stories about what God would do in a certain situation, but it’s not a rulebook, it’s inspiration. It’s not for stupid people, who only want simple rules to obey. This is a sophisticated, nuanced approach, sometimes called karma-yoga, essentially doing things in such a way that your actions are a form of yoga, unity with God. It’s not a list of things allowed and prohibited, because seemingly evil means can do great good, and seemingly good means can do great evil. But if you surrender your actions to God, whom you first need to feel within, then your actions will be correct and will manifest sat-cit-ananda.

That’s why I love Krishna, partially because how he improvises proper action in astonishing ways, and fucks with people’s established ideas of right and wrong; the purpose of the stories is to gradually get you to understand that Krishna is what is right, that he is the way, the truth and the life, that his improvisations are God in action, that God isn’t static and correct action isn’t a rulebook; it’s a dance to the tune of God, and God is gloriously beautiful and funny and an ocean of intelligence that is wide open. That’s also why I hate Islam so much, because its religion is a rulebook and its god is a stupid evil cunt.