Double Flee A

In a world without god

First off, if there were no such thing as churches teaching about god, we would all be atheists, and we wouldn't call each other atheists, scoffing and spitting as we did so. That is world "A".

In world "B", the presence of an invisible god is a foregone conclusion. The evidence is everywhere, from the earthquakes that occur where morality is insufficient, to the "miracle" of reproduction. In world B, it's a point of contention no matter what a person believes about his "spirit", because somebody else thinks he's wrong, and not only wrong, but trying to poison the minds of others, because his beliefs are wrong and therefore evil lies.

Related: if an animal gives birth in the woods and no monotheist is there to see it, does it make a miracle?

In world A, there isn't any magical powerful extra-worldly force that can be invoked by chanting or the supplicative mode of psychotic groveling called prayer. In world A, what you see is what you get.

So let's imagine a magic traveling machine is given to each of these different worlds, so that one person from each of them can go and visit the other one and then come back to report on what they learned.

In world A, an articulate, open-minded person steps into the machine.

In world B, if they can ever stop bickering over who god would have chosen to go and not have a war about whose god would have made the decision in the first place, an articulate believer steps into the machine. Assuming he doesn't break it because it's evil. (And in this case, I think it's more than likely it would be a he and not a she.)

Would you rather be in world A when the believer came around, or world B when the rational person came around? One event would look a bit more barbaric and one would be more pathetic.

Related: violence is ALWAYS patriotic. Discuss.

After they've visited and picked up the information they all agreed should be gathered beforehand, they come back to give their reports.

The worlds are silent as the reports are read.

You can imagine what takes place. World A has a good laugh and world B fights about the weaknesses of the observer.

Why do I have any energy on this if I identify as atheist in my beliefs? Because life ought to be a lot more investigational and less speculative, and religion has had a lock on rightness and wrongness of curiosity ever since it was invented. I think you'll agree with a guy named Doug when he says that the scientific method is the most powerful investigational tool ever devised. The method tests ideas. An idea manages to be correct enough to withstand everything people could think of to throw at it, it lives to fight another day. If not, it dies. But this amazing and marvelous tool does not apply to religious matters, and why not? Because the existence of god is sacred or holy. Outside this flagitious abuse of intellect, it's painfully obvious to me and to people I respect that there is no such thing as effective centrally controlled organization. Painful because when I go through my days, week in, week out, I neither hear nor see a single radio program, movie, or television program on which even one fucking person would begin to assert, or assume, even for shits and giggles, that there might not be a god up in the sky someplace. This is irksome.

What is annoying about it above all else is that there is a very simple way of looking at it all.
There is top-down control, and there is bottom-up organization. Let's look at the reality of these two models.

Religion came along and organized itself in the same way as that which it propounded. Top-down, which has never worked sustainably for exactly the same reason that socialism didn't work, namely, the leadership doesn't know how much soap I need this week. That is why Marxists, upon learning the basics of economics, become quite embarassed.

Religion sells an invisible product that has never been known to have been delivered. It's completely imaginary, which is what makes it so interesting. It's a mass delusion. Mass hysteria, if you've been to certain churches. And mass hysteria sets loose the tether of reason, freeing that which is ugliest in human nature. See "national socialist workers party", "wehrmacht", and "nazi" for details.
Non-religion, on the other hand, tells you exactly what it's up to; bottom-up organization, which means let the market decide. The alternative is bullshit, of course. "Let's have god himself make up the rules, k? Then he'll tell me, k? Then I'll tell you, and that settles it! Who's with me? Oh, there's heaven and salvation, too! And streets of gold! And if thou dost not as I say I shall have thee burned!" (See Spanish inquisition.)

The case for bottom up organization makes itself. Democracy was a joke when it was suggested. So was a free market economy, even though those in the know have always understood it was the nature of money to travel freely over the globe. The more people use money, the more powerful it is. See the invisible hand of Adam Smith. The more people use anything, the more powerful it is. The power of anything man-made is in the number of people using that thing, whether it's money, religion, or whatever. It's powerful because it's imaginary. Therefore it's powerful because it's powerful. That is a tautology that applies to all the world. It is because it is. And that tautology applies to life, as well. There cannot rationally be said to exist a reason for life, although its variety and proliferation is easy to explain. Life just is, and it bothers the shit out of me that ape-beast humans want to tell each other the way it is, why it's here, and then that the rest of us just let that behavior slide. The next, if there ever is one, stride forward in human development will be the rejection of top-down control, top-down ideas, and trusting that once we turn each other loose to do as we please, the whole world will not come flying apart. Conversely, just as it always has, only the parts we didn't need anyway will be the ones to vanish.

Just to avoid any confusion, by parts we don't need, I mean god, church, finger-wagging assholes, and the bulk of governmental bereaucracy. Clinging to power as if out of habit, they have to be destroyed for the sake of the future of mankind. Not a terrorist threat, just a statement of fact.

posted by dale @ 11:45 AM