God Deserves to Burn in Hell

Pic: John Martin: 'Fallen Angels in Hell' (PD)

Pic: John Martin: ‘Fallen Angels in Hell’ (PD)

Shade writes at Contemplating:

Any maker of our universe could either completely not give a damn about it, in which case it is fully irrelevant, or have some vested interest in stuff that’s going on inside it. According to many people, the ‘interested’ higher power is exactly what there is. And insofar as it is interested (although it’s a bit difficult to conceive of the highest form of intelligence in the universe that would give a damn about what some amoebae that we are compared to it may be doing or saying…), people go out of their ways to try to second-guess what may please such a being and tickle its vanity…  Why all this is absurd in and of itself is covered in my other post “Nothing Personal“, so let’s move on to the current subject at hand, which is the following: even IF there had been a higher power, it is unworthy of regard, let alone obedience and praise.ANY ‘interested’ or capable of empathy higher power (magic or not) who would have made such a universe as ours is a psychopathic sadist. That is ANY architect of the cosmos, even if it’s aliens. Most people’s version of a god is claimed to be ‘loving’ or ‘caring’. Any of their gods ‘loves’ everyone SO friggin’ much that it couldn’t conceive of creating any other type of universe for its ‘dearly beloved’ than the most inhospitable, cruel and difficult one to exist in. As a special token of boundless adoration, it made sure that the vast majority of life forms, including sentient apes called ‘humans’, who’d ever exist and would be self-aware enough to experience suffering definitively WOULD suffer. Most of them for absolutely no wrongdoings of their own and in manners that would serve absolutely zero purpose. For example, there are babies who are born with a genetic disorder that causes the butterfly wings syndrome: they lack proteins that bind different layers of skin. As a result, any touch to them causes blisters and bleeding – even ingesting food is torture. They suffer excruciating pain every minute of their lives and die quickly. Examples like this one are countless.

In addition, in many versions of an architect of the universe there exists some sort of a cozy retreat that is also designed by such an architect called ‘hell’. People suffer there eternally as a ‘punishment’ for limited in time and scope (and mostly profoundly mundane) ‘transgressions’. It’s a bit difficult to conceive of such a collection of wrongdoings, no matter how violent and cruel and numerous, that would warrant any form of an eternal retribution… In fact, it is impossible – that is, if you are a sane, moral human being. But I digress…

So here’s that higher power who decided upon creating that model of the universe where such stuff happens routinely… It’s created the universe, and now is watching all the horrible things happen and (if you believe in that) poor punished ones writhe in eternal agony in hell, maybe even feeling sad about it but doing fuck all to change the situation. In psychology it’s classified as sadism and psychopathy. In the framework of any type of a belief, it is classified as ‘benevolence’ and ‘working in mysterious ways’ and ‘non-interference with ‘free will”…

Neither of those excuses is anything but a lame attempt to somehow justify and absolve of fault of the greatest asshole imaginable. Let’s see about benevolence: I, a ‘lower’ life form, am far better than any god can dream of being. Because in 10 minutes time I can brainstorm a far better, fairer universe than it came up with. In the words of a wise man, Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? -Epicurus. There truly is no squaring that circle, no matter how hard one tries. If even I can think of a universe that, let’s grant even, WOULD include some degree of hardship and suffering and death, but won’t include abundance of all of the above that serves no imaginable purposes of any sorts (like the mentioned butterfly wings syndrome) – why didn’t the all-powerful architect of the universe manage to create a better model?

Read more here.

, , , ,

  • http://www.ContraControl.com/ Zenc

    It has long been my policy that if god and I ever cross paths, one of us is getting a serious ass-whipping.

    • echar

      If you are a pantheist, anyone or anything’s ass that you kick (that is if it or they have one) would mean you’ve kicked God’s ass. Including yourself. So if you kick an ass, you are kicking your own ass. If it is an ass (donkey), and you kick it’s ass; you’d be kicking God’s ass, as well as your ass.

      • http://www.ContraControl.com/ Zenc

        I’m down for a little self-abuse.

        • American Cannibal

          kinky.

        • echar

          Is kicking God’s ass a euphemism for mastrubating?

          • http://www.ContraControl.com/ Zenc

            Hmm. Maybe it is now.

            Hell, maybe it was when Onan did it.

            It does have a better ring than “Killing Kittens”.

    • American Cannibal

      So take my hand
      we’ll disappear to above the sun
      to far from here
      no, i don’t know you and you don’t know me
      i just had to talk to you, you see

      the arrogance, a foolish move
      if you take a risk, your hearts improve

      see, you don’t know me and i don’t know you
      i’m not weird, or queer, my aim is true

      so take my hand
      we’ll disappear to above the sun
      to far from here
      no, i don’t know you and you don’t know me
      i just had to talk to you, you see

      so say you’ll come, please come girl
      you could be the one for all i know
      no i don’t know you
      but i’d sure like to
      i just see the light, it looks like you

      so take my hand

  • mannyfurious

    I feel like I should attempt to give some kind of minimal qualification for the simple response I had originally intended to type, because when it comes to any discussion that includes the word “God,” people don’t actually try to listen or comprehend what other people are trying to say. Instead, their brains shut off and their biases–one way or the other–become fully sentient and begin to respond for them.

    Anyhow, I qualify what I’m about to type simply by saying that I do not believe in any kind of anthropomorphic “God” or the Abrahamic “God” or any kind of “God” whose “consciousness” would resemble anything resembling human consciousness.

    With that said, it takes some kind of delusion and/or inflated sense of self to believe that with our very limited and limiting human consciousness, that we would even have any idea of what is “Good” with a capital-G or “Bad” with a capital-B. And that delusion would, logically, extend into any idea that we would be able to understand any kind of God-consciousness in the same way. If there really were a “God,” how would we even be able to comprehend it? We wouldn’t. And so we wouldn’t be in any kind of possession to judge. The same goes for a secular universe. To use or very small human-conscious ideas of “morality” to judge the quality of this world is foolhardy.

    Well, that didn’t turn out simple at all, but that’s the nature of these conversations, I suppose….

    • http://www.ContraControl.com/ Zenc

      I think the sort of argument detailed in the article is intended to be more of a critique and thought provoking exercise aimed at “organized religion” than a philosophical attack against every form of “god”.

      And as such, it is effective.

      Either “god” (as popularly conceived) is a real dick, or the guys in robes and big hats have it wrong.

      An intellectual crutch, to help one stay upright and keep moving while recovering from the “god is my dad” malady.

      Philosophical crampons that you use for a while, then discard once you’re clear of the ice.

      But to view your argument from a different angle, if god is something beyond our ken, then it is something beyond our ken.

      Who’s to say it’s delusional or pathologically egotistical to make said judgments.

      Could be what we’re supposed to do. It certainly seems natural and common enough.

      TLDR: I’ve got a set of brass knucks that are surprisingly immune to nuance.

    • Andrew

      “Any consideration of the goodness of God at once threatens us with the following dilemma. On
      the one hand, if God is wiser than we His judgment must differ from
      ours on many things, and not least on good and evil. What seems to us
      good may therefore not be good in His eyes, and what seems to us evil
      may not be evil.

      “On the other hand, if God’s moral judgment differs
      from ours so that our ‘black’ may be His ‘white,’ we can mean nothing by
      calling Him good; for to say ‘God is good,’ while asserting that His
      goodness is wholly other than ours, is really only to say ‘God is we
      know not what.’ And an utterly unknown quality in God cannot give us
      moral grounds for loving or obeying Him. If He is not (in our sense)
      ‘good’ we shall obey, if at all, only through fear – and should be
      equally ready to obey an omnipotent Fiend. The doctrine of Total
      Depravity – where the consequence is drawn that, since we are totally
      depraved, our idea of good is worth simply nothing – may thus turn
      Christianity into a form of devil-worship.”

      – C. S. Lewis

      • http://www.ContraControl.com/ Zenc

        I’m sort of interested in how Lewis resolves this issue. A quick search indicates that the quote originates from _The Problem of Pain_ .

        I assume the resolution resides there as well?

        • Andrew

          It depends on how convincing you find his apologetics.

      • Adam’s Shadow

        “…for to say ‘God is good,’ while asserting that His goodness is wholly
        other than ours, is really only to say ‘God is we know not what.’ And
        an utterly unknown quality in God cannot give us moral grounds for
        loving or obeying Him”

        I think that about sums it up for me.

    • Gjallarbru

      In masonic rite I know well, the Great Architec is said to be only definable by silence. I find this to be the only way to discuss God, with silence in all its forms.

      • American Cannibal

        nice.

        • Gjallarbru

          Glad you like it.

      • JCM0165

        ” “

        • Gjallarbru

          Too true…

    • drokhole

      I’m reminded of one of my favorite parables. Given your avatar, I feel you might be familiar with it:

      Once upon a time, there was a Chinese farmer who lost a horse. Ran away. And all the neighbors came around that evening and said, ‘That’s too bad.’

      And the farmer said, ‘Maybe.’

      The next day the horse came back and brought seven wild horses with it, and all the neighbors came around and said, ‘Why, that’s great, isn’t it?!’

      And he said, ‘Maybe.’”

      The next day his son was attempting to tame one of these horses and was riding it, and was thrown and broke his leg. And all the neighbors came around in the evening and said, “Well, that’s too bad, isn’t it?’

      And he said, ‘Maybe.’

      And the next day the conscription officers came around looking for people for the army and they rejected his son because he had a broken leg. And all the neighbors came around that evening and said, ‘Isn’t that wonderful?’

      And the farmer said, ‘Maybe.’

      Alan Watts provided a great coda to this story:

      “This, in a way, in a certain sense, reflects a fundamentally Taoistic attitude. Which is that, the whole process of Nature is an integrated process of immense complexity, and it is really impossible to tell whether anything that happens in it is good or bad. Because you never know what will be the consequences of a misfortune. Or, you never know what will be the consequences of good fortune.”

  • BuzzCoastin

    if wee didn’t exist god would have to invent us
    butt
    if he was god he’d already know
    it’s an exercise in futility
    and go back to making universes without us

  • jimpliciter

    Agreed, this place chugs a large one.

    • American Cannibal

      Then you’re not doing it right, son.

    • American Cannibal

      So take my hand
      we’ll disappear to above the sun
      to far from here
      no, i don’t know you and you don’t know me
      i just had to talk to you, you see

      the arrogance, a foolish move
      if you take a risk, your hearts improve

      see, you don’t know me and i don’t know you
      i’m not weird, or queer, my aim is true

  • American Cannibal

    Someone needs a hugg, Good German. Didn’t ya mama teach you All You Need is Love?

  • Anti-Crowley

    Other than this article sounding more like a really lengthy post that belongs under a real article, the German needs to explain where this evil he claims exists comes from. To say something is evil, Then to say that God is morally wrong for allowing it presumes a moral law that you cannot meaningfully invoke without a transcendant moral establisher by which to differintiate between good and evil. Without God you have only meaningless relativistic morality. But to establish your argument you premise that God is real…then accuse God of being mean and not worthy of praise. This whole article is void of formal logic. ..fine for a comment, embarrassing as a op-ed or formally published article.

  • doodahman

    The poster assumes that there is no functionality to suffering, that suffering is not perhaps the only human experience that spurs real growth of the soul. That accounts for this idiot turning what is perhaps the most profound question of any believer into a one dimensional brain whoopee cushion. Catholics are taught that suffering IS our salvation– that in suffering we are forced to let go of the false self, to stop clinging to scraps of garbage and turn to the only true source of peace and “security”– the adoption of the Cosmic Consciousness– or submission to the will of God (view it as you will). But, I guess some people don’t like being a human being and would prefer to be a pet.

  • HCE

    I encounter these sorts of ideas/rants/discussions fairly regularly. What I notice they all seem to lack is putting any responsibility on the human race, and the vicissitudes of life on Earth in general as the primary cause for most of the ugly things that go on. So what if something else created the Universe(s), at some point we humans need to take responsibility for our actions, and quit fobbing it off on some mysterious deity.

    The other thing is that *things happen*. If I go surfing off the coast of Australia or South Africa, and get mauled, well that’s not the fault of some Primary Cause, deity
    or whatever. It’s because I was a dumb ass and went surfing in a dangerous place. And everything is in motion in an interdependent, interwoven chain of cause and effect. So if I’m the victim of some senseless crime, or terrible accident, that’s just the nature of life on this planet. Deal with it, and quit trying to find something or someone to blame. Trying to find the ultimate cause of why anyone does anything would require unweaving a near infinite number of threads in a nearly endless fabric.