All Atheists Go To Heaven
March 30th 2008 03:45
I have a theory about atheism that just hit me today.
I'm a late convert, by the way. Two men appeared at my door one day saying they'd like to talk to me about Dawkins. Several fasting and blood-letting ceremonies later, and I was officially welcomed in to the exclusive club known as Atheism.
Anyway, my theory goes like this...
If science is defined as that which can be not only proven, but DISproven, then you only need to alter your definition of God in order to make him fit the model. This isn't a particularly difficult or blasphemous thing to do. Religions have been redefining God since the Big Bang. I mean, the Garden of Eden. Even Christianity can't stick to a canon with any real fidelity. The God in the Old Testament is markedly different to the one in the New Testament. It's a drastic recasting that only "Bewitched" has been brave enough to emulate.
Christianity keeps trying to accelerate in order to beat science, but as any decent car chase or Road Runner cartoon will prove, the best thing to do in a situation like that is to slam the brakes on and let the other sail right on past you. My point is this: even forgetting the differences in portrayal between Testaments, Christianity has God as being the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, each with their own different characteristics and definitions. The field is clearly wide open for a new interpretation, and the best way to embrace this is by retrograding God.
The starting point is that God apparently inhabits All Things. If this is true, then He inhabited my two bedroom flat in Queensland. Given that the Catholic church refused to pay half my rent, chip in for groceries, or do the fucking dishes (Jesus Christ, do I have to do everything?), there are only two explanations: either the Catholic church is cheap and mean and full of total bastards, or God did not inhabit my flat. As I could never bring myself to say or think anything negative about the Catholic church, I can only assume that it's the latter (back me up, Ratzinger). In a choice between blasphemy and heresy, I'll take the one that doesn't immediately set me on fire.
So if God does not inhabit All Things, and clearly didn't inhabit My Flat, the new doctrine can only be that God inhabits Some Things. So what determines whether God inhabits Thing A as opposed to Thing B? A cheque for back rental payments from the Vatican? I wish. No, there must be a way to determine whether God inhabits a given thing, consequently leading to a way to disprove that God inhabits a given thing, consequently forcing science into accepting God as a legitimate scientific force in the universe.
Okay, fundamental to the concept of God is that idea of a consciousness at work (and don't give me that "God is another word for love" nonsense, because there's no point in me proving the existence of Love when Nora Ephron has beaten me to the punch so many times before). This consciousness allows itself to manifest in a way that is, at first glance, inexplicable by natural, non-conscious, "scientific" cause and effect means.
Prime example: the face of the madonna suddenly appearing in a sticky bun in Bolivia.
The logic police will tell you that the shape of a face is a naturally-occuring coincidence, and that we're simply applying our own interpretation to a pattern that is just as random as the several million sticky buns that don't feature the Virgin Mary's features. Think on this: there are millions of art lovers in the world, and yet none of them ever alert the world's media to the face of one of Picasso's women appearing in a baked good. Nose on the side, eye next to the nostril, mouth on an angle that would make oral sex either better or worse (depending on how you look at it -- just like art!). The reason for this? There are never any "near-faces" on sticky buns. God doesn't go halfway through a face and then get distracted by a "Seinfeld" rerun. The so-called law of averages doesn't accidentally put the ear on the chin. No, we either get natural folds, creases and icing formations, or we get Jesus's mother staring back at us in such a way as to imply that we haven't called in weeks.
We now have a reasonable theory that doesn't just prove that God might have had a hand in the baking of sweet breads, but a reasonable theory to show that there are times when he hasn't. With this flawless scientific model in place, we now have no choice to accept that God exists.
Conclusion: the only way that we were able to unassailably and incontrovertibly realise that God must -- beyond any reasonable doubt -- exist, is by first denying your basic religious model of unquestioning faith. Once you've done that, you'll have sailed right past the wishy-washy halfway house of inconclusiveness known as agnosticism, and defined yourself as a card-carrying fully up-paid atheist.
How would God react to that?
Well, any Supreme Being that's smart enough get Himself out of paying my rent and knows when to hold back on the sticky bun appearances must also be reasonable enough to prize evidence above, well, a complete lack of it. Also, if we're creating our very own model of God using Vatican-approved retconning, then ours is surely a clever and thoughtful God who will value proof above faith. By that logic, it's reasonable to assume that He would only permit atheists -- his newfound Chosen People -- into Heaven.
So, now that you know the truth, I expect to see you all up there in the afterlife. In the meantime, I'm off to work on a mathematical proof that shows how Hell is exclusively for people who create reality TV shows.
I'm a late convert, by the way. Two men appeared at my door one day saying they'd like to talk to me about Dawkins. Several fasting and blood-letting ceremonies later, and I was officially welcomed in to the exclusive club known as Atheism.
Anyway, my theory goes like this...
If science is defined as that which can be not only proven, but DISproven, then you only need to alter your definition of God in order to make him fit the model. This isn't a particularly difficult or blasphemous thing to do. Religions have been redefining God since the Big Bang. I mean, the Garden of Eden. Even Christianity can't stick to a canon with any real fidelity. The God in the Old Testament is markedly different to the one in the New Testament. It's a drastic recasting that only "Bewitched" has been brave enough to emulate.
Christianity keeps trying to accelerate in order to beat science, but as any decent car chase or Road Runner cartoon will prove, the best thing to do in a situation like that is to slam the brakes on and let the other sail right on past you. My point is this: even forgetting the differences in portrayal between Testaments, Christianity has God as being the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, each with their own different characteristics and definitions. The field is clearly wide open for a new interpretation, and the best way to embrace this is by retrograding God.
The starting point is that God apparently inhabits All Things. If this is true, then He inhabited my two bedroom flat in Queensland. Given that the Catholic church refused to pay half my rent, chip in for groceries, or do the fucking dishes (Jesus Christ, do I have to do everything?), there are only two explanations: either the Catholic church is cheap and mean and full of total bastards, or God did not inhabit my flat. As I could never bring myself to say or think anything negative about the Catholic church, I can only assume that it's the latter (back me up, Ratzinger). In a choice between blasphemy and heresy, I'll take the one that doesn't immediately set me on fire.
So if God does not inhabit All Things, and clearly didn't inhabit My Flat, the new doctrine can only be that God inhabits Some Things. So what determines whether God inhabits Thing A as opposed to Thing B? A cheque for back rental payments from the Vatican? I wish. No, there must be a way to determine whether God inhabits a given thing, consequently leading to a way to disprove that God inhabits a given thing, consequently forcing science into accepting God as a legitimate scientific force in the universe.
Okay, fundamental to the concept of God is that idea of a consciousness at work (and don't give me that "God is another word for love" nonsense, because there's no point in me proving the existence of Love when Nora Ephron has beaten me to the punch so many times before). This consciousness allows itself to manifest in a way that is, at first glance, inexplicable by natural, non-conscious, "scientific" cause and effect means.
Prime example: the face of the madonna suddenly appearing in a sticky bun in Bolivia.
The logic police will tell you that the shape of a face is a naturally-occuring coincidence, and that we're simply applying our own interpretation to a pattern that is just as random as the several million sticky buns that don't feature the Virgin Mary's features. Think on this: there are millions of art lovers in the world, and yet none of them ever alert the world's media to the face of one of Picasso's women appearing in a baked good. Nose on the side, eye next to the nostril, mouth on an angle that would make oral sex either better or worse (depending on how you look at it -- just like art!). The reason for this? There are never any "near-faces" on sticky buns. God doesn't go halfway through a face and then get distracted by a "Seinfeld" rerun. The so-called law of averages doesn't accidentally put the ear on the chin. No, we either get natural folds, creases and icing formations, or we get Jesus's mother staring back at us in such a way as to imply that we haven't called in weeks.
We now have a reasonable theory that doesn't just prove that God might have had a hand in the baking of sweet breads, but a reasonable theory to show that there are times when he hasn't. With this flawless scientific model in place, we now have no choice to accept that God exists.
Conclusion: the only way that we were able to unassailably and incontrovertibly realise that God must -- beyond any reasonable doubt -- exist, is by first denying your basic religious model of unquestioning faith. Once you've done that, you'll have sailed right past the wishy-washy halfway house of inconclusiveness known as agnosticism, and defined yourself as a card-carrying fully up-paid atheist.
How would God react to that?
Well, any Supreme Being that's smart enough get Himself out of paying my rent and knows when to hold back on the sticky bun appearances must also be reasonable enough to prize evidence above, well, a complete lack of it. Also, if we're creating our very own model of God using Vatican-approved retconning, then ours is surely a clever and thoughtful God who will value proof above faith. By that logic, it's reasonable to assume that He would only permit atheists -- his newfound Chosen People -- into Heaven.
So, now that you know the truth, I expect to see you all up there in the afterlife. In the meantime, I'm off to work on a mathematical proof that shows how Hell is exclusively for people who create reality TV shows.
| 78 |
| Vote |
Shared on
Subscribe to this blog
