Flaws in the idea of an "Afterlife" (#44)

I don't believe that anything happens after you die, I don't think there is reincarnation, I don't believe in any of that. When you die, I don't know what happens, we probably physically die and our body's biological structure decays into atoms of other elements and becomes more substances that are part of the earth. That's my assumption, at least.

I am an atheist when it comes to my beliefs in god, and the afterlife. I am agnostic in a sense when it comes to the philosophical study and talks of religion, so I'm pretty open minded when it comes to religious affiliated talk. To me believing in nothing after death is a completely logical (and there is very little room for error that I know of) way of believing in what happens after you die. I actually changed into an atheist from an agnostic because of all the flaws I found in the idea of heaven and hell and afterlife.

When I kept on finding flaws in the idea of religion and after life, I dropped from my mind the idea of a heaven and hell. It all seems too absurd, I found people justifying their behavior and actions based in the name (and hope) of an afterlife. I find it absurd that people do things in life that are supposedly good, all for the hope of going to heaven. People don't do things because they value doing that particular thing that is "good", people usually do something because they are afraid of going to hell and not being accepted into heaven. Now, I found this rather questionable, because a lot of major religious figures, and value in our human society, all preach the idea of no judgment towards others. So, apparently in order to go to heaven, you are judged based on a set of circumstantial choices, that these religions supply you, about what your supposed to do, otherwise you go to this bad place. What kind of fairness is that? I thought were not supposed to be judgmental?

The counter argument is that apparently god is all powerful and our creator, so therefore that automatically gives god the power to judge and direct us where he feels. I find that even more absurd. So basically this god is a selfish and unforgiving god that uses his power to justify his actions of judging and directing us towards our consequences? That's a god? This god certainly isn't a nice god, and this god is apparently extremely childish. Look at some of the things people on earth put up with, and still go on, and this god cant take some people making mistakes and/or cant forgive us for our thoughts and actions? No, if this god is all powerful and really did create me and doesn't have a sense of other peoples values then I want nothing to do with him then. Maybe god understands this, and doesn't see a need for a heaven then. What if that's the case?

I see heaven as more as a wish fulfillment mechanism, almost like a defense mechanism for humans, as a way to cope with the idea of death. Most people long for heaven, but probably would go crazy if they could consciously think and act in a heaven for a long time, because they would get bored of everything after a while. And some people say "No, one can never get bored in heaven." But I disagree, there are even stricter laws in heaven. You cant do certain things that are deemed as bad, immoral, or unethical, or even THINK in certain ways, because if you do then you will be sent to hell. There is no violence of any form, no drugs, no destruction, no immoral things; no bad things can happen. People want conflict and action in there lives, and in heaven I don't see any of that happening. Most people don't know what to do with themselves already in their lives, what chance to they have in heaven.

"Millions long for immortality who don't know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon." -Susan Ertz, Anger in the Sky

But who defines bad? Apparently, according to everyone, god does. But as I said earlier, why does he get to choose what is right and wrong? Just because he's my creator? And therefore I should bow down and accept this? No. I never asked to live…or maybe apparently I did. Whatever the case, there is no way I would want him to dictate my values, lifestyles and thoughts. What kind of freedom do I have then? If god dictates all of my actions and thoughts, either purposefully or inadvertently, and if I'm a bad person, why did he create me in the first place? So I can fail and be sent to heaven? Why didn't he just create me there? If he created me and dictates my thoughts and lifestyles, then I have no control over where I go. So, he basically creates someone so they can be put through hell or heaven? That's fair? Why didn't he just create me where he wanted me to be? If there is a god, he certainly doesn't believe in morality.

If god exists, I would hope he judges us and sends us to places that create the illusion of control and fulfill that existential need of purpose that all humans desire. I would hope god sends us to our own place that fulfills all of our individual needs, rather than some generalized values that he made up; That's not a god in my opinion then. Ultimately, I wish there was a heaven, or reincarnation or something, But I've trained myself to think logically, analytically, and truthfully. Hence my logic refuses to believe in an afterlife and god, and it probably always will.

Democracy and Revolution (#43)

Democracy and Revolution

The idea of a Democracy was impossible to many peoples minds during the 17th century when the American Revolutionary War started to come into reality. The revolutionary war, of course, wasn't called the revolution or the revolutionary war during that time period. Rather, people that were fighting off the British were considered traitors and rebels, the modern day terrorists of that time.

Now-a-days, we have a new label for any dissenters of certain avenues of thought, and they are called terrorists. Our Forefathers feared that the United States wouldn't stay a democracy, or would even split apart and become separate entities, but above all they feared that democracy was merely another test type of government that would inevitably fail and fall apart, because of the minds of men.

Many people say that, the time of democracy 'fading' has come and past, and that the United States will stay a democracy (and therefore all the ideas the US stands for will stay "in the ring"). Most people think that, from studying history, that the Civil War (and many other time periods, I was just throwing one out there) was when the United States almost became a different type of government and country. Most people think that time when the United States almost disintegrated has come and past, but I believe we are on a new confrontation on whether the united states will stay a democratic nation, with modern day technology and a rapidly changing culture things may change.

This new confrontation is about Democracy and the United States, the new changing culture and beliefs of our Democracy pushed into reality because of new security enhancements and newer systems of social control and conformity. With the combined efforts of these new ideas of social control and physical control we have something not called a democracy but rather, something more like a controlling state of government.

For an example of social control, an idea festers throughout our culture on how to "better" our society by changing the way people think, with the idea that changing the way people think (into their own "perfect" ideals) will ultimately create a more perfect society.

An example of physical control would be restricting movements, abilities, and activities with new laws and "morals" from our government and culture. A new form of government would be bred from the combined efforts of social control and physical control. This new government, some kind of socialist-dictatorship type of government, seems to be manifesting under the name of democracy. Democracy is not dead yet, and with the minds of many, there is still possibility that democracy can stay alive forever.

Many people though, get confused on what the idea of democracy is. Even hierarchs in power seem to be inadvertently (or maybe intentionally) creating a controlling type of society, in the name of righteous ideals: "justice, good, right and wrong, god, freedom, laws, morals, etc". We are becoming a nation bent on justifying our actions based on those ideals of righteousness that we made up or were "taught". We will justify our actions no matter what the outcome, no matter the consequence and screw everybody that isn't on our side. If you dissent against the ideas of what our government or culture provides you, you can be labeled a terrorist, or some sort of vigilante rebel.

You might be targeted and monitored, which doesn't always matter, it can be disconcerting, but isn't a threat. It starts to matter (and thus become a problem)when arrests start being made on things like swearing, or disagreement of an idea that some hierarch or politician thinks about what is right. It starts to matter when you get arrested or hurt by the government for doing some miniscule act against the law, when it doesn't really harm anything, say for example something like Urban Gymnastics (I just threw something I like to do out there). When you start getting arrested, killed, or displaced from the country based on your ideas of certain things within the law, out of the law, and even the law itself, then there's a problem with our new democracy and its laws and ideals.

My other main concern with the United States is this new surge of social coercion and control. Social control has been around since the beginning of time, and it occurs within every species, especially ours. However, this new surge of social control with the advent of certain acts, like columbine, Virginia tech, 9/11, et cetera, all cause the public and certain prominent people to polarize certain views of how society should act and behave.

For example there is this idea about "teaching" people, from when your a kid, how to be right, or how to act, what is right and wrong. That's not teaching, that's breeding, THAT is manipulation and coercion. How can you know that you are have the correct ideals of what is right and wrong; who is to say that you know any better than anyone else what is right and wrong. If we start to teach our kids how to be a certain way, and you also teach them that it is wrong to be ANY OTHER way besides this way, then you make yourself nothing more than a controlling parent, a dictator in your own den.

If you do not allow dissent from your opinion then you aren't allowing someone freedom to think. There has been many criticisms on parents and society to teach people from birth how to act right and good. That mentality is very basic, very primitive, and the idea seems promising from a first glance, but it offers no form of other thought, no new forms of imaginative thinking. It doesn't allow you to think any other way, but this way. It destroys freethought--the very thing this country was built on.

If we are to start to teach people how to act, or what to think, and allow them no other way to think, then we would be in an age of oppression. The oppressors would be the people in "power". If people in governmental power created the notion that all people are to think alike and play "good" citizen, as to prevent certain acts of terrorism, domestic or foreign, then they create a reaction to the action; which is nothing less than control, and a dictatorship.

To sum up, with the new rise in many peoples desires to have everyone act a certain way, be a certain way, think a certain way, and if you think any other way then you are a terrorist, or some sort of rebel, or psychopath. And of course in our society if you are a rebel or psychopath, or weird, or a terrorist,or just some outcast to the norm of a culture, you have to either be altered (mentally) or eliminated for the sake of "good, god, justice or freedom"; if this is true then this is nothing more or less than a controlling society.

If the government starts to make laws trying to teach people how to act, how to behave and be "good"; if they warn people that dissenting from the thinking the government provides the individual, then that person must be changed, then we're in nothing more than a dictatorship, or some form of a new socialist type government. With the new advent of many formations of laws and technology, the government can almost grasp a firm grip (either inadvertently, or purposefully) on what we call Democracy, or what the United States stands for. To paraphrase what Thomas Paine said, "the least controlling government is the best government"...control can be impeded with a balance of opposition.

Democracy is a constant balance of powers, a struggle per-se. In order for a democracy to survive there must be balance of powers throughout the government and the society where democracy resides. Balance should occur not only in government positions themselves, but also from within the individual branches of governmental powers. Balance should occur, above all else, in the non-governmental part of a democracy, it should come from the individuals in the society. And when I talk about balance I don't mean just protests, I don't mean to sound radical, but rarely things get done (and things have rarely changed) through peaceful and lawful protesting, and law enforcement are always itching for the urge to blame and use a number of "violent" protesters as a scapegoat to access more control, or as a means to elevate their interest level in their job.

I'm also not condoning the use of violence or destructive means to get to an end, but rarely during the American revolution did prominent individuals (like our forefathers or revolutionists) stop their acts in the name of the curent law, and sometimes the acts were violent, or terrorist-like (but it was just war, right?...sarcasm). And of course there were times when the acts themselves weren't hurtful and didn't do any real harm to anyone. The law was the problem during the revolution, now our problem is social control and too much physical power in a government body, or individual embodiment of a group integrated in some higher power within society.

With too much pressure on individuals by their friends, parents, teachers, media and government on how to be right and act right, people will often follow what the group says about the correct form of behavior in how to act. But there is no 'one' correct way to act, but rather, a balance of ways to act. The way to act, is, to think for yourself, whatever means that is. There should be someone to balance your behavior and acts, or complete your behavior and dispositions. But if everyone thought or acted the same then this country and this world would be nothing more than control, constant political, social, control and propaganda.

To restate: Our Forefathers feared that the United States wouldn't stay a democracy, or would even split apart and become separate entities, but above all they feared that democracy was merely another test type of government that would inevitably fail and fall apart, because of the 'minds of men'. If we hope to retain the true form of a democracy, and all that the United States stands for we should, as individuals, intervene into government relations at any and all levels of government and societal hierarchy, without this form of intervention, then as the forefathers of democracy thought: this country is lost and democracy no longer exists.