S
Faith With Reason?
  • Home
  • Contra Christum
  • Faith With Reason?
  • Faith With Reason?

    Christian theologian Thomas Aquinas conceived that there are truths about God that we can know using our reason, but also that there are truths about God that lie beyond our reason. But he still thought that those "truths" that couldn't be verified rationally should still be taught as tenets of faith. He gives us three reasons why it should be so, and they are a good illustration of Christianity's extremely low opinion of humanity.

    The first is that it leads to greater virtue (by God's standards, of course) to believe in irrational truths about God than it is to live our frail, sinful lives without such blind faith. In other words, you can't be more virtuous on your humanity alone than someone who believes in irrational truths. But of course the only valid reason for believing in anything is that you're certain of its truth. If you can't apprehend it using your reason, then you have no reason to suppose that it's true, so you can disregard it completely. If we accept the alternative, then the faith of individuals can be manipulated, as indeed we see happening in Christianity's various sects.

    God's word never speaks for itself. There's always someone to interpret it. If you're reading the Bible, then you are interpreting it. If some teacher is reading it for you, then they are interpreting it into teachings, which they pass on to you. There's no such thing as God's word standing on its own, and for that matter, there's no such thing as a neutral reading of any particular work.

    The second reason Aquinas gives is that faith ensures that we do not become too presumptuous, which, he says, begets error. "For there are some so presumptuous of their own genius as to think that they can measure with their understanding the whole nature of the Godhead, thinking all that to be true which seems true to them, and that to be false which does not seem true to them."

    In other words, if you use your own mental faculties to assess a claim, you're being presumptuous of your own genius! Instead, you should admit that you probably aren't the arbiter of what's right and what's wrong and instead swallow everything some other fallible human tells you!

    Your own faculties are all you have to tell truth from lies. If anyone tells you to surrender your own judgement to any extent, they are trying to manipulate you. Your judgement almost certainly isn't perfect, but through continual exercise, it can be refined and polished. But if you never even try, then of course you're going to come to a lot of incorrect conclusions.

    No theologian or apologist ever qualifies what they mean when they say that God is beyond our reason. What kind of reason does God use? How does it differ from our own? Why should there be an arbitrary limit to what our reason can deal with? How can there be two kinds of reason? Reason is reason, that's it. The "beyond reason" excuse is nothing more than an infantile cop-out, which, translated into plain English, means, "I don't know what I'm talking about, so I just have faith that everything really does make sense on some mystical higher plane of reasoning. I let someone else do my thinking for me because it's too hard and boring to do it myself and I'd rather be watching this TV show." It's utter nonsense espoused by people who can't (and don't want to) think properly about what they believe in. Faith is belief sans thought.

    The third reason given by Aquinas is that the soul is perfected more greatly by the things we can't understand using our reason, which is nothing more than a ridiculous (i.e., Christian) conception that actually tells us nothing at all.

    He says all this after essentially saying that most people are too stupid to understand Christian reasoning anyway, and that it would take a long time for them to grasp the "truths" of theology, and that "human" reason is almost always utilised erroneously to some degree anyway, and so they should in fact take everything on faith, not just the things humans can't understand.

    It says rather a lot about God that he supposedly expects his followers to be stupid people who can't reason for themselves, and must therefore take things on faith rather than understand them properly.

    No, the fact is that Christianity is a simplistic religion. Theology is mainly fluff that really doesn't pertain to anything. It's what happens when you attempt to make sense out of senselessness. You should just stick to faith if you're a Christian. Don't bother appealing to reason because it won't work. Christianity isn't a rational religion; it's fraught with outright contradictions that aren't resolved, absurd statements that make no real sense, silly parables that can be interpreted any number of ways, and ridiculous stories that have to be seen to be believed, but actually cannot be seen because they happened in the past.

    There aren't any mysterious truths behind the scenes, nor is there any "natural reason" that pertains to God because he's a wholly invented deity. It's all just nonsense with a side of yet more nonsense.

    If Christianity has a rational side, where is it? It certainly isn't in the Bible.

    *

    Faith and reason cannot coexist. They are polar opposites. All faithfuls show contempt for reason. All rationals show contempt for faith and revelationism. Never the twain shall meet - or, at least, they never should.

    Faith is all about the neglect of reason. It's all about thinking irrationally to convince yourself of whatever you want. It's got nothing to do with the search for truth. It's a tool used by prophets to gain followers and to command the hearts and minds of the masses. It's an implement of subjugation.

    Reason, on the other hand, is all about discovering what's true rather than inventing what's false. It can't be appropriated or controlled, although people can use false yet superficially convincing reasoning to attempt to sway others - but that's a much more difficult task than using faith. Nothing in the Bible would pass as reason under the nose of even the most devout monk.

    The Aquinas Scheme

    So, as Aquinas conceives it, Christianity presents two kinds of knowledge: that obtained through reason (rationalist knowledge) and that obtained through revelation (revelationist knowledge). The idea is that we can only learn so much through reason; it has an upper limit. Beyond that limit, we must rely upon divine revelation for any kind of apprehension.

    No serious school of thought would adopt such a position. Why should there be a limit to reason? No one can explain. Aquinas' scheme of knowledge is nonsensical. It's designed around the concept of God rather than adhering to any investigation of epistemology (the study of knowledge). Because Aquinas was a Christian, he first assumed the existence of his god, then conceived everything else around that - heaven forbid that he come to a conclusion that leaves no room for his precious heavenly Father. Aquinas' theology has nothing to do with reason. It's all founded on faith, and for that reason, one would be very mistaken to call it philosophy. It's faith-based pseudo-philosophical posturing. It tells us nothing of use. It is not a serious attempt at rational investigation of reality. Instead, it's all about trying to understand your ridiculous religion. It's all about inventing God in greater detail than before.

    It's all about attempting to unite faith and reason in one clunky, inelegant, inefficient, unexplained, and fundamentally irrational system. If you can't give a reason for the limit on "human" reason, then your assertion of such a limit must be considered irrational and faithful, meaning that your entire system is founded on nothing at all except your own beliefs, feelings, and interpretations. Christians assume, of course, that their faith is somehow guided by an external God, but if it's on the basis of that faith that they believe in God in the first place, then how can they know whether or not it's erroneous?

    But none of that matters - you can't assess faith according to reason, right?

    Forget it. If it makes no sense, why should anyone believe it? If something makes no sense to you, then anyone who asks you to believe it is manipulating you. They are trying to make you abandon your own intellect and judgement in favour of those of a god you don't even know exists - in which case, you might as well be a robot with no real brain at all. Christianity is intellectual tyranny. It's intellectually toxic to the very last degree. It infects every honest thought and turns it dishonest.

    It's time that Christians started thinking as people, not as slightly alive robots. If you let someone else decide your beliefs, who are you, really? Do you even have an identity, or has that, too, become consumed by faith? Do you have any ability to think for yourself, or can you only think what the Holy Spirit has supposedly planted directly in your head? And what if your beliefs are wrong and you've put faith in a lie for years? What then? Would you ever admit to being wrong for so long, or would you go into denial as most do? Would you take the brave course of action and abandon your faith, or would you double down, becoming more fervent and zealous than before?

    Cognitive dissonance makes us very uncomfortable when we're confronted with evidence against our beliefs, especially our cherished beliefs. We have to somehow reconcile the reason of the counter-argument and the value our belief has to us. The vast majority who experience the phenomenon will never be convinced that their beliefs are wrong. Why? Because it's much simpler and easier to pretend you're right and everyone else is wrong than it is to plunge yourself into a wholly new world of thinking.

    The reason why religion is very often a controversial topic is that it's personal. Believers' identities are invested in their religion. They lose their religion, they lose a large part of their identity. Rather than work to rebuild their identity, believers simply ignore everything contrarian and only listen to things that vindicate them. They exhibit confirmation bias, whereby people only pay attention to things that confirm what they already believe, while ignoring anything against it.

    In other words, faith takes advantage of all kinds of psychological biases. It's no wonder people still believe Bronze Age nonsense in the modern era. It's not intellectually sophisticated, but it is psychologically ingenious - not to give the "Prophets" too much credit. That's why it's survived so long. It continues to ensnare people today.

    As figures like Aquinas demonstrate, faith has nothing to do with reason. The two are totally irrelevant to each other. There's no such thing as a faithful and rational system. It's either one or the other, and if it's based on faith, then good luck convincing any rational person of its truth. Aquinas' segmented epistemology, where one part is reserved for reason and another for revelation, is dressed up nonsense. It's bullshit. It's snake oil. Let no one tell you not to trust your own faculties and judgement.

    Five Ways

    In his Summa Theologiae, Aquinas laid out five ways to prove the existence of God. They are, if not clever, then at least potentially convincing to those who aren't trying to refute them.

    The first of the ways he provides us with is the argument from motion. He says:

    The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

    It's a clever-looking argument, but it falls apart the second you begin to question it. Why must this first mover be God? Why not some other thing that bears no resemblance to God? Aquinas does not tell us.

    He also says that the chain of movers cannot extend infinitely far into the past because then there would be no first mover, and therefore no subsequent motion. We have covered this topic already in our article entitled Infinity: A Misapprehension. It can go on to infinity because, even though there would be no first mover, everything in motion would be preceded by a mover, and therefore, the principle of movers (i.e., that everything must be put in motion by another thing) remains intact. Aquinas is applying finite logic to an infinite sequence, which is a category error. In a finite sequence, every subsequent element depends upon the previous one, and this ultimately means that they all depend upon the first element of the sequence. In an infinite sequence, there is no first element, but every element can still rely upon the previous one; even though there's no first element, we will never run out of elements - we're talking about infinity, something that doesn't end.

    So, there need not be a first mover, and even if there must be, Aquinas has done nothing to show that this first mover is God.

    The second way falls into the same traps as the first way, and it's essentially a broader version of the same argument.

    The third way is a little better:

    The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence — which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.

    The existence of something necessary is reasonable, but again, there's no reason to ascribe to this eternal thing the qualities of God. Aquinas presumes that this is God, which, as he himself so aptly said, is the mother of error.

    And as for one necessary thing being able to necessitate the existence of other things (i.e., conjure them out of nothing) - no explanation is given of this. If its existence is necessary, it exists already and has always existed. If unnecessary things could become necessary (which they can't because they don't exist), then everything conceivable would be necessary.

    One thing's existence cannot be necessitated contingently by another thing. Nothing comes from nothing. Either it's always existed, or it doesn't exist at all. This is reflected in the scientific law of the conservation of energy, which says that energy cannot be created or destroyed; the total energy in a closed system is always conserved, which indicates that energy, or something more fundamental that makes it up, is necessary. But Christianity denies that God is a part of the universe he created; he is a transcendent god, and therefore cannot be contained within energy.

    The fourth way is more interesting:

    The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But "more" and "less" are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.

    Is it, though? Fire isn't the "greatest heat," and there's a very simple way to show that fire is not the cause of all heat. Rub your hands together. As you do so, they will become warmer through friction, and yet no fire is present.

    Rather, it is heat that causes fire, not the other way around. Of course, fire can be fuelled by something and get hotter and hotter, but initially, a fire is not kindled in the cold; it must already be hot for fire to start. If you strike flint and steel together, it will produce hot sparks. Only when these sparks are given fuel (e.g., flammable gas) will a fire be produced. Gas fires and stoves don't create heat out of cold; they first produce something hot which then lights gas on fire.

    Following from that erroneous analogy is his assertion that the maximum is the cause, which hence has no proof associated with it, hence the argument breaks down. The maximum instance of something does not cause every other instance of that thing. The effects of gravity are caused by matter, not by the highest effects of gravity in the universe. Motion is caused by a mover, not by the maximum motion of all. Size is caused by a variety of factors that have nothing to do with the biggest object possible.

    The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.

    You must first prove that things are guided towards an end in order to show that they strive for an end in the first place, not the other way around.

    Things behave in a certain way because there are rules to causation, not because everything necessarily has some kind of telos, or endpoint.

    Aquinas is committing the classic error of perceiving Christian realities before he has even proven God. Every believer who attempts to prove God does this: they assume their conclusion before it has been remotely proven. They end up trying to use their conclusion to prove their conclusion, which is either thoroughly adorable (in the most patronizing way) or a thoroughly irritating waste of time.

    If you're not going to prove God properly then don't bother. If you can't think like a rationalist rather than a faithful then you don't have the tools for the job. Stop wasting everyone's time with "proofs" that don't prove anything! And, hey, if one of the greatest theologians in history can't get it right, then chances are, neither can you.

    *

    Why do people assume that things are the way they appear to be? Don't judge a book by its cover - isn't that a proverb taught to first graders?

    Some Christians argue that, since life looks like it was designed, it must be that way. They seem to be living on another planet, definitely not earth. You can't possibly live on earth for fifteen or twenty or thirty years and not recognize that things aren't always the way they look.

    There's a good argument for why you shouldn't overcomplicate things, but there's a difference between keeping it simple and refusing to look behind the scenes.

    In philosophical terms, things as they appear are called phenomena, and things as they are in themselves are called noumena. Life is simpler if you don't make this distinction, but then again, you'll go through most of it not knowing what the hell is going on (and indeed many people do so). If you can't probe beneath the surface, you'll never see anything for what it is. An attempt to understand reality revolves around trying to understand noumena, not phenomena.

    Yet Christians are incredibly preoccupied with phenomena. They can tell you everything phenomenal (Biblical) about their religion, but when it comes to noumena, they're clueless. The second you ask them about what they're actually saying - then they withdraw, reaffirming their faith. The moment you ask them to qualify and explain what's being said, they cower. The Bible doesn't give them any intellectual information to go on, which is why it's said that Christians have no idea what they believe in. They hear the words preached, but they do not actually examine what is preached; they accept it based on faith. Anyone who doesn't accept Christianity on faith knows more about the religion and its teachings than actual believers!

    Christianity despises intellectualism, and so do Judaism and Islam. These religions teach you that all you have to do is be faithful and maybe do some good works and you'll earn favour with God. Never do they encourage you to educate yourself as much as you can. It's all about relying on God, letting him make decisions and assessments for you, permitting him to dictate your life.

    Aquinas Syndrome

    Far too many people have Aquinas syndrome - an inability to settle on one epistemology and a tendency to cram several together into a nonsensical system in order to make room for God. People with the syndrome claim that there's a limit to what we can comprehend. They never provide any evidence or reason for this; they suppose it must be there because God is.

    Aquinas syndrome is characterised by a bizarre reluctance to examine one's own beliefs properly. After all, if your beliefs are wrong, you want to know it, right? How could anyone with any intellectual integrity refuse to investigate their beliefs? Christians are just too afraid to put their beliefs under a common sense lens - they know full well that they make no sense. So the claim of a limit to human comprehension is dredged up from a few verses in the Bible in order to justify their lack of justification.

    Don't be an Aquinas. If it doesn't make sense, then it doesn't make sense. End of story.

    The New Religion

    The religion of Santa Claus is called Santism. It teaches that a fat man wearing red created all the presents in the world! He's responsible for their delivery to good children worldwide. Bad children (i.e., sinners) get no presents - the equivalent of hell for a child. Santa is a discerning judge - he's the arbiter of who gets gifts and who gets none. He's the reigning god of Christmas day, which is his celebratory festival. It's often said that he couldn't make his way round the entire world in one night, but of course he can - he's Santa, and through him, all things are possible! He's omnipotent (he can withhold gifts), omniscient (he knows if you've been bad), and omnipresent (he can deliver presents to every house in the world in a single night).

    All hail Santa Claus!

    Praise him.

    Praise him.

    Praise him.

    Santism: the new religion of the world!

    Well, why not? It has exactly the same amount of credibility as Christianity. Get out there wearing Santa and elf costumes all year round to promote Santism, you lazy fucks! You'll have an extra good Christmas if you do!

    Santa gives particularly intelligent people special gifts. Don't you want to know what's inside? These are the mysteries of Santa, the noble Father Christmas.

    Have a snowball fight in Santa's honor. Make a Snowman Santa and a temporary snow shrine to him. Make snow elves (not snow angels!). Wrap up and get out in the cold!

    Why not? It's a lot more fun than sitting in church, listening to a droning pastor. It will teach you much more wisdom as well. There is, in fact, more benefit to be had in having a snowball hit you in the face than there is in sitting in a church pew, contemplating the divinely shitty mysteries of that dead god!

    Why was he such a jerk?

    Why did he have such an ego problem?

    Why did he want to kill all humans?

    That's as deep as the mysteries go with that fella!

    Hidden Time

    There's no such thing as a perfect clock. All clocks will drift away over time if not corrected. Even atomic clocks, the most accurate measuring devices in the world, will become inaccurate over the course of trillions of years.

    But humans are a significantly less accurate measurement of time. You can't count seconds accurately (just try counting to ten seconds in your head - you won't be spot on). Time seems to pass differently depending on what you're doing and where your attention is focused.

    What about memories? Can you pinpoint exactly how long ago a memory was in the past? Can you remember all your memories? Will you remember every word of this article after reading it? No, even though you consciously registered each one while reading.

    An immense amount of our lives is hidden from us. What did we do in that time? What did we think? What did we feel?

    You're not really a person with a continuous identity. There are jumps and shifts. There are gaps of uncertainty. (Of course, our conscious minds blend our memories into a consistent narrative of our lives.) You might even remember something entirely false! How far can it be said that we know who we are?

    Hidden Time sees all that you forget.

    The Tumblr Scale

    1) Misogynists: "All women are evil and should die!"

    2) Misandrists: "All men are evil and should die!"

    3) God: "All HUMANS are evil and should die!"

    Try and top that!

    The High Apostles

    The religion of lies (Abrahamic religion) is the most successful religion in history. Doesn't that reveal so much about the faithful masses? They find lies more attractive than rationality. They adore God, the biggest lie (and liar) of them all, and for Christians, his close second, Jesus. They are the last people you would expect to be truth seekers. They're addicted to lies. They can't get enough. Lies deliver an easy high. What's heaven if not the ultimate high?

    When Abrahamists speak of the "joy" of serving their god, they're really referring to the alluring, addictive high they get from the lies they believe. They're apostles of the Great High, working towards the finest high of all, which lasts forever and involves no sadness.

    They're hooked. They can't get away, can't kick the habit. Unless they summon extreme willpower, they're unlikely ever to quit Abrahamism. There need to be quit God clinics all over the world, where the victims of lies can be debriefed.

    Everyone has the right to freedom of religion, supposedly. And yet when it comes to the Abrahamic religions you unequivocally don't. According to them, if you aren't an adherent of them, you're a bad person who ignores God's word for your own benefit. You're wicked and selfish, driven by your deceitful heart. You dare to make decisions for yourself, well you're an evil, Satanic person.

    They are kids who hang on shady street corners, smoking pot and telling everyone else they're evil for not doing it as well! They're thoroughly gone. They're high as a kite. They have no point of contact with reality; they live in the fantasyland that the lies create for them. They don't see the same world everyone else does. They're detached, disconnected, dissociated from life itself. They are despisers of life - they all can't wait to die so they can have that final, eternal high.

    The high comes from the Aquinas Zone, where reason ends. It's delivered from the highest insanity.

    Procrustes

    Procrustes was a mythological ancient Greek bandit who lived near a popular road. Inside his dwelling was an iron bed. Procrustes would invite travellers to stay the night inside, the only catch being that the iron bed was the only place they could sleep.

    Once inside, they would be viciously attacked by Procrustes, who would secure them to the iron bed. No one ever fit the size of the bed exactly; they were either too tall or too short for it - so Procrustes chopped the excess length off anyone too tall and stretched anyone too short, so that they fit the size of the iron bed exactly.

    Procrustes' fun ended when Theseus bested him and made him fit his own bed.

    It's from this tale that English derives the word "procrustean," which is used to refer to any situation where people are all forced to conform to the same rigid standard without deviation.

    In the procrustean Abrahamic religions, your individuality doesn't come into play at any point. You can't have your own opinions; you have to share God's. You can't think your own thoughts; you have to think exactly what God wants you to. You can't make up your own rules; you have to obey the ones God has laid out. You have to conform, conform, conform. At no point is your individuality or your humanity celebrated, and this leaves believers with a very toxic attitude towards humanity and themselves.

    You have to conform because of your imperfections. If you don't conform, God will punish you like he punished the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah. If you don't live your life a certain way and have a certain mindset, then you're anathema. Often, you have to follow specific dietary restrictions. Muslim women have to conceal their curves and hair with particular clothing while out in public (often making them all look the same, taking away their ability to express themselves - the burqa is a tool of suppression, not expression). Your time is controlled since if you want to be a good worshipper, you have to engage in certain activities (prayer, attending service, studying your holy text etc.). Your moral judgement's not your own, since it's on God's terms that you're told what's right and wrong.

    One of the most risible aspects of Abrahamism is that the Creator God of the universe is interested in micromanaging your life to this degree.

    You're an adult, so behave like one. Stop looking to other people to tell you what to do. You can think for yourself, can't you? Or do you need daddy to tell you what's what? Do you aspire to be something pathetic?

    *

    "I TEACH YOU THE SUPERMAN. Man is something that is to be surpassed. What have ye done to surpass man?

    "All beings hitherto have created something beyond themselves: and ye want to be the ebb of that great tide, and would rather go back to the beast than surpass man? What is the ape to man? A laughing-stock, a thing of shame. And just the same shall man be to the Superman: a laughing-stock, a thing of shame.

    "Ye have made your way from the worm to man, and much within you is still worm. Once were ye apes, and even yet man is more of an ape than any of the apes. Even the wisest among you is only a disharmony and hybrid of plant and phantom. But do I bid you become phantoms or plants?

    "Lo, I teach you the Superman!

    "The Superman is the meaning of the earth. Let your will say: The Superman SHALL BE the meaning of the earth!

    "I conjure you, my brethren, REMAIN TRUE TO THE EARTH, and believe not those who speak unto you of superearthly hopes! Poisoners are they, whether they know it or not.

    "Despisers of life are they, decaying ones and poisoned ones themselves, of whom the earth is weary: so away with them!

    "Once blasphemy against God was the greatest blasphemy; but God died, and therewith also those blasphemers. To blaspheme the earth is now the dreadfulest sin, and to rate the heart of the unknowable higher than the meaning of the earth!"

    - Nietzsche

    Do you want to surpass humanity? Then you must cast down the old, blasphemous religions. They can only bring us down.

     

    "It is not your sin—it is your self-satisfaction that crieth unto heaven; your very sparingness in sin crieth unto heaven! Where is the lightning to lick you with its tongue? Where is the frenzy with which ye should be inoculated?

    "Lo, I teach you the Superman: he is that lightning, he is that frenzy!"

    - Nietzsche

    And all the people laughed at Zarathustra. So now, but not always.