Although the preposterous Abrahamic notion of god has been criticized for its ethical and philosophical flaws for at least some thousand years, it apparently has not loosened its grip on much of the western world. I feel that there is too little relevant discussion about the nature of the Abrahamic god and gods in general(theology), so I hope this article will serve a certain need of those who have not thought about these things as much and of those who are confused.



First I will present some of the central concepts of Abrahamic religions to have some background to work on.



Monotheism

The idea of a single, demiurgical god is something that the three main Abrahamic religions Judaism, Christianity and Islam (in order of appearance) hold in common. Even though Christians are criticized for polytheism because of the trinity, they generally consider themselves worshiping one and the same god. What is interesting to note in this context, is that there is much reason to assume that early Judaism was not monotheistic in the sense "there is only one god" but rather henotheistic in the sense "only one god is relevant". This is illustrated in for eg. Exodus 18:11(King James version, 1611) : "Now I know that the LORD is greater than all gods: for in the thing wherein they dealt proudly he was above them.". It is to be noted that the references to YHWH are translated into "LORD" in capitals, so the verse does not generalize, but specifies a specific god by name originally. If there were no other gods, then why would the scriptures mention them explicitly?



Revelatory Prophecy

All the three religions recognize prophets who are said to have received messages and orders from god directly, meaning that the Abrahamic interpretation of the world was not derived by philosophical speculation but direct revelatory experience. The notions of good and evil also do not stem from philosophy but from the established interpretations of the revelations.



Holy scriptures

The three religions have collections of scriptures as religious authority, seeing the works either written directly by god or through men of god. The holy scriptures are seen as unquestionable, absolute truth, since they are believed to have been authored by an infallible god. Christianity and Islam share some of the Judaic scriptures but not vice versa. The exact scriptures also vary depending on the specific orientation of the religion, as they maintain different colletions. For eg. there is no single one Christian bible, but several different collections that differ in varying degree, although there can be pinpointed a shared core group of scriptures.



Omnibenevolence

God is presented as omnibenevolent, simply meaning he is infinitely good in ethical means. That his love is unconditional and only does good.



Omnipotence

Omnipotence simply means god is all-powerful, that there is nothing god can not do. He has absolute power over everything.



Omniscience

Omniscience means god knows everything, and in the practical sense that god knows the past, the future and the current and has always done so. He knows everything that was and will be and is infallible in his knowledge; as god already knows the future, it is predetermined or just can not be anything else. If god for some reason did not know about something, he would not be omniscient.



Now with some background, I will go into the flawed notions of the Abrahamic god and just why they are flawed and cannot be true. The following can easily be understood through common sense, and even though scientific thinking will certainly help understanding the following points, it is not a requirement. I will present the problem of evil as simply as I can together with some other points.





The Problem of Evil

If god is benevolent, he will want to abolish evil from the world. If god is omnipotent he has the power to do so. If god is omniscient he knows of the evil. Still we have evil! Why? Because god is either not willing to abolish evil, does not have the power to do so or does not know of it, or any combination thereof.



Some people seem to think "god works in mysterious ways" is a solution to the problem of evil, but it is not, as if god is the perfect being described, then he does not have to justify his means with an end. God does not need a mysterious, divine plan; he can do everything right away whenever he wants to. For god, there is no need to take such low measures for anything, simply because he is god. If god is omnipotent, it is completely absurd to claim god is limited by human measures.



The problem of evil itself is proof that the Abrahamic(Christian,Judaic,Muslim ) notion of omnipotence, omniscience and benevolence is wrong, simply because if the notion was true, there would be no evil, which we all see exists. It is about as self-evident as anything can get. So at least we know the Abrahamic god is false. Still, there might be other definitions of god that would be true, but it would have to be sadistic, ignorant or weak, and certainly not coherent with Abrahamic belief.



Induction

Induction can be applied in many interesting ways in theology. One is the following: If god is omnipotent(ie. there is nothing he can't do) then he can create a rock that is too heavy for him to lift and still be omnipotent? We get a paradox and god is no longer omnipotent. Although this serves humor more than it serves ontology, it still makes a point in the absurdity of omnipotence. Could god lift a rock he could not lift per definition? My favorite point is my own: that ultimately, if god is perfectly ethical as he is said to be (infinite benevolence), then god would have realized the best way to avoid all evil is never to create it, which he did, knowingly (omniscience), needlessly(omnipotence). Thus, I have surpassed god in ethics and therefore, as I am not benevolent, neither is god. God should have done better than that.



The Evil Monster God of The Old Testament

In the old testament, god exhibits very different characteristics than in the new testament of the bible. Here are some bible quotes that illustrate the god of the Old Testament, Numbers 31, where god sends people to slaughter men, women and children, rape women and children, plunder and pillage on Moses' command. Moses gets angry because the women and children were not slain, and commands them to be slain and raped, and his people does so.



1: And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,

2: Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites: afterward shalt thou be gathered unto thy people.

3: And Moses spake unto the people, saying, Arm some of yourselves unto the war, and let them go against the Midianites, and avenge the LORD of Midian.

4: Of every tribe a thousand, throughout all the tribes of Israel, shall ye send to the war.

7: And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males.

8: And they slew the kings of Midian, beside the rest of them that were slain; namely, Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba, five kings of Midian: Balaam also the son of Beor they slew with the sword.

9: And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods.

10: And they burnt all their cities wherein they dwelt, and all their goodly castles, with fire.

11: And they took all the spoil, and all the prey, both of men and of beasts.

12: And they brought the captives, and the prey, and the spoil, unto Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and unto the congregation of the children of Israel, unto the camp at the plains of Moab, which are by Jordan near Jericho.

14: And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle.

15: And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?

17: Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

18: But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.



The major flaws in the Abrahamic notion of god stem from that humans try to understand god like a limited and erring human, while still saying that he is not limited and erring. It's like judging an adult by the standards of a small child - it simply doesn't work that way.



If you disagree with the logic in the reasoning in this article, you probably misread something and jumped to conclusions. Read again. If you disagree with logic in general...then there isn't much I can do for you. I hope you'll get better.

In the western society today, a certain level of respect for life, especially human life, is considered a norm. Although the origin of need for our judicial system concerning life and death arose much from the human tendency for vengeance, the system today also encompasses people that would die without anyone caring about it. This change has made the shift from respect for the mourners to respect for life, and this same idea seems to have been incorporated in the moral of many people.



Yet, there is a very clear and mostly unintended conflict with this moral and the de facto human practice that goes completely unnoticed, since we have another instinct concerning life and death apart from killing, namely reproduction.



Around the world, childbirth is mostly seen as a happy event, with the exceptions of some countries in which certain genders are unwanted, such as India. A mother is held in higher regard than women in general, and pregnancy is often glorified, especially in the western world, often to the point of obscenity. Now what is the problem you may ask? The answer is quite simple, yet so hard to properly comprehend in all it's depth. Thus, I shall try to explain this as thoroughly as I can, for the sake of avoiding misunderstandings.



To be able to reason around justice of life and death as humans, we need to base our reasoning upon certain axioms. The first one is quite obvious: that which is born has not existed before it was born, in the same way as a house does not exist before it is built. Secondly, we need to assume causality, which I doubt many will refute.



Now, when humans reproduce, they give birth to a new being that has emotions and at some point will arise from the vegetative state into being conscious. Now, if we view this situation from a causal perspective, the parent is the rootnode of the child's causality tree, the cause of the child. And the child will, supposing it stays alive for some time, partake in different forms of causality through its actions as well, and those affected will be parts of the causal tree of the child, and because the the parents are the cause of the child, the child's causal tree is part of the parents' causal tree. All saints, all murderers and all rapists had parents.



Thus, everything that the child does, and everything the descendants of that child do, is on the responsibility of the child's parent.



Now you might think "No, children have a will and direction apart from their parents", which certainly is true, but is not a counter-argument, since the parents had the child and thus made possible all the actions of the child in the first place. So unless the parenthood was without consent, each human bears the responsibility of all his descendants. This might seem absurd to many, and has to me been a puzzling realization, but is completely rational. It is a simple concept derived easily by logic: responsibility rests on causality, causality implies recursion. Still, it is interestingly unthinkable for the human, probably because we are hard-wired not to think about this.



But it gets even more serious; every human that is brought to this world is brought without consent; you have no way of asking nobody if that nobody wants to be born. Birth and death are comparable events; they are radical shifts in life to say the least. And there is no reason to why creating new life should be considered good, or even less wrong than murder. Both are making radical shifts to somebody's existence without consent. We can quite easily imagine the possible pains of different forms of murder, so it is easy for us to comprehend the wrong because it is evident and acute. Yet birth (apart from the imminent bloodbath) is not an act of violence in that sense, and the problematics are indirect; most people will not torture their child (at least consciously), so it is easy to think that no damage is done. What constitutes a fundamental blindness to us and flaws our sense of justice, is probably our perception of time; the suffering of the child might roughly be divided evenly upon seventy years or so, assuming natural death of age. This dilution in no way decreases the total of the suffering, in the same way as it is wrongful to assume that constant abdominal pain for three years is any less than a kick in the head that hurts but does no apparent damage; in many cases the abdominal pain will cause much more suffering. Also, happiness in no way makes up for suffering; they are separate totals. Happiness does not remove the memories of pain from your brain, it just adds happy memories. If a person is tortured and alternately pleased, it only makes the person experienced, not necessarily happy.



What the above implies is simply that creating new emotional, conscious beings is a violation of respect for life comparable to murder. It is because of this realization that I nowadays advocate voluntary human extinction, meaning that we simply stop reproducing (no I don't want people to kill each other 'til extinction). If someone wants to claim me a murderer for "not allowing children to be born", I suggest they get psychiatrical help; I can't prevent anyone that does not exist. If we are to continue on that path of thought that people exist before they are born, it would imply that any human is a murderer if he does not reproduce as fast as his body allows him to. I shouldn't need to mention the obvious suffering of overpopulation evident in many parts of the world.



My notion is based upon true respect for life, and because of that, I wish nobody would have to be created to this world. Any human that claims to respect life but embraces birth is a hypocrite; what that person respects is upkeep of life, which is obvious to our nature as animals, but inherently becomes a circular argument if one tries to reason with it.



Why is this not a fundamental part of our moral? Why did humans not go extinct ages ago? From an evolutionary perspective; it is obviously beneficial for a creature's reproduction that the creature reproduces, so evolution emphasizes those genes that keep the species from "thinking too much". Thus, those who didn't reproduce a thousand years ago won't have descendants that live today; we are descendants of those who either had their way like animals or rapists and rape victims. What does this make us? It makes the human a hypocrite who is blind to his own crimes. It makes us the descendants of people whose minds were blurred by bestial desire, and the descendants of rapists.



This is our heritage, our legacy. Evolution prefers strong rapists and weak women as well as it prefers blinding stupidity. This way, evolution sets an upper limit for intelligence.



Reproduction with this in mind is a choice, and each and every one of us make that decision. My decision is not to partake in this insanity, and by doing so, neither will my genes that apparently helped me get rational and skeptical. I leave the reproduction to beasts, who one day might evolve into someone rational, who also chooses not to partake.

I've been through quite many debates about the logics of proof of the existence of an Abrahamic God, but many of these examples also apply to other notions of deities. To this day, I have not encountered a single piece of logical reasoning that would successfully prove the existence of a higher being, possibly because it is an impossibility without having apparent direct signs coming from one, such as clouds suddenly transforming into clear text which is readable by reliable electronic devices etc. Such miracles have not been successfully documented to this day, so many other kinds of attempts to prove the existence of higher beings have been made. I will present these by first explaining the claim, and then commenting on why they are logical fallacies. The claims below are real and very common attempts especially among Christians. If you are for some reason having a hard time following my descriptions of the problematics, I suggest you read some of the epistemological litterature which exists in abundance. Also, to understand these problems on a higher level, you might need some deeper understanding into logic in general(in the end, the reason to these logical fallacies is that logic is not as obvious as it might seem), and there are great books for that purpose as well.





The First Cause Argument

The first cause argument claims, that if we assume the universe had a beginning, there must be something that caused that beginning, ie. the first cause. The argument rests on our notion of time being linear, which means that from an anthropocentric view, time is a series of causal events, no matter how small they be. If we traverse backwards, we should find the first cause, whatever it may be. If there is no first cause, we would traverse into infinity, which the argument claims is impossible.

The argument then proceeds to claim that because there had to be something that caused the first cause, the cause had to be outside of the universe, and because of that, has to be God.



Problems:

First of all, the argument rests entirely on the human notion of causality, which certainly does not have to be true. It might be, but it doesn't have to be. Second, the argument assumes that time is linear and had a beginning, and that time is a dimension in our universe. This is not at all a stated fact; time is still a mystery, and different theories point in different directions, possibly even to that time is an illusion. Also, the universe is per definition "all that exists", so there can be nothing outside of "all that exists". What the word "universe" tries to say is more properly called "space".



Yet most importantly, the big logical fallacy in the First Cause argument is entirely in the conclusion, since proving that the first cause had to be outside of time, does in no way prove that the cause specificly had to be god. The cause might be anything at all that is outside of time, and there is no reason to assume the cause be intelligent or supernatural. So the first cause argument proves that whatever caused time, was timeless, but does not prove that the cause was intelligent nor supernatural.



The Argument of Design

The argument of design is a common attempt to prove god, and says that because we exist in the universe, the universe was created for us. It also says that the parameters after which the universe developed to what it is today, and did not for eg. collapse immidiately or have different laws of physics, are a proof of creation.



Problems:

The argument is quit a simple logical fallacy, since it is based on thinking backwards from the modern day, instead of thinking forwards from the beginning of time. Yet, it is a very natural mistake for a human being to do, simply because we experience the past backwards. On to the details: First of all, the argument of design assumes that because the probability of our world is minimal, and yet has happened, it is created. The problem in this lies in that there is nothing that points towards that this is the only form of universe to ever have existed. Space might have collapsed and expanded close to infinite times, so even though the probability of this world might be small, it would still occur statistically. Second; if the parameters of the world had been any different, we would not stand here wondering about it, so us standing here to wonder about it only proves that organic life could develop in this world, not that the reason for the universe to be this way was the development of life.



The Banana Argument of Design

The banana argument of design is an attempt to prove the existence of a creator by observing the shape of a banana. As the banana is seen as fitting into the human hand, it is claimed to be proof of that the banana was designed for the hand of man.



Problems:

The logical problem in the banana argument is similar to that of the argument of design of the universe. Even though the banana is considered to fit the human hand somewhat and is easy to peel, does not mean that it was designed, nor that it was designed for the human hand. Most other, healthy and edible fruit do not fit the human hand any more than they fit the human mouth or genitalia for that matter. The banana argument is another example of thinking backwards instead of forwards; as long as we don't preassume creation, which we cannot do since we are trying to prove creation, the reason we wonder about the shape of the banana and not some other fruit, is that it is an evolutionary benefit of the banana to be eaten by an animal, because that is how it spreads. It might is also that we simply found the banana to be convenient and thus included it in our diet, instead of things like the sharp-spined cacti or pineapple. Also, another reason to why we might think it fits our hand is because it was beneficial for our hands to develop into shapes that were good for gathering the fruit of plants, instead of hands like spears to kill predators but useless in the gathering of food. Such hands would simply provide evolutionary disadvantage and cause extinction.



The Argument of Intelligent Design

The argument of intelligent design basicly says, that because of the complexity of things such as the human eye and the human brain as a system, they would imply a designer. Some even argue that any system implies a designer.



Problems:

Probably the most trivial problem in the argument of intelligent design is that because god is seen as perfection in the sense that it is the best possible there can be in anything, gods creations would have to be perfect as well. Yet, an easy counter-argument is the argument of Bad Design, since for eg. the human anatomy is far from optimal (even humans can concieve improvements of it) and vulnerable to unecessary disease. If a god exists and purposefully intended bad design, then the benevolence of god should be questioned, making the benevolent, omnipotent and omniscient god impossible. When it comes to the question of system; the definition of a system in general is completely arbitrary, because any at all causal relationship in anything can be called a system, but is not. Thus, systems are an invention of man, not inherent to the nature of things.



The argument of lack of evidence of the contrary

The argument of lack of evidence of the contrary rests upon the assumption that if we are able to prove one theory of the origin of the universe false, we would prove creation.



Problems:

This is a strangely common logical fallacy, which falls under the category of ignotum per ignotius ie. to explain something unknown with something that is even less known. The lack of evidence of something does not prove anything else, simply because there is no "contrary" in the speculation of the origin of the universe. It's not like the alternatives are evolutionary principle and creation, since evolution is not a theory about the origin of the universe, but a theory of the origin of the species and thus life. Even proving evolution false would not prove creation - creation still requires as much proof.



There are a multitude of theories of the origin of the universe and even though one could disprove one of them, it would not prove anything but that specific theory does not hold. The possibilities of the origin of the universe are practically infinite, as is also familiar from mathematical logic. If A and B are separate statements, then if A is false, it does not mean that B is true, because B is not the negation of A. To put this into more common words: Because it's hard to prove that my car is a Toyota, it does not mean that my car is a BMW. It might still be a Mercedes-Benz, a Honda, a Subaru, a Chrysler or any other brand or my homebrew for that matter.





The Moral Argument

Although many theists presuppose that belief in a god is a requirement for morality, some even take the claim to the level that morality is proof of gods existence. Depending on the religion of the claimer, the morality depends on the religions moral codes. Another moral argument is that if moral is a set of commands, then who is the commander if not god?



Problems:

The moral argument is problematic, partly because of the lacking definition of morality in the context. But yet the basis of the argument if we assume that no particular moral code is meant, is without ground, as can easily be proven. The moral argument namely implies that for anyone for whom god does not exist (ie. the person has no belief in the existence of a god) there can be no morality. Why do not atheists then go around murdering people at the slightest clue or rob people in the streets all the time? Most people are not atheists(atheists are quite a small minority in most countries) and statisticly, most criminals are also not atheists.



The question rises: Why would morality require a god at all? Do these people mean that their concept of right and wrong stems from the fear of god or hell? That's not morality, that's fear of punishment.

What about the commander part? Most people who derive their moral from speculating about ethics would say that they themselves are the commanders of those rules upon themselves, that they indeed possess the power of self-control. Yet what gives us the primal sense of right and wrong seems to stem from our brain, coming from the evolitonary benefit of flocks not destroying themselves. It is a clear evolutionary advantage that a group has a set of behaviors that make possible effective coexistence and group reliance.



Morality is that you separate right from wrong without any threat from choosing either one. A regular definiton of moral is that it is a set of notions of rights and wrongs derived from ethics, and ethics are a branch of philosophy completely independent from any deities because it is based upon humanism. Thus, it is silly to claim that moral cannot exist without god, also because the moral that comes from fear of god is not moral at all; fear of god might actually undermine morality, because if the person stops fearing god, he would do anything that comes to his mind. Yet this is not the case for most people other than psychopaths.

VNUNet: EU Boss Wants To Censor The Internet

ISP Review: EU Calls On ISP To Censor Internet Searches

IT News: EU Boss Wants To Censor The Internet

Slashdot: EU Commissioner Calls For Censorship of Web Search



European Union Justice and Security Commissioner Franco Frattini is proposing censorship of certain keywords in internet search, such as the all-familiar google. The people are divided in two on this issue: Those who think any measures should be taken towards information that can be used maliciously, and those who think that this is a threat to freedom of speech. Let's have a look at this issue from the technical point of view that Franco Frattini is approaching the problem from:



Web searches work by indexing websites they can find on the internet. This means that the search engines basically go through each and every page they can find, and store a small copy of them. Now, when a user searches for something utilizing words or strings of characters in general, what happens is that the search engine checks through the index it has produced with the above method, and returns to the user all the pages that included those words to some extent. What happens is exactly the same as having a pile of papers and reading all of them through, putting aside those who include certain words and then giving them to the requester.



Now, how does web search censorship work? Franco Frattini wants to censor keywords such as "genocide" and "bomb". Let's do this then: We have a large pile of news articles and our client asks us for all articles in the pile that include the words "world war II" and "genocide". One of the words he asked for was "genocide". Thus, you are prohibited from giving the client any articles matching his words. What if he just looked for "world war II"? He will now get millions of documents that speak of World War II but mostly nothing relevant to the genocide committed by the Germans. This way, there will be no real way for the client to retrieve information about the genocide in World War II. The neo-Nazis will be the only to cheer; their mission to remove all traces of the genocide has succeeded. It would also be difficult to find any traces of the Hiroshima bombing and 9/11.



How about changing the way the censorship works? Can't we just censor all articles that include the word "bomb"? This is what the BBC News front page (as of September 19th 2007) would look like if words like those proposed by Frattini would be used:





What's left? Nothing but two articles, one on people trying to turn their Manhattan apartment into the countryside, and another about a meteor blamed for sickness. Is this a good measure what's happening in the world? Is this what we want? It would result in every single news or history article remotely related to war, violence, unrest or terrorism to be censored.



There is no way to censor the internet in a good way without having employed people reading through every single article beforehand. Why? Because there is nothing inherent in the article that makes it good or bad, constructive or destructive. The article has to be interpreted by someone, and having people pre-check every single article around the globe would pretty much require all the EU population spending all of their time reading articles.

Ok, so that isn't feasible either.



Can't we just shut down the internet and go back to the books and TV? Books are too slow to print and too expensive to publish to be able to replace the informative importance of the internet. The internet allowed us to progress this fast in the first place; it changed the world, and in many cases to the better. If you want to keep the information away from bomb builders you will have to ban every chemistry and physics book. You will also have to ban McGyver.



To those that think the internet is this new trend/fad and mostly unimportant: You are already left behind. You have fallen off the carriage. Practically all the information you get through your news is transmitted over the internet first. It's not like the news appear on the internet after they are on the TV. The TV get their news from the internet, and those news are already days old when you get them. The internet has increased the pace of everything exponentially, because everything that happens is known instantly around the globe. And if you can't keep up with the pace, you become a lower-grade citizen. Not because someone degrades you, but because you don't know what's going on, be it war, revolution, peace or national politics. We can no longer concern ourselves only with our own village, town or country; our concerns are concerns around the globe and we must learn to handle our problems in a global manner as well.



Now, after we've declared the means of censorship inefficient, we should ask if this bomb-hysteria is just moral panic? Are there really lots of bomb-building instructions on the internet?



That depends. Many of the instructions are fake; by following them you will only hurt yourself or produce something that doesn't work. Those that do work are usually infeasible: You will need materials that can't be bought without special permits that can't be produced by amateurs(professional's don't need the internet for recipes). What about those that do work and and can be done by amateurs? Most of them are simple modifications of recipes that don't allow for anything more than starting fires or making lots of sound or smoke. You can't make real industry-grade explosives by following those recipes. Terrorists don't need the internet for making explosives; these organizations are fueled by huge amounts of money(we are talking hundreds of millions), so it would be stupid to assume they couldn't afford hiring an explosive's expert and buying a few chemistry books. The one's using the bomb-recipes on the internet are mostly 15-year old boys that want bigger fireworks.



Those working to get this keyword circus going are either entirely ignorant of how keyword search works or then their intention is not what they claim it to be. Nevertheless, keyword censorship is unrealistic; censored words are replaced by new code language, just like with the child porn industry. It's the oldest trick in the book.

This world of humans is becoming severely dangerous on a scale not beheld before. All the time I'm trying to think of sustainable means for humankind to develop into a better world ridden of at least some of the evils that are becoming more and more evident in todays global society. Alas; every idea I stumble upon I eventually abandon when I glance at humanity and see more of what it is.



I think the main problem is that humans have created social systems that are way too complex for the humans to comprehend. This is the ant-effect; we have created a global society with a population five-million-fold too big for us to comprehend (see Dunbar's number). We are too many to live in one world and function in a humane manner, because our social functions of our brains are optimized for tribes. Even the concept of "gray mass" stems from the human inability to properly comprehend larger groups of people. When by a human, somebody's human value is reduced to "nobody", humanity becomes a crime.



I feel like I'm trying to carry a burden unrealistically heavy; it's wearing me down, yet I have but started my journey. The burden is the kind of responsibility I experience towards not only my own actions but humanity in general; I think that when confronted by wrongness, if one is able to, one should act. Quickly one realizes that this is a more radical approach towards moral than even the Abrahamic god is said to have (god sees wrongness, is able, but does not act).

Now when it comes to more abstract wrongnesses that are hard to right, the acting part consists mostly of abstract solutions: trying to figure out how to solve the problem. And that is what I mostly spend my time with; trying to solve problems.



I've empirically found that a crushing majority of the human population will not be able to comprehend many of my ideas, but are doomed to either refuting or believing them. That is simply not a good concept of knowledge. This means that even though I would come up with a proper solution that works, roughly 95 percent of the population will probably not be able to understand it. This takes one into a state of despair.



During my life, the more I have studied different topics and the more information I have gathered, the more rotten I have witnessed the constructions of humanity to be. The news are either full of deliberate lies or represent complete ignorance of the issues. Information is no longer published for informational purposes, but to push the public opinion in the direction chosen by those few in power. And it's these people in power who represent the most malevolent forces in today's society; they are people of two kinds, who occasionally intermix.



1. Those who have lost the moral contact to the grey masses so that they are able to make decisions that benefit only them but will cause severe suffering to masses of people. Due to their moral distance, they behave like psychopaths towards most of mankind. These are the cold , often behind-the-scenes world leaders who instill hate and misinformation. One such example are the large-scale arms industry heads that dominate much of US foreign policy behind the scenes. Another is the banking business. These people often pose near-to-absolute power and influence. Yet, they are an extremely small minority of the human population.



2. Those who dogmatically believe that they are doing the right thing when they are causing enormous damage. They are according to the medical definition delusional because they sustain their belief even though they are logically proved wrong. These people are also often paranoid about malevolent forces which they see all over, such as "Demons", "Terrorists", "Satanic cults" or "Mind control waves". These people can be very dangerous if they think they should commit violent acts, especially if they are led by someone. They are many in number but most of them have no power over politics and such on the individual level. Examples of these are militant nationalists, neo-nazis and religious fundamentalists.



The biggest problem arises from the combination of these two, that is, when the 1. lead the 2. for their own agendas. And this is happening right now; you have the US arms industry portraying its puppets as messengers from god and the 2:s follow eagerly,thinking they are driving "family values","morality" or "theocracy", when they are merely functioning as puppets for powerhungry and greedy leaders. The 1:s want to take away human rights from the people for the sake of control, and do this by giving the 2:s the image that these are freedoms of evil and must be removed. This way the 2:s cause much harm thinking they are doing the right thing, while they functions as unwitting puppets.



The 1:s have really found a wonderful resource in the 2:s, since they are easily led unwittingly, their opinions are easy to shape and they act with rage towards almost anything that comes in their way. They are the perfect tool in bringing to light the totalitarian fascist world of control the 1:s want. The US has effectively and discreetly removed much of the citizen's rights in the name of anti-terrorism and religion. And the tendency of control, censorship and surveillance is spreading to other countries at a worrying pace. The 2:s are commiting acts so grave that "immorality" is not enough to describe them.



Has the world become any less sinful? Have crimes disappeared? No.

These fundies think that if everyone believes, it would solve the problems. Come on, do you really think the middle ages were so splendid? But these people always say "we'll do just a little bit more".



Violence, control and censorship will not make the devil go away. The devil is in each and everyone of us. It is the antropomorphism of the negative traits of man. Blaming others for the fallability of man is the act of a hypocrite and a liar.



Demons, satanic cults and mind control waves are in your head. There's no point in trying to look for them outside of it.



This world suffers badly from the lack of good ideas. And it is to this lack I awaken, more and more every day that goes by. The more I think of the human world, the uglier and trivial I realize it to be. Yet the unintended complexity of humanity constructions poses problems that are beyond the comprehension of man.



H.P. Lovecraft wrote in The Call of Cthulhu:

"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents... some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new Dark Age."

I'm coming closer to what Lovecraft describes, and I certainly feel the presence of the border of insanity some distance away. I see a lot of people who fled from the light; some earlier, some later. Anything is preferable to this vista, even religion. I just decided that it would be unethical for me to give up and rest in the bed of ignorance or stop combating the border of insanity. Instead I go on, carrying the unrealistic burden; it is still my responsibility to view the terrifying vista and to watch it even closer, in the hope that I might some day find a proper solution to the problems that lie within. This is my burden.