Introduction to Maltheism

This forum has moved!
Same people, same great conversations, new location.
Please join us in the new Beliefnet Community.

<Prev | Next>    First Page | Last Page  
This is a read-only area.
Messages: 1 - 4 (13 total)

maltheist
7/5/2002 11:21 AM
1 out of 13

The messages that follow are an introduction to maltheist ideas for those unfamiliar with them. This is quite likely most of you, since maltheism has not exactly evangelized itself prominently the way other belief systems have. I hope these messages prove enlightening and illuminating.

I would like to suggest that people wishing to comment on the topics raised here start new topics in the dialog group rather than adding messages to this topic ("Introduction"). It would be nice if this topic could be preserved as simply an introduction to the subject matter here, so that people joining this group can gain familiarity with maltheism. Thank you.

Be well,

World Maltheist Movement
God Against Humanity: Choose A Side!
info: m a l t h e i s t @ h o t m a i l . c o m



maltheist
7/5/2002 11:23 AM
2 out of 13

What Do Maltheists Believe?

We believe:

  • that the God described in the Bible, the Koran, and many other religious texts does indeed exist, as evidenced by his influence on the physical world throughout history.

  • that all the various incarnations of the voice of God as manifested in people of a wide variety of religious persuasions and influences indeed represent the same one God.

  • that, judging from the evidence of history, and from the evidence of God's own word as found in his religious texts, this God is a right bastard, an abusive bully who extorts whorship from human beings to feed his need for power.

  • that, in his quest to garner more and more power by making people whorship him, God has expended enormous energy on public relations propaganda to make him SEEM benevolent and omnipotent, as he takes credit for all the good things that happen while shirking blame for the evil and suffering in the world (which you would think an omnipotent being would be equally responsible for: note how gleefully God takes credit for saving people after disasters, but does not take responsibility for the ACTS OF GOD that caused those disasters to happen).

  • that people from the earliest days of history knew about God's nature (embedding coded messages into religious texts revealing what God is really like to discerning readers) but thought it "better" to placate and pacify him than to stand up to him, resulting in millennia of severe religious indoctrination that has succeeded to the point that most people in the world cannot even imagine the possibility that God is not what he says he is.

  • that these systems of religious brainwashing (or "blamewashing") have resulted in the majority of the world's population becoming sheepish slaves to this pig, offering him whorship and trying to spread the word to others about how "good" God is (note the resemblance to the abusive family, in which the drunken father mistreats his wife and children, takes credit for things THEY do, while he claims that he "loves" them, to the point that the cowed victims of his abuse actually believe that his abuse IS love!)

  • that, if we are strong and stand up to this pig by ceasing to offer him whorship, he will wither up and die.

  • that we can help to make this happen--not by the evangelistic haranguing or forceful missionary action characteristic of God whorshipers' methods for "spreading the faith"--but by educating, offering examples, showing the people of the world that there IS an option other than sheepishly kowtowing to this beast.

  • that the most important thing is how we treat each other as human beings--that putting God above or before humanity denigrates our worth, that allowing him to define "good" according to his wants and needs with no respect for our wants and needs is a mockery of any definition of goodness, and that people who have succumbed to God's "blamewashing" and actually believe that God gets to define "good" on his terms are victims of tyrannical oppression by an horrific beast monster.



maltheist
7/5/2002 11:29 AM
3 out of 13

The "Theology" of Maltheism

The word "theology" means the study of God. You would think that a discipline purported to be about "studying" God would involve itself in serious objective analysis of God from an unbiased perspective, rather than assuming God to be a certain way (as described in God's own words--hardly an unbiased source) and working from there.

The discipline of theology is better called "theophilia." It is all about loving God, praising God, shouting "Hallelujah" and "Praise Allah" and whatever other devotional chants come to mind. But most importantly, it is about coming up with contorted rationalizations that "make God good" despite all the paradoxical contradictions in God's own word and in the historical record that serve as evidence about God's real nature.

Theological questions are multifold and present serious unresolved points of contention about the nature of God, if asked in an open honest manner. Preeminent among those questions is the most direct one: "If God exists and is good, why is there evil and suffering in the world?"

Any honest scientific logical approach to answering such a question would not be so bold as to presume a particular kind of answer. But that is what theologians do: they presume the "if" part of the question (the premise) to be true, and go on to explore contorted rationalizations for how this can be so in light of the latter part of the question.

Imagine the discipline of aeroporcinology, the study of flying pigs. Imagine that the preeminent question in that discipline is "If pigs can fly, how come we don't see them up in the air?" Now imagine that the answers provided by aeroporcinologists were of the form "Well, they CAN fly, we just can't see them doing it." Or "The thing we mortals see as the ground is just an illusion, so when we see pigs on the ground they really are in the air."

You laugh at these ridiculous forms of answers. Yet these are the same forms used to answer questions about God.

Occam's Razor suggests that in the absence of extraneous details we employ the simplest explanation possible to answer a question. The simplest answer to the question about the pigs is that pigs don't fly. The simplest answer to the question about God is that based on the existence of evil and suffering in great magnitude in our world, this benevolent all-powerful God that theophiles believe in does not exist.



maltheist
7/5/2002 11:30 AM
4 out of 13

Atheism and Maltheism: Different Conclusions from the Same Data

This very valid answer--that this benevolent all-powerful God described by believers does not exist--leads some people, namely atheists, to reach a conclusion that thus that no God exists, period. End of story.

But the theists give very compelling evidence to the notion that God does exist. They cite historical records that match closely to tales told in their religious books (the words of God). They cite their own subjective experience of hearing the voice of God. (More on this later.)

On most issues, it seems that atheists and maltheists (as well as humanists and other secularists) agree. We all think that human beings should get to define our own lives, without the external interferences of irrational forces, be they "divine" or otherwise. We all think that allowing religious doctrine to control our lives is (if you'll forgive the use of the word) blasphemy. We all think that being forced to accept authoritarian impositions of any kind is something worth fighting against.

Where we disagree is on the specific nature of God. Atheists simply say he doesn't exist, despite evidence that he does. They jump to the conclusion that because the benevolent deity described by theophiles cannot exist based on the evidence, thus NO God exists. This is not necessarily so, of course. Agnostics, humanists, and other secularists also disagree, but their take is that they are unsure or don't care about God's existence or nature.

To the maltheist, God plainly does exist, and given his disposition to fomenting hatred and violence and causing harm to us, it behooves us to care about his existence and his nature.

Despite our differences, though, I would bet that any member of any of these groups would, upon learning the truth about God's nature and recognizing that he is a pig monster worthy of our contempt, would do everything in their power to fight against him. (Contrast this to the theophiles' take on atheists: While theophiles would tell you that atheists MUST be immoral because they do not believe in their God, we know that this need not be true, and in fact that quite the opposite is true--atheists often have far more respect for other human beings than your average theophile!)

And I'd bet that this speculation of mine holds true not just for atheists and agnostics and humanists but for theophiles as well, at least for those with an open enough mind to accept the possibility that they might be wrong in their assumptions about God's supposed goodness, those who cherish people and human life more than they would the existence of some evil alien force seeking to suppress and harm us.


<Prev | Next>    First Page | Last Page  
This is a read-only area.

Advertisement


About Beliefnet

Our mission is to help people like you find, and walk, a spiritual path that will bring comfort, hope, clarity, strength, and happiness. More about Beliefnet.

Legal

Copyright Beliefnet, Inc. and/or its licensors. All rights reserved. Use of this site is subject to Terms of Service and to our Privacy Policy. Constructed by Beliefnet.

Advertisement

DiggDeliciousNewsvineRedditStumbleTechnoratiFacebook