The (personified) Afterlife

First and foremost I feel it's important to say that the ideas, criticisms and repudiations herein are non-denominational. Although I may exemplify my points with the perceptions of certain religions, the true intent here is the broad idea of an afterlife not just specific religiously-based concepts. Moreover, this isn't just the stereotypical Atheistic perception "When you die nothing happens! Ha!" approach, either.

So on with the point...

It's pretty safe to say that one of, if not THE, greatest fears amongst the population of the world is dying. Obviously there are numerous exceptions to this rule, but for the most part no one wants to die. At least not "too soon." But with that comes a lot of contradictive concepts of death as well as some incredibly interesting perceptions therein.

For starters upwards of half the population in the United States alone believes in some form of an afterlife. Although that may have to do with the religiosity of the US, it's still something to be looked at: People think that when you die, life itself is not over or in some cases that it's everlasting, eternal.

Broadly speaking, this all amounts to something greater to the living than it does the dead (besides for obvious reasons) because this perception is often thrust upon the dead by the living. Many times when an individual dies, even as soon as the wake or funeral, people will say things like "He/she is looking down upon us right now, smiling."

Although the late, great, George Carlin put this into perspective quite well in his last special, I'm going to delve into it as well and possibly a little bit deeper. But note that I may repeat some things he said because well, he did a good job and that's just that.

Is it really a positive thing to believe that? For starters this suggests that when people die they go and watch over people. Why do we believe that in death people become voyeuristic bystanders to the lives of those we knew? It's extremely hard to make sense of that concept beyond that it is somehow supposed to comfort the living and be some pseudo-replacement for the actual deceased individual. But beyond that is it really the case? I highly doubt it and not just because I don't believe there is an actual, existing, afterlife either.

It just seems a bit ridiculous to think that when someone dies they immediately lurk around and watch people, unable to truly interact or affect the situation whatsoever.

However even with that perspective there is still something far greater to that scenario alone, something that is likely overlooked entirely: the idea that the dead even have perceptive abilities.

Look at the simple facts of death: heart stops beating, brain loses oxygen and function and dies. The plain fact of death is your brain dies, you no longer have a consciousness. So why is it that people somehow seem to believe that in death we continue on in the same form and maintain all of the same abilities? If that is the case than what does dying actually mean and why is death (in life) essentially the aforementioned (death of the brain/body)?

It is absolutely impossible for the dead to continue to perceive if there is no longer brain function. I understand the arguments of a spirit and of the magnificence of a god or gods but that doesn't give much explanation to the fact that people seem to believe that in death we are ourselves in another form. How can someone actually believe that while their body rots on Earth in a tomb, mausoleum, grave or is incinerated that somehow we still keep that?

Which further brings us to the next point: Heaven (or in my case, Hell)

There are a lot of problems with the idea of these places after death. When you think of all the people that have died, that's a pretty huge number. Does Heaven or Hell have an infinite amount of space? And what is to suggest that when you die you will be amongst your loved ones? Does the door of death have some predetermined location?

And what about the people watching over you as you live? If they're in Heaven and it's not only invisible but thought to be way up there in the sky. Do they have a crystal ball like the Wicked Witch or do they have some kind of special TV that's 110% reality 110% of the time? It's contradictive, are they here watching over you or are they up in Heaven enjoying the fruits of "paradise?"

What about the 40 virgins idea? Is there some kind of pussy factory in the afterlife or is it just all those people that never got any in their actual lives? In such a case that seems much less appealing. Most people that don't get laid have a reason, they're not fuckable or they're a nun. Not very appetizing is it?

But even in such a case it still personifies us in death despite the death and loss of our physical being. How exactly do we continue in our shape and capability but leave behind our material - in a scientific sense - self?

To think that we watch or communicate or engage in sexual activity with a virgin or 40 is ridiculous and entirely unrealistic. It is far more likely that you would, in fact, become a tree or plant before you'd ever resume your life in the same form in some alternate dimension or whatever you want to call it. I'd even go as far as saying reincarnation (in human form in the same existing world) has a higher probability than a place like Heaven or the abilities to continue to live in the same form at all.

It seems to me that, in a way, these ideas of an afterlife make people a little more apathetic toward the death of people that aren't immediately attached to them. There is that rationalization, for instance, in the case of someone who is essentially suffering like starvation, invalidism, or just plain had it hard circumstantially. People look at that situation and say "Well he/she is in a better place now, they're not suffering anymore."

That mentality is apathetic and it ultimately assumes that this isn't the only life we have. But what if it is? No one knows for sure until you die. People can believe whatever they want but they cannot be absolutely certain, so why undermine the unfortunate life of someone in favor of the assumption the afterlife is somehow better?

Granted it's seemingly unrealistic, but what if when you die you "go" somewhere that enslaves you for eternity? Admittedly unrealistic, yes. But, it cannot be ruled out with an absolute certainty, especially based on the belief that an afterlife even exists.

My personal idea of an afterlife is blurry and convoluted at best and even I don't know if I actually believe what I think. But one thing is certain: The personification of life after death is foolish, contradictive in some ways and really doesn't even make enough sense for people to be so absolutely certain about it.

"The most common of all follies is to believe passionately in the palpably not true. It is the chief occupation of mankind."
-H.L. Mencken

When free press fails us...

When people think about the constitution, more often than not, they think it grants us rights far and beyond what is intended. In fact, most people live under the misconception that it grants us rights at all, especially the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

If you read the text carefully while it does establish the rights of the people it is mostly aimed at preventing government from encroaching upon those freedoms. These are not rights we need permission for, they are our "natural rights" and thus the constitution aims to protect us from a tyrannical, oppressive government. Therein lies the difference.

But part of the bigger picture here is that we often forget that when the constitution was ratified the world, and in particular the country, was in a far different place than it is now. Here I want to focus on the particular portion of the First Amendment: Freedom of the press.

With the birth of the internet, the expansion of cable/satellite TV and overall communication having grown exponentially on a global scale, there has been an explosion of information and more importantly misinformation. One of the biggest culprits in terms of stories/information by recognizable media is wire-media outlets that provide very fast stories/details to major outlets - The Associated Press (AP) being one of the most distinguishable wire media- more often than not the information provided is foggy or in some ways rationalized without knowing all of the facts.

There are countless instances where a story will be reported somewhere via the AP and the details aren't exactly clear and it's because everyone is in such a rush to get the story out, get readers/viewers and to beat out the competition, even if it's at risk of providing misinformation in any way. To give an all-too familiar example to many of you, think about the proceeding days after September 11th 2001 not to mention the day of amidst all of the hysteria and horror. Every single channel was running the story around the country that had a newsroom to report from and as the hours passed, the buildings fell, the rubble smoldered in the streets, news stations around the country -locally and nationally- reported numbers of the death toll. Based on recollection alone (keep in mind this was my birthday and thus even more memorable) I remember hearing numbers as high as 7,000 presumed dead.

Now this is not to account for the fact that lines of communication had both been destroyed and jammed with the events that transpired that day, so many people were unaccounted for (as evidenced by the shockingly high amounts of "Have you seen this person?" pictures posted around the area and city thereafter) but as the dust settled, the fires were put out or burned themselves out, people made their way home or contacted loved ones, the numbers really didn't drop significantly. The media continued to run with unconfirmed and assumed numbers and reported it over and over and over again until finally there was a somewhat exact number of dead. That number: 2,998.

Yes that is still a lot, too many in fact, but the fact remains that for days all anyone cared to watch and know was about that day above anything else and every day while people read the newspapers and watched the news endlessly hoping to hear of survivors or anything at all were fed massively bloated numbers of dead. I have very little doubt that 9 out of 10 people, when asked an approximation of the number of dead on that day, would give you a number far greater than 2,998.

It is this, that I point out, where the free press has failed us, in that the competition with one another transcends the desire to be fully-accurate, but to break the story and save face by using lines like "From what we are told..." and "More details to come as soon as we have them."

Consider this: A person watching some kind of breaking story gets these vague and often inaccurate details, but doesn't stay tuned. He or she took a lunch break at home, caught the news, and returns to their office of say 50 people with just this information and no ability to find out otherwise until the end of the day (I realize it's not entirely realistic, it's to make a point). So this individual returns to work and tells a few co-workers, who then venture off and tell more co-workers and as it goes the details get diluted naturally by human exaggeration and suddenly you have 50 or so people who have the story almost entirely wrong or not completely accurate.

This, of course, not even taking into account the fact that word could spread from this office to other people as well. So in this very particular theoretical situation you truly have the competitive side of the media failing us and this is not at all an uncommon occurrence. Of those 50 people how many are truly likely to follow up on the story? I'd say maybe less than half depending on the field of work.

The bottom line is not everyone wants to read or watch the news and there are plenty of people that are so hypersensitive to it they don't want to know anything at all. Not to mention that some people plain don't care or are 'too busy' to bother. Then there is another part of the population that says "I trust (so and so)" and just leave the story at that or wait for another update from this individual.

Now that's one example, but furthermore there are the worst overall offenders of any media: Cable outlets. Why are they the worst? Because most of them are 24 hours and need to fill 24 hours of air-time with something. So what do they do? Not only do they fill the air with misinformation but they bring in so-called "experts" to both comment and speculate and convolute the story even further.

For instance, during the Beltway sniper attacks the media was running wild with possibilities: terrorists, psycho serial killers, etc. Almost every network was running endless hours of stories and press conferences about the killings which had very little details. They bring on "experts" and "profilers" to try and rationalize it all for people and most of the profiles determine it's a white male. Well, we all know how that turned out.

But here people are in a region of the country in fear of being randomly shot by some lunatic white guy, questioning everyone that fits the profile that they see and it's all wrong. But the media reported it, hours on end, until it all came to a conclusion and the real details mostly defied a large portion of unofficial information they reported.

I picked this particular case however because the media did, in a way, lead to the two men being caught. Thanks to the rabid competition amongst the media and probably a few hundred bucks cash, the media managed to obtain non-public investigative information and of course reported it immediately. In this case it was the particular model vehicle and state license plates believed to be the shooters car. In this case it worked wonderfully, as someone having heard it recognized the car parked, informed authorities and both men were found and detained for the crimes.

But you have to ask yourself, what if they were more capable and more on top of the investigation through the media? What if they heard the report about their vehicle, cleaned it of finger-prints and traceable evidence and moved on to another car or simply disappeared until they could re-establish their reign of terror? Fortunately in this case these two were mostly unorganized and really just randomly taking out their angst on whoever, wherever. But two more cunning individuals easily could have used this information to elude police and capture, especially with the false information provided by the media classifying the probable suspect(s) as white.

They compromised the investigation to get the story, to be the first to report it, because it gets viewers it keeps people tuned in and ultimately that leads to money and lots of it. Think about the underlying reality here, had these two been in touch, there is a possibility they may still be at-large. The media, in effect, compromised the safety of people just to report what was unquestionably leaked information because they wanted to be the first, to have exclusive information and to get people to pay attention to them.

I don't recall exactly who put it out first, but I believe it spawned from CNN. Take that with a grain of salt though.

So what is important to the media as a whole or the individual reporter who is digging for this information? Is it getting the truth? Is it about informing the people in general? Or is it about the money and possibly notoriety that comes with it? More importantly, is getting this information worth compromising the process of justice when clearly the police did not want this information to be public? This situation does work both ways; it can be beneficial as it was and it can also be the worst possible thing that could be done because it gives too much information to the people who are being sought if they're paying attention.

It seems to me at least that while a free press is important and crucial to a free society, it should not have ulterior motives either. I don't necessarily have a solution to this problem because it is so complex, but you have to ask yourself at what point do we draw the line and what is beneficial about having a competing press with the desire of revenue and profit?

As another alternative think about the ways in which these mass media outlets treat politics. Almost every one of them as a clear and evident partisan approach, an affiliation and a demographic (or ideology) to appeal to. The reports are often skewed to one side or the other, and more importantly they almost never ask the tough questions to politicians. Part of the free press is also part of accountability of government, of asking them why and how, putting them in a position to answer the hard questions. But instead we have a society where the mostly peaceful protests turn into arrests, where civil disobedience is still met with the proverbial fire-hose of the civil rights era and those who oppose are scrutinized or overly-glorified.

Lets be honest, most people know the "Don't taze me bro!" kid.

Look at that situation, despite his sort of ridiculous questioning he was still entitled to ask Mr. Kerry these questions, he used his freedom of speech which he is entitled to as a citizen and student and what happens? Yes he was being pointed and a bit condescending but he was within his rights and he's then removed. Mr. Kerry makes some limited efforts to prevent it from happening but otherwise simply stands there and does nothing. He is the man these security guards are, in a way, protecting right? So why can't he step down and intercede instead of standing there making clearly fruitless attempts? Was he scared? Isn't he the same guy that used his war record as part of his political platform?

This situation is completely indicative of the way the media also treats politicians. The people with real questions get pushed away or ignored while the rest just fall in line and kiss ass so they can get some bits and pieces later on down the line to make a story. The structure is all wrong and it's disgusting. Who knows what, if anything, could be done to make it better. But to me, our free media has failed us and has been ultimately corrupted by the almighty dollar instead of being the truly important part of society that it ought to be.

I may attack some other forms of media at a later point, but for now that is all. I understand the alternative perspectives but I am here merely representing one. Think about it.

First Post / Disclamier

About hatetheist. :

First and foremost a brief explanation of the title: I am Atheist and for the most part I'm going to talk about things I hate and things that bother me, it's in my nature.

• Do I hate religion? Yes.
• Do I care what you believe in? No, it is your choice same as it is mine.
• Am I here to convince people to convert to my beliefs? No. But that doesn't mean things I say and the way I say them won't have that kind of connotation to them. But I have no intention nor desire to purposely proselytize anyone beyond saying what I think.
• To reiterate I am an ATHEIST not a Satanist because that would require me to believe there is actually a god. I do not. I may use symbols such as Baphomets, Pentagrams and 666, but to me they are just that, symbols. Moreover, they're symbols of my overall distaste for religion and not indications that I ascribe to some kind of Satanic beliefs or religious beliefs whatsoever.
  
• When viewing this blog you will likely be forewarned that the context herein is for an adult audience. This is there because my target audience is more an over 18 crowd than it is anything beyond that. The things I will say/post will likely offend, insult and at times disgust people. I refuse to speak in euphemisms and depending on my mood/level of frustration and feelings on a particular subject, I will likely use an excess of profanities and overall vulgar language/analogies.
• Although I have my beliefs and in many cases I believe fairly strongly in them, I do not necessarily have a closed mind nor do I consider myself infallible. Not everything is going to be the same and my opinion might eventually change. Does it make me a hypocrite? Well, maybe. But I am human and I live in learn just like many people do. People change, opinions change, just because I don't flat out acknowledge it later on when I do doesn't mean I don't realize it. I don't need you to point that out for me.
• This brings me to the point of comments. I don't really like them, especially with some of the stuff I cover, because I have very little tolerance for peoples stupidity. There are going to be idiots that want to tell me I'm going to burn in hell or that they'll pray for me, or that their overly-liberal and overly-conservative beliefs are far better than my more moderate beliefs. I don't really care, I cannot stress that enough. I don't mind having a discussion or debate about anything, you learn a lot more that way both about people and about whatever the subject at hand is. However, it seems that in this day and age people are more prone to being complete ignorant, narrow-minded fools that only wish to impose their beliefs and provoke people that think differently into a fight or insult war. That is not why I'm here.
• Which now leads to the ultimate purpose of this blog. To be honest I think blogging is pretty lame and I never imagined I'd start one of my own outside of the ones provided on social networking sites. But I feel I'd rather stray away from those sites in general and so here I am. The idea here is not to simply impose my beliefs on people (as intent as I may seem on wanting people to see it as I do) but to start the discussion. I want people to be outraged to be awakened, offended, and irritated...go show a friend the blog and piss and moan about the idiot I am. But more importantly discuss the issue at hand, define what you believe in, read more into the subject matter and form your own opinion if you don't necessarily have one. But think about it, talk about it, agree or disagree it doesn't matter. I'm here to write down my thoughts whether political, theological, philosophical or just plain observations or experiences I've had and hopefully give people some food for thought if they so choose to read it.