Skip to main content

Too Good to be True

By Carl S. ~

A fascinating offer came in the mail yesterday. The Trust Insurance Company, whose motto is: "Trust works both ways," offers a policy that really is different. (They claim to have 6.72 million satisfied subscribers.) Here's the contract: For the sum of twenty dollars per month and as long as my payments are made monthly, they will assure me of complete happiness for the remainder of my life. "Complete happiness" is defined in the contract as: "freedom from physical and emotional stress and all suffering, including pain, worry, and anxiety as resulting from or pertaining to natural causes." This contract would become effective "the first of the month following receipt of the initial payment." In the included brochure, this policy is described by personal endorsers as "heavenly." Question. In What way do you think I should handle this offer? What should be my next step?

There is something familiar about The Trust Insurance Company: I am already approached by organization representatives who are competing for my "soul," offering their contracts, so "it" must mean some kind of sales advantage to them, signing me up.

"Soul." What does it mean? You'd think that defining a word constantly used from the pulpits and stages, with such powerful emotional responses, would be so... obvious. We could say that the word soul has more power than the name God, for without a definition of soul, God, gods, spirits, and spiritual, likewise will fall under the category of... "Well, you know what I mean, okay?" Soul is a big money-maker. Consider soul food, soul music, soul mate, soul-stirring entertainment, soul saving self-help books, and the coffers of the soul saving hawkers, aka, clergy.

How do you go about proving a soul "really" exists, when "explanations" don't prove anything? Well, one man invented an apparatus to measure the weight of a soul. He connected a scale to a deathbed. When people died, he compared each person's weight before and after death. It turned out that the loss of weight due to the "departure" of the soul was essentially the same as a human fart. (This experiment has not been used to determine the soul-weight of a chimp, gorilla, nor the (believed by some) "eternal" soul of a pet.) And now that that’s settled...

The habitat of the soul? Where does the soul of an animal or vegetable, germ, bacteria, etc., live? Every human claims it's in a body, except for Thomas Aquinas, who claimed that the human body actually lived in the soul, and he knew that, right? Is it everywhere in a body? What if one loses a toe, appendix, or gall bladder; does one lose part of one's soul each time? Some say the soul/self is in the heart or brain. Ancient scripture writers spoke of the bowels of God, and of the human soul being located in the gonads. (I wonder where they got that from. Does the soul produce both sperm and egg?)

When I asked, "What do you mean by soul?" one believer said, "Essence." I think Essence is an Afro-American magazine, speaking black soul rhetoric. Could it be a perfume containing the "odor of sanctity" smelled by Catholics near one of their many saints? Maybe she believed her own unique “essence" existed before her birth, from eternity (yes, some people do have that belief), before she became a conscious person, and she's hoping to get back to that state again?

Now this is where I have a problem with soul. What good is entity without consciousness? Doesn’t “essence" describe a rock or iceberg or vapor, using that description? Let's be honest. We are talking babble, as when Hindu scriptures define the godhead as "isness" or "suchness," or as the wafer-into-Christ as "transubstantiation." But the self has never been proven to be separate from the brain and the body; the evidence is there. Back to the beginning. So what's a soul?

Doesn't "essence" mean something devoid of personality, character, incapable of change, without intelligence - that is, without attributes requiring a physical body? It makes sense, which is one reason why no true believer would agree with it. The abilities of seeing, hearing, choosing, and changing, understanding, character, and especially memories, are all attributed, by believers, to souls without bodies to experience or remember them!

You can confirm this unthinking belief for yourself. Go into any funeral parlor and listen to the believers in attendance. They will be talking about their experiences with the deceased in life as he/she lived coherently and aware. No one mentions the time when they first noticed that the person's soul began to leave, in an Alzheimer's or dementia state. Instead, true believers will say, "We will greet each other in Heaven," when in reality they, a.k.a., the "we," will be in the same state as the deceased!

On that subject, this reminds me of something Woody Allen said, "I don't mind dying. I just don't want to be there when it happens." I think of all the time I spent with people I've known who became victims of dementia or Alzheimer’s diseases. Or of the neighbor who died recently, in his 50's. In the hospital, his nurse spoke to him, turned her back, and turned around to find he had died. Were any of them, "there” when they died?

Perhaps primitive humans had to believe in or cling to the hope of a soul lasting beyond death, and found solace in that belief. After all, the need for self-preservation is in all sentient beings, not just humans. But humans, via their imaginations, think themselves exempt from an obvious law of nature. They desperately fear non-existence, and came to make their "souls," via their self-projected gods, equally immortal by osmosis with them. Why - there must be spirits controlling things, disembodied and knowing the unknowable, in control of the universe, just like our minds have learned to control our selves and surroundings, right?

In spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, the mighty spirit belief is still with us. There is still "God and gods, ancestor spirits, and ghosts." There are still the primitive body/soul, good/evil, temporal/eternal dichotomies hanging around. In spite of the fact that humans have been "playing God” for centuries now, people still believe in a god-essence, and believe in the god experts selling that hope of an eternal life of bliss. But aren't those believers buying a placebo against returning to the non-existence from which we all come? Isn't "redemptional saving" just another word for "selling?"

We have arrived at a place in our history where survival and a short life are not our primary concerns. Kings never lived as well as we do, with hundreds of years of accumulated music, arts, and the acquired wisdom available at our fingertips we take for granted. We also take for granted sanitation, inoculations, indoor plumbing, central heating, air conditioning, disease- free food, etc. There are pension plans and elder care available to us. Obviously, these life benefits are not enough for believers. They amass stuff on Earth; some buy into to the prosperity gospel movement. They want the good stuff now as well as after they die.

When I consider belief in an eternal soul with an eternal future, I am joyful to have a mortal soul. I enjoy the contradiction which is, "Oh! it hurts so good!" Who wants to live an existence without that, without grief, without continual discoveries, or anger over injustice, ignorance, stupidity? Without disappointments? One really needs to experience reconciliations, have the freedom to make mistakes, and the body/mind/conscious awareness, i.e., to be oneself. Existence without them; forever? Far from hopeful, that's depressing.

By the way, another interesting offer came in the mail today. This company's president assures me that if I sign a contract with him, anything I ask for in his name will be given to me! Anything. I've not read the small print in the contract, but, if I were a true believer, I would have the faith to know that if it's much too good to be true,... it's true.


Popular posts from this blog

Are You an Atheist Success Story?

By Avangelism Project ~ F acts don’t spread. Stories do. It’s how (good) marketing works, it’s how elections (unfortunately) are won and lost, and it’s how (all) religion spreads. Proselytization isn’t accomplished with better arguments. It’s accomplished with better stories and it’s time we atheists catch up. It’s not like atheists don’t love a good story. Head over to the atheist reddit and take a look if you don’t believe me. We’re all over stories painting religion in a bad light. Nothing wrong with that, but we ignore the value of a story or a testimonial when we’re dealing with Christians. We can’t be so proud to argue the semantics of whether atheism is a belief or deconversion is actually proselytization. When we become more interested in defining our terms than in affecting people, we’ve relegated ourselves to irrelevance preferring to be smug in our minority, but semantically correct, nonbelief. Results Determine Reality The thing is when we opt to bury our

Christian TV presenter reads out Star Wars plot as story of salvation

An email prankster tricked the host of a Christian TV show into reading out the plots of The Fresh Prince of Bel Air and Star Wars in the belief they were stories of personal salvation. The unsuspecting host read out most of the opening rap to The Fresh Prince, a 1990s US sitcom starring Will Smith , apparently unaware that it was not a genuine testimony of faith. The prankster had slightly adapted the lyrics but the references to a misspent youth playing basketball in West Philadelphia would have been instantly familiar to most viewers. The lines read out by the DJ included: "One day a couple of guys who were up to no good starting making trouble in my living area. I ended up getting into a fight, which terrified my mother." The presenter on Genesis TV , a British Christian channel, eventually realised that he was being pranked and cut the story short – only to move on to another spoof email based on the plot of the Star Wars films. It began: &quo

So Just How Dumb Were Jesus’ Disciples? The Resurrection, Part VII.

By Robert Conner ~ T he first mention of Jesus’ resurrection comes from a letter written by Paul of Tarsus. Paul appears to have had no interest whatsoever in the “historical” Jesus: “even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, we know him so no longer.” ( 2 Corinthians 5:16 ) Paul’s surviving letters never once mention any of Jesus’ many exorcisms and healings, the raising of Lazarus, or Jesus’ virgin birth, and barely allude to Jesus’ teaching. For Paul, Jesus only gets interesting after he’s dead, but even here Paul’s attention to detail is sketchy at best. For instance, Paul says Jesus “was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures” ( 1 Corinthians 15:4 ), but there are no scriptures that foretell the Jewish Messiah would at long last appear only to die at the hands of Gentiles, much less that the Messiah would then be raised from the dead after three days. After his miraculous conversion on the road to Damascus—an event Paul never mentions in his lette


By David Andrew Dugle ~   S ettle down now children, here's the story from the Book of David called The Parable of the Bent Cross. In the land Southeast of Eden –  Eden, Minnesota that is – between two rivers called the Big Miami and the Little Miami, in the name of Saint Gertrude there was once built a church. Here next to it was also built a fine parochial school. The congregation thrived and after a multitude of years, a new, bigger church was erected, well made with clean straight lines and a high steeple topped with a tall, thin cross of gold. The faithful felt proud, but now very low was their money. Their Sunday offerings and school fees did not suffice. Anon, they decided to raise money in an unclean way. One fine summer day the faithful erected tents in the chariot lot between the two buildings. In the tents they set up all manner of games – ring toss, bingo, little mechanical racing horses and roulette wheels – then all who lived in the land between the two rivers we

Morality is not a Good Argument for Christianity

By austinrohm ~ I wrote this article as I was deconverting in my own head: I never talked with anyone about it, but it was a letter I wrote as if I was writing to all the Christians in my life who constantly brought up how morality was the best argument for Christianity. No Christian has read this so far, but it is written from the point of view of a frustrated closeted atheist whose only outlet was organizing his thoughts on the keyboard. A common phrase used with non-Christians is: “Well without God, there isn’t a foundation of morality. If God is not real, then you could go around killing and raping.” There are a few things which must be addressed. 1. Show me objective morality. Define it and show me an example. Different Christians have different moral standards depending on how they interpret the Bible. Often times, they will just find what they believe, then go back into scripture and find a way to validate it. Conversely, many feel a particular action is not

On Living Virtuously

By Webmdave ~  A s a Christian, living virtuously meant living in a manner that pleased God. Pleasing god (or living virtuously) was explained as: Praying for forgiveness for sins  Accepting Christ as Savior  Frequently reading the Bible  Memorizing Bible verses Being baptized (subject to church rules)  Attending church services  Partaking of the Lord’s Supper  Tithing  Resisting temptations to lie, steal, smoke, drink, party, have lustful thoughts, have sex (outside of marriage) masturbate, etc.  Boldly sharing the Gospel of Salvation with unbelievers The list of virtuous values and expectations grew over time. Once the initial foundational values were safely under the belt, “more virtues'' were introduced. Newer introductions included (among others) harsh condemnation of “worldly” music, homosexuality and abortion Eventually the list of values grew ponderous, and these ideals were not just personal for us Christians. These virtues were used to condemn and disrespect fro