A better name for the entity known as Satan, Lucifer, Beelzebub, Lord of the Flies, in Christian dogma anyways. The reason this entity was created was to blame. Blame the evils of the world, all the wrongs, everything that is "bad" is piled onto this figure. In the grand tradition of organized religion, blame must be laid, not just on the people that committed them the evil acts, but also on a central figure as an easy answer to the question of why those sins were committed.

Why use an entity to represent morality? People should be able to decide that for themselves. Just as "God" is supposed to represent all that is good, the Anti-God represents the opposite morality, of sin, corruption and deceit. Right? Why don't people accept the fact that not only are acts of sin the creations of humans and the perpetrators should bear the full responsibility, no entity is neccessary for the sake of association with their actions. Blame blame blame.

For example, "You are the agent of Satan." A few centuries ago, if a member of the clergy accused you of this, you'll be roasted on a spit to a crisp in no time. Makes it easier for the clergy to get their way. Don't need to go through the nasty process of proving guilt. Since the existence of the Anti-God cannot be proven, it is sort of difficult to prove a person's link to this entity, so the accusation cannot be proven false. Would you like the sinner medium or well-done?

It is also an integral part of the entire reward/punishment system that is present in almost all major religions. The embodiment of evil and punishment all in one makes for easy depiction of the consequences of being bad. Gets it across to the people. "You do this, you burn in hell under the hands of Satan. Get it?". The Anti-God is an excellent piece of propaganda. It is simple, easy to explain, gets across to a wide audience, lots of people fall for it, and has a long-term effect on the gullible. Such is the appeal of religion.

It would be better if this entity had no name, that way people cannot use it as an excuse or use it to blame as easily as they do now. Or better yet, didn't exist. That way people can judge their morals and actions by themselves, not out of fear of some fictional entity with horns and a spiked tail.

See also heaven and hell.

Pascal's Wager is an attempt to prove that believing in God is statistically in one's best interest. There are tons of other essays on it on this site so I'm not going to explain it, just address an interesting objections with some depth. The "Anti-God" objection is essentially a claim from that we cannot know the true nature of God. Essentially, for all we know, God could be the opposite of what you think that he is. Instead of being "saved" for being a Christian and living a good life you would be damned. Essentially under an "anti-God" the quickest way to get to heaven would kicking puppies, mass murder, and stealing from charities.

 Now, there are two ways to object to this:

 1) Claim that an Anti-God involves some kind of paradox (this is pretty hard to do)

  2) Claim that the possibility of an Anti-God doesn't nullify the argument I think the second objection works pretty well, I would rather go to Hell and suffer forever with Mother Theresa, Ronald Reagan, John Paul II and all the rest of the awesome people of the world than chill in a pleasant heaven with a douche-bag God who enjoys kicking blind three legged puppies in their cancer filled ribcages.

  Whatever, all I'm saying is that if you disagree with me, the next time you see a blind legless puppy trying to cross the street, kick it in the ribs...just in case

Log in or registerto write something here or to contact authors.