Among the religions and philosophies on earth, some believe there is a god or gods and others do not. Some do not believe anything. Atheists believe that there is no God or gods. Theists believe that there is a God or gods. Agnostics do not believe there is a God or gods but also do not believe there is not a God or gods. Agnostics generally believe there is no proof of the existence of a God or gods but do not rule out the possibility of a God or gods.

An atheist would say the universe was created by chance, but Bishop William Paley, a theist, suggests that there is a creator, a watchmaker, that designed the universe. Paley describes the universe as a watch with multiple complicated parts all working together. The watch has a specific function that is determined by the designer. Thus, the watchmaker intends for the watch to do what it does. Paley also points out that the order in the universe is proof of God's existence (Paley 32).

Since all parts of the watch have a specific function designed by the watchmaker, then it is safe to assume that all functions of the watch are determined. If the universe was designed to work as it does, then human suffering must have been determined by God. Sure starvation, war, genocide, and crime can be attributed to free will, but in a perfectly designed universe everything would be determined. Free will does not actually exist in a designed universe, because the outcome of all events are part of the design. Even if humans have free will, what about natural disasters, disease, and birth defects? Only the laws of nature cause such things. Since God designed the laws of nature, he knowingly designed such suffering (Johnson 85-89).

Paley stated that a watch sometimes misses a beat or a part breaks. He argued this is also the case with the universe. He says that these irregularities are irrelevant to the existence of God (Paley 32-37). These irregularities could be part of the reason evil exist; however, there is a big difference between a watchmaker and God. According to the popular theist belief, God is omni-benevolent, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. This means that God would know when and where flaws in the design would appear and could fix them before they occur. This would disregard the theory that God is omnipotent and omni-benevolent because God can not be all good to allow suffering nor can he be all powerful to allow it (Johnson 85-89).

Contrary to the watch analogy, the universe does not have a uniformed function, nor is it orderly. The distribution of matter in the universe has no order. Matter is randomly scattered throughout the universe. While galaxies, solar systems, and planets do cluster matter because of the law of gravity, on a larger scale, it is not order. Even if you consider the random formation of molecules from the elements and the physics of nature as part of a design, there is no way to miss the fact that according to the most popular theory the universe is expanding and will continue to expand until there is nothing left. All matter will break down into its smallest parts and spread out until everything is so far away from one another that it could not affect the other. This theory is upheld by scientific observations such as the red shift, which show that the universe is expanding. This evolution of the universe and its eventual doom would all have to be part of the design (Smith 217-237).

The watchmaker analogy is also flawed if an appeal is made to evolution. A watch is designed and then set in motion. Its parts do not change overtime. The function of the watch is dependant upon the consistency of the movements. Evolution of the universe, starting with the big bang, to evolution of life would be discredited by the watchmaker analogy. The watchmaker analogy describes a perfect design that was set in motion. Evolution of any kind would affect that design, the same way motion would be affected in the watch if the parts began to rust. The smallest change affects the function greatly and could cause the watch to shut down.

Take into account that “The Argument from Design” was written a century before Charles Darwin's discovery of evolution. At that time, the popular theist belief was creationism, that the universe was created in six days. To this day we do not know enough about the universe to say that it is orderly, but more evidence points to the fact that it has no order. In the time of Paley, there was even less known about physics and the nature of life.

If the universe is intelligently designed, then who designed God? The watchmaker analogy is rooted in the theory that God is a self existent being and that he “intelligently designed” the universe as a watchmaker would design a watch. The existence of the universe is dependent upon God, the creator. It would be the same to assume that the universe is the self existent being which created everything else. This assumption would disprove the need for a God and say the creation of everything lies with the universe (Clarke 22-23).

The idea that the universe is intelligently designed like a watch is flawed as well. The Epicurean Hypothesis suggest that our universe could have formed by chance. The current state of the universe might have evolved over several billions of years. This is plenty enough time for the illusion of order that is apparent to us to have developed. Most of what we see everyday tends to be orderly, but the pure science of everything leaves the universe looking chaotic. We do not live in a perfect world with a perfect set of rules no matter how much we want to believe that. The universe is still evolving and will continue to evolve until its inevitable end (Hume 56).

The Atheist point of view finds flaws in the watchmaker analogy based purely on empirical evidence, evidence in which atheist beliefs are based. Atheists tend to believe only what they can see or prove. There is no doubting that the watchmaker analogy has flaws using today's theories and scientific evidence, such as the appeal to evolution and eventual destruction of matter in the universe. There are also flaws in the analogy according to experience, such as the idea that God would have had intended suffering for humans because it was designed that way. The times have changed, technology has progressed, and analogies have changed in meaning. Perhaps there is a way to win the argument that a God exists, but not until the existence of God can be proven and God's nature is revealed.

Submitted By: Jarred Breaux

Who would've ever thought that Satanism would be a legalized religion? But thatjust so happens to be the case. Anton Szandor LaVey established the Church of Satan on April 30, 1966, in San Francisco, CA. LaVey, who later became known as the Black Pope, neither believed in God nor Satan. He saw the Devil as a mere symbol of man's carnal nature--his lust, greed, vengeance, but most of all his ego. In an interview for the Washington Post, he was quoted as saying, "Satan is a symbol, nothing more. Satan signifies our love of the worldly and our rejection of the pallid, ineffectual image of Christ on the Cross."

LaVey, who died on October 29, 1997, established the Church as a parody of Christianity. They use a nude female as their altar. They consecrate mock holy wafersby inserting them into her vagina--which brings to mind, the actions of a former President. They worship the cross turned upside down. They recite the Lord's Prayer backwards. Instead of wine, they use whiskey to represent Christ's blood. They substitute seminal fluid in milk for holy water. And instead of invoking the Christian God, they call on infernal deities.

Satanism is a religion based on self-indulgence and pleasure rather than self-denial. They believe in the 'here and now' as opposed to the 'there and then'. Satanists consider themselves to be their own Gods--Anton Szandor LaVey worshipped only Anton Szandor LaVey and the egotism in his religion. He believed that by bringing the Devil out in the open, he could help people. He believed that the strong, not the meek inherit the world. In an interview for Occult America, LaVey was quoted as saying, "Our religion is the one, I think, in complete accordance with human nature. It is based on indulgence. Instead of commanding our members to repress their natural urges, we teach that they should follow them. This includes physical lusts, the desire for revenge, the drive for material possessions."

These views are upheld in the Nine Satanic Statements: Satan represents indulgence instead of abstinence. Satan Represents vital existence instead of spiritual pipe dreams. Satan represents undefiled wisdom instead of hypocritical self-deceit. Satan represents vengeance instead of turning the other cheek. Satan represents responsibility to the responsible instead of concern for psychic vampires. Satan represents man as just another animal, sometimes better, more often worse than those that walk on all-fours--who, because of his divine spiritual and intellectual development--has become the most vicious of all. Satan represents all of the so-called sins, as they all lead to physical, mental, or emotional gratification. Satan has been the best friend the Church has ever had, as He has kept it in business all these years.

To provide further guidance for their followers, The Church of Satan devised a set of rules, known as The Eleven Satanic Rules of the Earth:

1. Do not give opinions or advice unless you are asked.
2. Do not tell your troubles to others unless you are sure they want to hear them.
3. When in another's lair, show him respect or else do not go there.
4. If a guest in your lair annoys you, treat him cruelly and without mercy.
5. Do not make sexual advances unless you are given the mating signal.
6. Do not take that which does not belong to you unless it is a burden to the other person and he cries out to be relieved.
7. Acknowledge the power of magic if you have employed it successfully to obtain your desires. If you deny the power of magic after having called upon it with success, you will lose all you have obtained.
8. Do not complain about anything to which you need not subject yourself.
9. Do not harm little children.
10. Do not kill non-human animals unless you are attacked or for food.
11. When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask him to stop. If he does not stop, destroy him.

Submitted By: W. T. Johnson

Latin Name: Salix alba
Gender: Feminine
Planet: Moon
Element: Water
Associated Deities: Artemis, Belili, Brigantia, Brighid, Ceres, Cirse, Hecate, Hera, Hermes, Isis, Mercury, Moon Goddess, Osiris, Persephone, Poseidon, & Zeus.
Magical Uses: Healing, Love Divination, Love, Protection.
Medical Uses: An aspirin substitute for fever, headache, and for reducing swelling (inflammation) and pain caused by arthritis.
Other Uses: Initiation Rites
Chemical Constituents: Glycosides (salicin, salicoside), salicortine, tannin, catechin, & flavonoids

The information presented here is for educational purposes only. These statements have not been evaluated by the FDA. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.

God brought truth into the world, and the Devil said lets organize it and call it religion! When Jesus incarnated into this realm did he mean for Christianity to become what it is today? Fodder for politics and gay bashers standing around with signs that say Kill Fags Dead? As well as priests touching little boys and all the other psychosis that comes around from it? I have nothing against Christ. I do believe he has done a great favor to this world and did a great act to help us all. I only wish I could be closer to him and follow him like some truely good folk do. Unfortunately, I lack the means apparently. Even though I try. Nonetheless currently you have millions of christians chanting the end is near. Even if it isn't, I am sure that them all believing that is not helping matters out at all. Also, thinking Jesus will come from the sky and save us all and bring us to the new Earth like Santa Clause and making millions of dollars off of it everyday. That sounds great, I really do hope Christ comes down and saves us all and waves a magick wand and brings us to a new happy place that is not filled with hate mongers of religion. Nonetheless, reality sinks in of course. George Bush Invokes God on his podium for war as do so many other leaders across the Earth. Killing and murdering and dropping bombs with a wonderous attitude of God Bless! Wait a minute, what happened to thou shalt not kill? What is the deal with all this ironic, contradictive madness when it comes to Religion? All I see is madness. Where is the love of Christ in this world? I think the Bible is a great book filled with many stories of wonderful tales, some perhaps true, some not. Who knows? I wasn't there. I doubt you were either. Something has to give when it comes to religion. This world needs something New when it comes to Christ and how we feel about God. Will it take tradgedy to show it to us, it seems the world is a day late and a dollar short when it comes to fixing anything with Religious love that's for sure! I believe in being spiritual and walking a path but when it comes to religion, it seems like religion is a new word for racism and division. What religion is you? I'm not any of them. I do believe each contain a blue print to access God for differing cultures and none is better than the other. Is it religion running this world into the ground or our beliefs concerning it? Either way, somethings gotta give.

Submitted By: Jeffery

Clarke, Samuel. “A Modern Formulation of the Cosmological Argument.” Reason and Responsibility. Ed. Joel Feinberg et al. 12th ed. Belmont: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, 2005.

Hume, David. “Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion.” Reason and Responsibility. Ed. Joel Feinberg et al. 12th ed. Belmont: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, 2005.

Johnson, B. C. “God and the Problem of Evil.” Reason and Responsibility. Ed. Joel Feinberg et al. 12th ed. Belmont: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, 2005.

Paley, William. “The Argument from Design.” Reason and Responsibility. Ed. Joel Feinberg et al. 12th ed. Belmont: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, 2005.

Smith, Quentin. “A Big Bang Cosmological Argument For God's Nonexistence.” Faith and Philosophy. April 1992: 217-237.