If you talk to most people today, you'll probably find that they believe that, in some way, humans carry on living in some form after they die. Their theories range from coming back as another human being, passing on to 'heaven', coming back as another animal completely, etc. So what's with the obsession with the afterlife?

One thing that people often say to me is, "But this can't be it! When we die, that can't be the end!?" My response is, "Why not?" It seems hard for people to fathom that the life we live now is the only experience of living we'll ever have.

Often, the reason for a person's exasperation over the suggested theory of a one-time existence is the grief, or long-standing loss of a loved one. The idea that they'll never see that person again - in any way, shape or form - can be hard to take.

But the fact is that still, today, in the year 2008, there remains ZERO proof that any kind of life exists beyond the life we currently live. And there never will be. I mean, think about it: if the key to the proof of whether an afterlife actually exists or not lies with those that have just 'passed on' into it - how the heck can you ask them about it - they're no longer here to ask!?

Imagine waiting all your life - post-loved-one - to see them again on the other side, and then dying, only to find out that there is nothing more! But of course, you wouldn't be conscious anyway to have this realisation in the first place. Imagine all the lost hours down the cemetery, all the wasted minutes spent praying, all the irreplaceable time exhausted at the church.

I'm not saying it's wrong to grieve over a lost loved one. On the contrary, I'd hope that you'd find time to spare a thought from time to time, reflecting on your past together. This is fine. But time is precious. Once it's gone, it's gone.

Humans are a great race. We are the greatest race that has ever graced this planet. Fact. Our being here today proves that fact. We are the result of a never-ending evolution process that has weeded-out the bad stuff, and kept the good. And our efforts to populate the earth are celebrated and showcased in the form of skyscrapers, mp3 players and the internet.

We are amazing. We can utilise the power of our minds to do whatever we wish. We have everything we need within ourselves to achieve anything we desire. People often say that all the best inventions have been invented. But to say this is to have a complete lack of faith in the human race.

Compared to other species, we have been here a very short space of time; although we have evolved from other species'. But in this short time span, we have achieved some amazing things. The truth is, we are advancing in our capacity for intelligence at a rapid rate. If we continue as we are, who knows what we can achieve as a race.

People lament at how destructive we are, denouncing humans as a base race of deluded self-importance not happy until we have destroyed all in our path. But in reality, it is only a small minority, voted into positions of 'power' over the rest of society - by the majority, that are wreaking the havoc that they are wailing about.

Every individual has a choice to act rational or irrational. Left alone, completely free - i.e., without oppressive control from the state - we'd have nowhere near the problems we have, now. Properly-policed objective laws would contain the tiny minority that, today, due to subjective, elastic laws and a power-hungry government - are a hazard to our race.

This is our 'heaven'. This is all we know. Why waste your precious time planning for an afterlife that doesn't even exist? The question is, if you were living in heaven, now - or your faith's equivalent - what would you do right now? Read, what would you do now if you knew you couldn't fail? Why not do it NOW?

Claim your life. It's the only one you've got. Don't disrespect yourself with dreams of ghosts, angels and pearly gates. Everything you've dreamed about is right here. Use it.

To freedom,

Scotty Stevens

We're taught in this world that to be judgmental is bad. "Don't be so judgmental!" is the cry from the nil by minds in response to any judgement cast by the humanpreneurs. We're told to reserve judgement, in favour of preserving the status quo, and that it is 'disrespectful' to judge someone.

But to reserve judgement is to assume the other human is weak and can't take honest criticism that could be used in order to better himself, so you're obliged to either lie outright, or to be 'diplomatic' - a statist-created word that basically means to skirt round the truth using subtle lies in a bid not to upset someone, thereby keeping them weak in the process.

The dictionary definition of the word 'judgement' is, as follows:
The act or process of judging; the formation of an opinion after consideration or deliberation.

So then, to judge someone is to use your mind, honed from a life experience of reading other people AND based on the information gleaned from every aspect of that person's make-up (I.e., mental, emotional, physical, etc) to form an opinion of them. If you value your life, this is exactly what you'll spend your time doing. The last thing you want is someone in your life that offers no value whatsoever and simply takes, takes, takes. The more they take, the less you're left with. And if you're happy with your life of charity, then please, by all means, continue living that way. It's your funeral.

The 'judging' is the analysis of a person, and the 'judgement' is the diagnosis of that person. The information offered as evidence of a person's personality can include their body language, the area they were brought up in, their religion, their profession, etc.

But sometimes, being 'judgmental' is called 'prejudging', as, according to the brain dead, this is judging someone before you know anything about them. This is incorrect, since details like these say a LOT about someone. The way somebody moves, the car they drive, or the area in which they've chosen to settle down are not accidents nor are they coincidental.

The man walks with a shuffle, doesn't hold eye contact, and has a weak handshake. Your experience tells you that this man is not trustworthy, and you judge him to be weak. Hey, you could be wrong - and the man may prove you to be so, but with so little time and a multitude of people out there, surely it makes sense to move on to the next man?

The man was brought up in the roughest part of town - and he's never moved out from there. Your experience tells you that he may not have the ambition to aim higher in life, and therefore you judge him to have no value to offer you as a friend. Hey, you could be wrong - and the man may prove you to be so, but with so little time and a multitude of people out there, surely it makes sense to move on to the next man?

The man is a devout follower of a religion. He believes in self-sacrifice. He spends his Sunday mornings in a haunted house, praying on a mat to the invisible - for a brilliance that he'd realise he already has if he'd take the time to look for it! Your experience tells you that he'd put a ghost before himself and his family, and you judge him to be disrespecting of his existence as a human being. Hey, you could be wrong - and the man may prove you to be so, but with so little time and a multitude of people out there, surely it makes sense to move on to the next man?

The man drives a dustbin lorry for a living. His uniform is a high visibility vest. Experience tells you that he probably has no desire to run a business or become a stockbroker, so you judge him to offer no value to your business or career. Hey, you could be wrong - and the man may prove you to be so, but with so little time and a multitude of people out there, surely it makes sense to move on to the next man?

Yet, any form of critique by one human unto another is seen as disrespectful, and inhuman. But any act of 'diplomacy' between two humans is seen as a mark of respect, regardless of the lies that have been told in a bid to 'respect' the other's feelings.

Allow me to use a recent sporting example of this 'respect'. Recently, in a Premier League football match between Manchester United and Arsenal, one of the United players, in a display of confidence and skill - and enjoyment - decided to juggle the ball whilst running down the pitch. Frustrated at being on the losing side, a chasing defender, incensed at his opponent's flamboyance, decided to lash-out with a kick.

At the end of the game, the showman was vilified by the losing manager and players for 'taking the mickey' and being 'disrespectful' of his opponents - all for using his skill to his advantage and enjoyment. Apparently, performing at your best is disrespectful of people that are of lesser ability. And the 'done' thing is to scale back your brilliance so as to appear on 'equal' standing with your peers.

This 'equality' ideology has got out of control. I'm going to write in depth on equality sometime soon. But for now, let me say, that with every passing day, it seems laws and legislations are passed that force duct tape over the mouths of the strong, and at the same time hand a microphone to the needy.

And what's worrying is that the nil-by-minds are clamouring for more. Everytime another law claws itself into the rulebook, it becomes another shackle on the wings of freedom, and another step in the direction of slavery and with it, ultimately, the end of the human race. If we are to be free, to simply 'stop' all this is not enough. To start moving toward freedom, we need to actually turn around and start walking in the opposite direction.

The right thing to do is to give every human being in your path a smile and the benefit of the doubt, and then continue on - until they prove you right or wrong. If they prove you right, well then maybe they're on the same path as you - going in the same direction. If they prove you wrong, then move on immediately. No human who disrespects his immense human potential to live well below his capability should have any place in your life.

You only live once, and the clock keeps ticking. Don't waste time on the energy-suckers in this world.

Master your power of judgement. It comes in pretty handy, I tell you - no matter what the zombies tell you.

To freedom,

Scotty Stevens

When I was a kid of around 11 - 12 years old, my friends at school used to chat about the naughty films they'd stayed-up late to watch the night before. If you were a boy growing up in the 80's, you'll remember the ones I mean: National Lampoon's European Vacation and Class Reunion spring to mind.

My mates used to spend all day raving about the topless girl scenes. I had nothing to say since my parents would insist on censoring films like these that they knew I wanted to watch, recording them (on VHS) and then editing out all the good bits.

This used to incense me at a time when I was just discovering females as sexual objects (not literally, of course) and my friends' regaling me with breakdowns of the bit where the hottie jumps into the pool topless, or where the nerd looks through the keyhole to see the high school princesses getting changed, and my frantically searching the tape looking for these bits, only to discover that it had been cut by my very own private censorship board left me empty and envious of my jammy friends.

Maybe this contributed to my fight against - amongst other things - censorship. If so, I guess it was a good thing! But in reality, censorship is a bad thing, since it involves a minority robbing the choice of the majority. Let me explain.

There are many forms of censorship: moral, political, religious, military, corporate. Right now, I'm going to talk about the actual philosophy of censorship, its implications, and reasons for its negative effect on society. For this purpose, I'll use the film classification example.

The main worry with the idea of freedom from film classification would probably be the effect of the prophesied explosion of films limitless in their violent and sexual content would have on society. To believe in the idea that the human race would spiral into rapid deterioration if censorship was lifted is to not understand humans at all.

Let's pretend, for example, that censorship of film was no more. And let's say a company wanted to make a film with extreme violence of the kind never before seen in a film. Incidentally, a film of this nature could only be made possible in today's human-depravity-addicted climate - as small a minority as it is - and only by someone actually despicable enough to actually want to make it.

I mean think about it, who in their right mind actually gets turned-on at the thought of humans ripping each other to pieces? The kind that want to make films like these, that's whom. In a truly rational, human society, there would really only be a tiny minority - if any - that would actually want to make this type of film. And there would be an equally tiny minority - if any - that would want to watch it.

Now imagine that your twelve-year-old kid wants to go and watch this film. A lack of film censorship has made its creation possible, right? But it's you that now has the choice of whether your child watches it or not - NOT a third party organisation.

So the choice now, is, do you let your child watch the film or not? If you have any standards of course, you wouldn't let your child watch it. And in an ideal world, NO parent would let their child watch the film. But what about the adults that want to watch it?

Assuming no children would be allowed by their parents to watch the film, it would therefore only be adults that would want to go and watch it. At this point, adult fans of these films would be the hungry market giving life to these films via ticket fees and video sales - the profits transformed into further, sicker films AND the existence of their fans acting as proof that there was indeed a market for the films.

So, in our example here, every party so far mentioned now has the power and freedom of choice (except the kids, whose parents forbade them going to see the film. This is part of the role of a good parent and contributes to the maturing of a good, rational adult. To let one's children's impressionable minds be exposed to films like these would result in offspring of weaker morals, since the concept of humans ripping each other to pieces as entertainment would be embedding itself into the child's philosophy.)

So with that said, with everybody in our example completely free - the filmmakers to release the film uncensored, the adult viewers to watch the film uncensored, and the parents to allow their kids to watch it or not - how does this all back-up my claim that censorship is bad?

Let's break it down. The filmmakers are free to create and release any film they please. And in this example, they've chosen to create a film of excessive violence. How is this a good thing? It's not. But it wouldn't be the freedom from censorship that would be to blame. Analyse why they made the film - it's because of the way they are as persons.

Why are they the way they are? Because of the choices they made. Why did they make the choices they made? Because of their philosophy. Who grew their philosophy? They did, based on what was fed to them as children, during the development of that philosophy. Who fed them as children? Those that reared them. Who reared them? Their parents, guardians, monkeys, criminals, etc.

So if their philosophy, obviously, has led them to create negative, depraved films, then surely those that reared them are ultimately to blame? Yes, mostly, but also are the 'morals' most prevalent in their society. What if society HAS had a big effect on their wanting to create these films? The genetic parents chose to have them, and in doing so, accepted FULL responsibility for what went into their minds in the child's formative years AND the admission that the society they chose to bring them up in had the potential to influence them in great ways, too.

What about the adult viewers? See the previous answers - but swap creating the film for watching it. What about the parents? If they didn't stop their kids from going to watch the film, why was that? See the previous answers - but swap creating the film for letting their child watch whatever they want. What if the kids somehow escape and watch the film anyway? See the previous answers - but swap creating the film for having and rearing kids that want to escape guardianship.

Moving on. Consider those that phone up, or write to a television company, complaining about the lack of quality television programs. Acknowledging the power of choice, what's the solution, here? Change the channel. What if you're not happy about paying for a television license where most of the stuff you're paying for is rubbish? Don't have a television license and get a new hobby. What if you demand high quality television programs, but there are none? Make your own television programs!

We're talking about the power of choice. Every time something is censored, the decision is being made for us by an organisation, the representatives of which we've likely never met before. We can conclude that the negation of choice and, with it, the implementation of controls, inhibit the growth of humans, caging a man, making him want to break free.

If we lived in a truly free society, and I mean FREE in every way, with objective laws existent only to protect this freedom of man, a police force to enforce it, and an armed force to protect the borders from foreign invaders, the world would be very different.

For a start, the savages would die out with effective policing and the protection of the civilised, therefore stifling the savages' barbaric ways.

The non-productive would be forced to produce as their line of welfare and support - their passive, automatic means of survival - would be cut.

The irrational would be forced to become rational, as they would no longer be protected by subjective laws, the validity of which dependent upon the arbitrary philosophy of random judges.

The mystics would be forced to finally realise that the beauty on this earth that wasn't here before they arrived, was actually created with their own hands, since any hypotheses suggesting otherwise would finally become transparent in light of the belated recognition of there being no proof of it.

The strong, creative, industrious and honest would thrive as they would finally be free to operate at a maximum human capacity, thus advancing the human race further. Any irrational minority would simply be impotent within such a system.

Therefore, there would be no need for censorship in a completely free society. There would be few - if any - making stuff that REALLY needed censoring, anyway, and there would few - if any - consuming it.

This is what we should be fighting for.

To freedom,

Scotty Stevens

Some people, on hearing the title of this project - 'The God Is You' - have immediately understood what I mean by it. Some people, on hearing its name, have remarked that I must be a devout Christian, whose angle with the site must be to preach that "God is within us".

But to think that would be making the assumption that I believe in God. And you'd be far from the truth - I'm an atheist. Notice that it's called 'THE God Is You', not 'God Is You', and you may be nearer to understanding what it means. Still unsure? That's why the purpose of my second post, here, is to clarify exactly why I chose the title I did. Read on…

By the way, before I continue, you may wonder why, being an atheist, I spell God with a capital 'G'. The reason is purely grammatical. Robin Hood is a fictional character. (And a bad example of a hero, too. But enough about that for now.) I wouldn't spell his name in lower case, as it's bad grammar. The same goes for God. Just in case you wondered.

So, after reading thus far - first post included - you may be thinking to yourself, "Is this guy one negative bastard, or what?!" I guess that would be understandable after being told by me that selfishness is good, and that there is no God. But believe me, noone is as happy as me to be alive. I am the most positive person you could ever meet. Let me illustrate further.

There's a story (origin unsure) that I've heard a couple of times, that angers me. It represents and epitomises the very philosophy that I am so deeply opposed to; the philosophy that is threatening to shrink man's faith in his ability, and with it, any chance of advancing as a race. The story goes a little something like this…

A farmer was showing-off his beautiful land to his pastor. It was a gorgeous farm, with lush fields and pastures full of livestock. The pastor kept remarking, "With the good Lord's help, you've created a wonderful place, here." The pastor kept repeating such comments as the farmer showed him around. Eventually, the now-flustered farmer exclaimed, "Yes, but you should've have seen it when the good Lord had it all to himself!"

The premise of this parable is that the farmer wouldn't have been able to create the well-managed farm operation by himself. The farmer's response to the pastor's continual preaching reveals his frustration at the implicit declaration that he couldn't have done it alone. Its intended conclusion is that God is at the root of everything that is created by man.

And there lies the source of the thinking that I am fighting with this project. And therein lies the meaning of the title of this site; "The God Is You." So you see, when I say, "The God Is You", I'm stating that all the wonder on this earth that wasn't already here before the arrival of human beings, this 'God' of which the mystics speak was the creator of it all - is… you.

Nothing else. Take away the books and scriptures, take away the churches, synagogues and temples, take away the robes and dog collars, and what are you left with? Human beings.

We are amazing.

To deny this, to continue to rail that we do it all with God's help by kneeling next our bed and praying hard, is to wrongfully admit that humans are incompetent animals in need of saving, herding and tethered. This is insane, and it's this idea that is ruining our race.

I'm proud to be human, of what we have achieved, and of what we CAN achieve. I have faith in this race. But it’s more than faith - it’s knowing. I know we can be great - there is no 'faith' involved. If only everyone thought this way…

The other day, some Jehovah Witnesses came to my door. For the first time, I spoke the truth. The conversation went something like this:

JW: "Do you think we'll ever see an end to the lawlessness in this world?"
SS: (On spying a 'Watchtower' pamphlet, sheathed under his arm) "Yes, I do. But it won't be with religion."
JW: "Why is that?"
SS: "Because I believe - in fact I know - that religion is the cause of the lawlessness of this world, because it teaches human beings to believe in the invisible, rather than in themselves."

They shuffled off with their tails between their legs.

This is my cause. This is my battle. And that is why the God is you.

To freedom,

Scotty Stevens