Atheists who don't hate religion

[Orphia Nay]

Ask yourself though. Is religion the root cause of those things, or the justification? Would people still do these things if you removed religion from the equation?

This is changing the subject and/or does not excuse religion for causing these horrors.

I'm perfectly willing to accept the fact that religion itself doesn't directly accomplish any good, given that it's often the secondary motivation / reinforcing factor for people's pre-existing morals. However, I would have to apply that same logic to the bad things religion is blamed for as well.

Let's see: religion itself doesn't do good or evil, but is superstitious, delusional and wrong. Hmmm, do I like it or not?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Let's see: religion itself doesn't do good or evil, but is superstitious, delusional and wrong. Hmmm, do I like it or not?

And there is the crux of the matter, that distinct but subtle shift in the rules that occurs whenever we start talking about religion that apparently we all just have to agree makes sense.

In no other topic is diagreement broken down like it is here.

If my Boss thinks 2+2=3 and because of that it makes him calculate my paycheck wrong everyone month and I oppose him based on that he believes a falsehood that is directly causing him to treat me improperly no one then turns around and launches into some "OMG I can't believe you are lumping everyone who is bad at math together! People who are good at math do bad things too! What about that time he overpaid you because he's bad at math! You have to take the good with the bad!" tirade.

I get it. People think that playing the wishy-washy kumbaya "Oh don't you see it's all the same" card makes them more PC or more tolerant or whatever.

But religion isn't a race. It's not a gender. It's not a sexual orientation or disability or anything like that. It's an opinion about a base factor in how the world works. It actually means something. It is a difference that matters. If the difference is negative then we shouldn't all have to pretend otherwise because a bunch of apologist have decided doing so is the "nice" thing to do.

 

[JoeMorgue]

You are right. "Hate" is an ambiguous word. In some sense hate and indignation are similar. Both are kinds of emotional aversion pointed to a thing or a person. Hate is usually considered more intense and unthinking, but indignation can be also intense if not controlled. I see the difference in that indignation is a specifically emotional response to some thing we consider unfair. This is why “hate” has a negative connotation and “moral indignation” is a positive word.

Yeah but at a certain point this just turns into semantics.

I oppose religion because it is factually wrong. I have a negative emotional response to religion based on the objective harm that factual error creates.

Call that whatever you want, the distinction becomes rather meaningless rather quick.

 

[Delvo]

I'm perfectly willing to accept the fact that religion itself doesn't directly accomplish any good, given that it's often the secondary motivation / reinforcing factor for people's pre-existing morals. However, I would have to apply that same logic to the bad things religion is blamed for as well.

No, you don't. History makes it quite clear which one is religion's true nature and which one is a disguise: when it has the power, it does what it really wants, and when it doesn't, it pretends to play along with whatever does have the power, to wait until it can get back in power and back to doing what it really wants again.

 

[HansMustermann]

I would add that it's not even just a matter of extrapolating, it's something that is actually quite predictable, and far from being something that only some lunatic fringe came up with, those excesses actually make perfect sense if you truly believe.

To quote Sam Harris loosely from memory, killing the heretics and apostates makes perfect sense if you believe the Christian doctrines. In fact, the neighbourhood heretic is more dangerous than the neighbourhood pedophile. The pedophile can only hurt your kid for a finite time, but the heretic could put some ideas into the kids head that will cause him to burn in hell for all eternity. That's infinite harm.

Or, I'd add myself, if you look at all the religious homophobia in the USA, again, it's something that makes perfect sense if you really believe what's in the bible. If you really believe that Paul was right (and hey, he had regular conversations with Jesus) that being gay is just some idea you get when you're an idolatrous heathen, then it's as good as believing it's contagious. Add actually believing that God really doesn't like it (he did command killing gays at one point, which doesn't come across as liking them.) Again, you have potential for infinite harm. Then it makes sense to want your kids as far away as possible from those who could give him such heathen ideas.

It's a recipe for hatred. There's no escaping the fact that it's a recipe for marking other people as extremely dangerous. And just like with any other hate group, if you ever get people who truly believe that ideology in a position to do something about it, a lot will.

 

[Chaos]

No, you don't. History makes it quite clear which one is religion's true nature and which one is a disguise: when it has the power, it does what it really wants, and when it doesn't, it pretends to play along with whatever does have the power, to wait until it can get back in power and back to doing what it really wants again.

How is that different from any other ideology?

 

[HansMustermann]

How is that different from any other ideology?

In that not ideologies promoting hatred and fear of other people. I'd be less concerned if liberalism gets to power, than if the neonazis get to power, for example.

So, yes, it's just another ideology. But no, not all ideologies are created equal.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

I'm perfectly willing to accept the fact that religion itself doesn't directly accomplish any good, given that it's often the secondary motivation / reinforcing factor for people's pre-existing morals. However, I would have to apply that same logic to the bad things religion is blamed for as well.

Well that's great.

Now what are the secular reasons for:

1. Opposing gay marriage
2. Opposing choice in abortion
3. Opposing contraception
4. Genital mutilation
5. Opposing science education
6. Limiting the rights of women

.... let's start with those.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

Yes it is absolutely unreasonable to blame religion for the things religion does.

If someone kills a gay guy specifically because his existence offends the giant invisible sky wizard it is just soooooo unreasonable to actually suggest his belief in the giant invisible sky wizard had anything to do with it.

There's not stereotyping people... and then there is bending over backwards to pretend that nothing is a factor in anything anyone does.

Religion is a factor. Is it the only factor? Is it the underlying factor?

Homophobia is a blanket term used to describe a huge range of attitudes. Yes, there are undeniably some people who have a strong "moral objection" to homosexuality due to religious upbringing. However, some people also find homosexual sex disgusting, and others simply seethe with rage towards homosexuals for some unknown reason. People hate because they want to fit in, and bigotry against another group offers social cohesion. When humans still lived in tribes, it was advantageous to be suspicious of anyone who didn't look, act, speak, or think like you.

Yes, well, you explained how YOU choose to understand "I hate all religions." Did you ask THEM exactly what degree of hate do they mean?

To tell you the truth, when I was thinking of a topic title, I was torn between "hate" and "despise." They both mean the same thing, according to the dictionary, so I didn't see how using one term or the other could cause any confusion. If it helps clear things up, I can request that the mods edit the topic title to "despise."

And yes, like I said, I've been arguing alongside atheists like this for upwards of 10 years.

This is changing the subject and/or does not excuse religion for causing these horrors.

Let's see: religion itself doesn't do good or evil, but is superstitious, delusional and wrong. Hmmm, do I like it or not?

You were describing local tribal customs and rituals that aren't exactly features of the specific religion as a whole. Religion incorporates and assimilates these customs wherever it encounters them, but the same isn't necessarily true for believers the world over.

Do you hate the people who believe in a religion, or just the religion itself? Do you think things would improve if they gave up their beliefs? How would you propose this be accomplished?

No, you don't. History makes it quite clear which one is religion's true nature and which one is a disguise: when it has the power, it does what it really wants, and when it doesn't, it pretends to play along with whatever does have the power, to wait until it can get back in power and back to doing what it really wants again.

Then why aren't the majority of religious people violent?

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Well that's great.

Now what are the secular reasons for:

1. Opposing gay marriage
2. Opposing choice in abortion
3. Opposing contraception
4. Genital mutilation
5. Opposing science education
6. Limiting the rights of women

.... let's start with those.

I just took a screen shot of your post.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

Now what are the secular reasons for:

1. Opposing gay marriage
2. Opposing choice in abortion
3. Opposing contraception
4. Genital mutilation
5. Opposing science education
6. Limiting the rights of women

.... let's start with those.

Good question. Understand that I'm not saying religion isn't involved at all. I'm saying that it's one of several motivations, typically a secondary one.

1. Marriage was traditionally a property contract done for social status / political reasons, and to produce an heir. It was not for love. For example, consider all the royal families that arranged marriages to strengthen alliances or bloodlines. The idea of marrying for love is fairly recent. Now, I agree that had religion not gotten in the way, we'd have had marriage equality a lot sooner. But it still might have taken some time to overcome existing cultural prejudices.

2. Don't get me wrong, the religious reasons for this are stupid. As for secular reasons, it's harder to come up with them. One could argue that the parents' responsibility to a child come before the child is born, although this is assuming the pregnancy is desired in the first place. I would argue that abortion isn't the problem itself, as much as a symptom of social injustice towards women. It's a sign that things aren't right. However, I can't think of good secular reasons to oppose choice, other than abortion is an invasive procedure and can cause emotional trauma to the woman-- but I'm sure women are aware of this.

3. I'm not speaking for myself here, but the non-religious reasons people give for opposing contraception usually have to do with how it encourages irresponsible behavior.

4. Genital mutilation is actually a tribal custom that has been incorporated into many a religion. The reasons for it have to do with hygiene (for males) and a patriarchal culture's need to control the sexuality of women (for females). Note that I'm not saying I agree with these reasons. They're just as wrong as the religious reasons.

5. I can think of several anti-scientific ideologies that are not religious. Eugenics is one example. Racism is another. The AGW denial crowd has reasons that are political, not religious.

6. Just about every civilization on Earth has been patriarchal. While women were burdened with bearing and raising children, men were freed up to travel, explore, trade, and acquire vast wealth and power. Those in power tend to want to stay in power, so men created laws limiting the rights of women. This would happen with or without religion.

 

[blutoski]

Good question. Understand that I'm not saying religion isn't involved at all. I'm saying that it's one of several motivations, typically a secondary one.

1. Marriage was traditionally a property contract done for social status / political reasons, and to produce an heir. It was not for love. For example, consider all the royal families that arranged marriages to strengthen alliances or bloodlines. The idea of marrying for love is fairly recent. Now, I agree that had religion not gotten in the way, we'd have had marriage equality a lot sooner. But it still might have taken some time to overcome existing cultural prejudices.

2. Don't get me wrong, the religious reasons for this are stupid. As for secular reasons, it's harder to come up with them. One could argue that the parents' responsibility to a child come before the child is born, although this is assuming the pregnancy is desired in the first place. I would argue that abortion isn't the problem itself, as much as a symptom of social injustice towards women. It's a sign that things aren't right. However, I can't think of good secular reasons to oppose choice, other than abortion is an invasive procedure and can cause emotional trauma to the woman-- but I'm sure women are aware of this.

3. I'm not speaking for myself here, but the non-religious reasons people give for opposing contraception usually have to do with how it encourages irresponsible behavior.

4. Genital mutilation is actually a tribal custom that has been incorporated into many a religion. The reasons for it have to do with hygiene (for males) and a patriarchal culture's need to control the sexuality of women (for females). Note that I'm not saying I agree with these reasons. They're just as wrong as the religious reasons.

5. I can think of several anti-scientific ideologies that are not religious. Eugenics is one example. Racism is another. The AGW denial crowd has reasons that are political, not religious.

6. Just about every civilization on Earth has been patriarchal. While women were burdened with bearing and raising children, men were freed up to travel, explore, trade, and acquire vast wealth and power. Those in power tend to want to stay in power, so men created laws limiting the rights of women. This would happen with or without religion.

Yep. It's important to realize that in secular countries/states, the religious realize they will not get broad public for their moral position unless they produce secular reasoning, so all these topics have a 'secular angle', even if it's still depicted as a moral position.

Worth mentioning in particular about #5 that science bashing is very much a secular hobby these days. It's the overlap that's deceptive: it's not causal as RELIGION->SCIENCEDENIAL, it's rather a 'common cause' situation: (RELIGION AND/OR LIBERTARIANISM)->SCIENCEDENIAL. Milloy's Junk Science brand is a classic example. They stop just short of "Are you getting enough DDT in your diet?"

Also worth mentioning re #2, that one of the most persuasive proponents of 'abortion is morally wrong and prohibition may be justified' is a prominent CSICOP fellow and atheist Taner Edis. He and I sparred on this particular subject for about 20 years, and he's run circles around me logically. (full disclosure: neither of us has a degree in philosophy, so it's strictly amateur hour)

And an additional point about #3: the dominant arguments circulated to oppose contraception that I have seen appear to be focussed on medical risk/benefit analysis. i.e.: doesn't work reliably, causes cancer, causes suicide... that sort of thing. It's all garbage, but those are the arguments presented.

 

[blutoski]

Religion is a factor. Is it the only factor? Is it the underlying factor?

(context: The quote above was about homosexuality)

I've actually used the marginalization of homosexuality as a pretty good case for religion not being the root cause. Secularists are really clear about the fact that the bible is pretty sparse about how to deal with homosexuality. It's in Deuteronomy, along with tattoos, which Christians don't seem to think is a problem. We point out the inconsistency, but miss the obvious: something else is going on, the bible isn't really the origin of their values.

My impression after all these years is that people have a range of predispositions, and they are raised in a religious environment. They will pick and choose religious beliefs to suit their predisposition. Atheists do the same thing. We call it ethics.

This lesson was brought to me in a pretty devastating way when I was a teenager. It was the '80s so the Cold War was a real thing, and my rebellious young peers included Young Trotskyites and the like. Hardcore atheists to a man, they were also profoundly antisemitic, blacks-are-biologically inferior, and wanted homosexuals castrated and quarantined on San Juan Island (AIDS was a new epidemic). The justification: "It's for the greater good." (i.e.: secular utilitarianism)

 

[Orphia Nay]

Religion incorporates and assimilates these customs wherever it encounters them, but the same isn't necessarily true for believers the world over.

I didn't say it was.

Do you hate the people who believe in a religion, or just the religion itself?

I was talking about religion in general.

Let's not change the subject.

Do you think things would improve if they gave up their beliefs? How would you propose this be accomplished?

These are more deflections away from the subject.

I said, "Religion itself doesn't do good or evil, but is superstitious, delusional and wrong."

Doesn't that make it worthy of dislike?

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

Good question. Understand that I'm not saying religion isn't involved at all. I'm saying that it's one of several motivations, typically a secondary one.

Secondary? OK, let's see..

1. Marriage was traditionally a property contract done for social status / political reasons, and to produce an heir. It was not for love. For example, consider all the royal families that arranged marriages to strengthen alliances or bloodlines. The idea of marrying for love is fairly recent. Now, I agree that had religion not gotten in the way, we'd have had marriage equality a lot sooner. But it still might have taken some time to overcome existing cultural prejudices.

But that doesn't answer the question. We are where we are here in 2014. What are the secular reasons for opposing gay marriage today? Or even homosexuality in general - its still illegal in quite a few places.

2. Don't get me wrong, the religious reasons for this are stupid. As for secular reasons, it's harder to come up with them. One could argue that the parents' responsibility to a child come before the child is born, although this is assuming the pregnancy is desired in the first place. I would argue that abortion isn't the problem itself, as much as a symptom of social injustice towards women. It's a sign that things aren't right. However, I can't think of good secular reasons to oppose choice, other than abortion is an invasive procedure and can cause emotional trauma to the woman-- but I'm sure women are aware of this.

So if you can't think of a good secular reason, then any negatives coming from it are purely religious.

3. I'm not speaking for myself here, but the non-religious reasons people give for opposing contraception usually have to do with how it encourages irresponsible behavior.

Are those views supported by evidence? And what does irresponsible mean in that context? What's more irresponsible...unprotected sex or sex with a condom?

4. Genital mutilation is actually a tribal custom that has been incorporated into many a religion. The reasons for it have to do with hygiene (for males) and a patriarchal culture's need to control the sexuality of women (for females). Note that I'm not saying I agree with these reasons. They're just as wrong as the religious reasons.

So all those circumcised boys in the US are just part of a tribal culture? Sorry but what is the secular reason again in 2014? Hygiene? Soap and water???

5. I can think of several anti-scientific ideologies that are not religious. Eugenics is one example. Racism is another. The AGW denial crowd has reasons that are political, not religious.

Science denial is one thing, ideologies are another...what I asked about was opposing scientific education. Secular reasons for not teaching the best scientific explanations we have?

6. Just about every civilization on Earth has been patriarchal. While women were burdened with bearing and raising children, men were freed up to travel, explore, trade, and acquire vast wealth and power. Those in power tend to want to stay in power, so men created laws limiting the rights of women. This would happen with or without religion.

So what are the secular reasons for maintaining it?

Most of the above seem to be 'there are cultural reasons for these things coming about' but it ignores the fact that most of these 'cultures' have been eradicated and replaced with modern practices except where religion is used as a reason to maintain them.

If the reason 'God says so' was eliminated from our discourse how much more progress would we make on these and other issues today?

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

(context: The quote above was about homosexuality)

I've actually used the marginalization of homosexuality as a pretty good case for religion not being the root cause. Secularists are really clear about the fact that the bible is pretty sparse about how to deal with homosexuality. It's in Deuteronomy, along with tattoos, which Christians don't seem to think is a problem. We point out the inconsistency, but miss the obvious: something else is going on, the bible isn't really the origin of their values.

My impression after all these years is that people have a range of predispositions, and they are raised in a religious environment. They will pick and choose religious beliefs to suit their predisposition. Atheists do the same thing. We call it ethics.

This lesson was brought to me in a pretty devastating way when I was a teenager. It was the '80s so the Cold War was a real thing, and my rebellious young peers included Young Trotskyites and the like. Hardcore atheists to a man, they were also profoundly antisemitic, blacks-are-biologically inferior, and wanted homosexuals castrated and quarantined on San Juan Island (AIDS was a new epidemic). The justification: "It's for the greater good." (i.e.: secular utilitarianism)

The Bible being the origin of the values is a somewhat different question though - the Bible is used as a justification of the values. And one that is pretty hard to refute without refuting the entire basis of the religion.

I don't for a second claim that only religious people are homophobic or racist. But its pretty hard to be a rational thinking secular person and hold these views because if you actually present secular reasons for being homophobic or racist they are generally fairly easy to refute with facts and evidence.

Furthermore, if they actually come up with really good reasons to be anti-semitic, or racist, or homophobic then maybe we should be? Its not the conclusion that's the issue but how they got there.

The problem is, 'God says so', is seen as a dealbreaker argument. Its impossible to refute and yet its a position that we are compelled to somehow respect and which carries weight in society. But its not even an argument.

To compare, if someone claimed gay marriage should be illegal because it makes them feel uncomfortable we would say 'so what?'

Now if someone actually could show that gay marriage would reduce life expectancy by 20 years, or seriously damage the economy, or significantly increase the likelihood that Ebola will wipe out the Earth's population then we can have a discussion about that and see if there is merit in it. But all these arguments don't hold up so people resort back to 'yeah well, its just not right, the Bible says so'

Where do you go from there? Why should we even give those arguments the time of day?

 

[Frozenwolf150]

I said, "Religion itself doesn't do good or evil, but is superstitious, delusional and wrong."

Doesn't that make it worthy of dislike?

I would say it's worthy of skepticism, of being challenged, or even of being mocked. Dislike? Perhaps, and you're entitled to that point of view. But I personally wouldn't go as far as despise or hatred. It depends on how it's used.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

But that doesn't answer the question. We are where we are here in 2014. What are the secular reasons for opposing gay marriage today? Or even homosexuality in general - its still illegal in quite a few places.

It takes a while to overcome or change traditions, religious or otherwise. Cultural conservatives oppose change because they see the traditional as a source of stability.

So if you can't think of a good secular reason, then any negatives coming from it are purely religious.

For this issue, most likely.

Are those views supported by evidence? And what does irresponsible mean in that context? What's more irresponsible...unprotected sex or sex with a condom?

I didn't say they were good reasons, or that there was any evidence to support them. I was merely stating the reasons other people give that aren't related to religion.

So all those circumcised boys in the US are just part of a tribal culture? Sorry but what is the secular reason again in 2014? Hygiene? Soap and water???

I was talking about where the practice first originated. As for your question, nowadays in the industrialized world, there are still rare medical reasons why one might choose circumcision, or why one's parents might choose.

Science denial is one thing, ideologies are another...what I asked about was opposing scientific education. Secular reasons for not teaching the best scientific explanations we have?

What I meant was that if people are motivated by things like racism or AGW denial, they might be opposed to scientific explanations. It's not just science. Look at how some conservatives want history textbooks revised to paint a different picture that casts them in a better light. Their reasons are primarily political.

So what are the secular reasons for maintaining it?

Look at any politician today. Would they give up power voluntarily if given a choice? Very few would.

If the reason 'God says so' was eliminated from our discourse how much more progress would we make on these and other issues today?

It depends on the issue, and it's very hard to tell. People would just find other reasons to stick to their guns.

 

[Leumas]

Ask yourself though. Is religion the root cause of those things, or the justification? Would people still do these things if you removed religion from the equation?

I'm perfectly willing to accept the fact that religion itself doesn't directly accomplish any good, given that it's often the secondary motivation / reinforcing factor for people's pre-existing morals. However, I would have to apply that same logic to the bad things religion is blamed for as well.

To slightly paraphrase Steven Weinberg

With or without religion you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

I call the above phenomenon the Petri Dish Effect.

A petri dish is a plate full of sugar. Sugar is a benign sweet thing. Unfortunately all it takes is a spot of bacteria and in a day it becomes a deadly virulent environment. Why? Because the bacteria fed on the sweet inane sugary sweetness.

Liberal and moderate theists are the sugar for the fundamentalists in the petri dish of politics and society. Even when there is a wall of separation between state and church, the wall won't stand for long when they have money to buy bulldozers to knock down the wall at its foundations.

They get this money out of the sugary sweet people who attend their Petri Dishes.
​

If you were a woman whose life was altered irreparably (most likely to the worst) due to one night of passion and laws that prevented her from correcting her mistake then you might not tend to forget the vitiating effects religion has on people. What is not usually realized is that it was religious organizations that affected her life by rallying people's opinions and feeding on the matrix of sugary solution that is the people who attend and support the Petri Dishes called religious institutions to vote and to pass laws or change laws.

There is this flat worm (also see here) that infests a snail and makes it behave in such a way so as to become easier pray for birds which then eat it and their droppings filled with the parasite infect more snails and thus the cycle is completed, perpetuated and spread.

Notice how in this picture the drab ugly snail has become so much more colorful and “artistic looking” once the warm infested its eye tentacle.

Religion is very much a parasite that infects people’s brains and takes away their reasoning in exchange for blind faith. Much like the worm above, the religious virus makes theists behave in such a manner so as to help in disseminating and perpetuating the Petri Dish Effect (PDE). The infected people might be as sweet as sugar, but the fact is, inadvertently and haplessly due to the brain virus they have been infect with, they are helping in spreading the virulence that is feeding on their sugary sweetness.

A virus is not to be hated or reviled. It is just a bit of RNA not even alive. People who are infected by the virus are not to be hated, they are just victims. Even when they do actions that help to spread the infection, it is only because the virus affected their brains so as to do so; much like the effect on the poor snail above.

However, it behooves us to try and cure the people of the virus if we can find an antidote. If we cannot we should figure out how to quarantine them in such a manner so as to restrict their ability to spread and perpetuate the life cycle of the virus.

It is also important to try to inoculate people who are not yet infected if we can find a vaccine. Additionally, we should really be trying to wipe out the virus much like we did for other viruses.

There is yet one more thing that when we talk about viruses we have no problem in agreeing upon. If a person is going around with a needle injecting people with say the aids virus, what do we all agree should be done? Stop him at the very least if not incarcerate him, no?

Here is a little story which I call The Parable Of The Loving Evil Brother.

There is this boy (Tom) who has a much older brother (Jack). Jack is a WONDERFUL brother. He looks after Tom and takes care of him. He helps Tom when he needs it and spends weekends with him and gives him presents and all he needs.

Jack genuinely loves Tom and would give his life for him. He pays for Tom’s education in a very good school and Tom is doing very well and is on a fast track to being a very successful professional.

But there is a DARK SIDE to Jack. Jack is in fact a ruthless and relentless KILLER and THIEF. He is a PSYCHOPATH who cares for nobody and has no compunction about killing and torturing and robbing anyone and everyone.

The only good thing Jack has ever done is to love Tom and to genuinely take care of Tom out of totally selfish love for his brother.

What do you think Tom should do when he finds out about the reality of Jack? What should Tom feel about the fact that all his luxuries and his good things emanate from the proceeds of rapine and brigandage?

Tom is now faced with a dilemma. He loves his brother. He appreciates all that his brother has done for him. However, he now realizes that all his good fortune comes at the expense of other people. If his brother was not such a ruthless scoundrel he would not have been able to take care of him the way he did. All those people who suffered contributed to the advancement and comfort of Tom.

But Tom knows no one Jack has extirpated. He does not love them. They are not people who would have loved Tom, they are STRANGERS. Some may have even been bad people themselves. Maybe Jack was a Robin Hood in reality. Why should Tom care where his brother got the money that is paying for his excellent private education? The people Jack killed and robbed would not have helped him or cared about him. So why should he care about them? Jack is his flesh and blood and he did his best to secure a good life for himself and Tom. Is that really bad?

Tom deliberated and agonized. He was tormented. On the one hand if he renounces his brother according to the dictates of decency and morals, he would lose all the good things he has including the love of his doting brother. He would be out in the cold without the comfort and support afforded him for so long. He would not be able to finish his education due to loss of income and he would have a much harder life….albeit a decent one with a clear conscience.

On the other hand, if he turned a blind eye and did not abandon his criminal brother, he would be able to finish his education and be able to help people and society. He would ATONE for his brother’s misdeeds by doing good deeds and helping society.

After all, Jack has already done all the bad stuff and it would not help anyone if he went to prison. If Tom can make Jack promise to do no more harm then what good would it be to punish him for old misdeeds? The people he killed are not going to come back nor is there money to pay restitution for the people he wronged or recompense the people he robbed.

So why not just make sure that Jack stops doing any further harm and then try to do good from then onwards and Tom with his education can try to outweigh the harm his brother did. In a way that would wipe out the sins of Jack who when you really think about it has harmed a few people while Tom’s education can end up saving THOUSANDS of people in the long run.

So should Tom just keep on loving his brother and not condemn him but make sure he behaves or should Tom feel abhorrence and guilt that his good fortunes are a direct result of the AGONIES of many others?

Some people whom Jack has orphaned are now destitute and some people he robbed were not able to educate their children among whom there could have been some that had they been educated would have benefitted the world appreciably more and in more profound ways than Tom could ever even begin to do.

So Tom is to weigh the benefits to himself from turning a blind eye to the crimes of his brother and the suffering of his victims against the discomforts he will undergo after he does the decent and moral thing of disavowing Jack.

So based on the parable above, which choice would you pick?

• Comfortable accomplice and recipient of the loot of a Killer and Brigand
• Decency and clear conscience.

There is a third choice….. COGNITIVE DISSONANCE will make Tom come up with all sorts of apologetics that would cast Jack as a Robin Hood or even deny the crimes of Jack altogether.

The problem with people is that they really do not know or even want to know about the historical or current effects of religion.

Most organized religions are a lot worse than Jack and their adherents are hapless Toms. The problem is that once you know the past and current abuses you become aware of the pernicious crimes of the religion you are comforted by. So a dilemma arises; do you stay being comforted or do you renounce the religion despite the discomfort? Or do you delude yourself and deny or explain away the atrocities?

The egregious harm that religion causes is not just the direct effects on its victims, rather it is an all pervasive chronic retardation of humanity due to direct suppression of knowledge and even more importantly due to the LOSS of opportunities that may have evolved the human condition a lot further a long time ago.

The Catholic Church has officially apologized about Galileo but since Giordano Bruno is not very well known they were never pressured by anyone to apologize for SNUFFING his life and the resulting loss to humanity, not to mention the loss of his genes that may have benefited humanity along the last 400+ years.

I once read this pensive and poignant short story in a marvelous book called Galileo's Children: Tales of Science Vs. Superstition . It was by Keith Roberts called The will Of God. The story expresses most exquisitely the effects of Christianity on the world.

Roberts' short story explores the possibility of an inventive mind that creates the phonograph during the inquisition era and is burnt on the stake as a witch along with his demon-summoning contraption, his designs and writings as well as the only witness to the facts who was his maid that snitched on him to the Grand Inquisitor after being terrified out of her mind by the demon voices coming out of the device.

This fictional account is quite illustrative of what Christianity (as an example of a particularly nasty religion) managed to do to science and knowlede in REALITY, not just in fictional ponderings. See this list of victims as just a few examples among many across history.

A REAL historical parallel to the above story is the murder of Hypatia by Christians. Hypatia was an amazing mind. Who knows what more she could have accomplished had not "a mob of Christian monks flayed her body with ostraca (pot shards), and then burned her remains". All because of Christian Love and Tolerance. The movie dramatization of her story is a good one to see. It is called Agora.

One of the major trouble spots in the world is a little piece of dirt called Jerusalem. Almost 5.5 billion people think that this unfortunate city is the abode of a being that transcends time and space, but yet this entity has chosen out of all the expanse of the universe, which s/he/it created, this particular spot of dust to ask his chosen people to kill its inhabitants and then build him a house to be constructed with slaves and material and designers from foreign lands. And after all that s/he/it could not even defend it against some Babylonian soldiers to begin with then some Greek soldiers and finally some Roman soldiers who apparently did not leave a trace of it anywhere to be seen. Compare that with the ability of Zeus and Athena to defend their temples and statues to the extent that we have them till today.

If it was not for religion, millions of Jews would not have so stubbornly and benightedly against all persecution stuck to their delusions. If it was not for religion, millions of people under different delusions would not have minded that the Jews were adamant about theirs. If it was not for the deluded adherents throughout the generations who believed all sorts of moronic stuff despite all being nice people, no Pope or Mullah or Rabbi would have been able to justify to the “minds” of his cattle the hatred and xenophobia and extirpation that has plagued humanity in the past.

And the effects of the past have caused problems for us now and will continue to do so in the future. Just as an example of how mind rotting religions can be, have a look at this video and listen to minutes 21:30 to 26:09 and 34:30 to End. Also make sure you watch part 2 for added fun. Also must watch this video and listen to minutes 2:50 to End.




I am sure the guys in these videos are really nice persons (normally) but the extent to which their reasoning abilities have been retarded due to their religious APOLOGETICS is conducive to the HERD and FLOCK and HIVE mentality that religions cultivate and encourage in people.

Unfortunately, as nice as a sheep or cow or bee can be, when they stampede and swarm a lot of damage is left in the wake of their mania. Have a look at this post for a rundown of some of these kinds of problems.

For another sad and pathetic example of the LONG TERM and insidiously pernicious effect of religion in FALSIFYING HISTORY and HUMAN HERITAGE watch the contortions and writhing that this “archaeologist” has to go through wrangling words so as to justify his religious myth and deny real history.




If you are currently thinking “but that is just extreme individuals”, then you have missed the point. It is religion that spoiled the thinking ability of these people so as to bring about their extremism and facilitate it with a Petri Dish of sugary people who gave them unwitting support whether silently with money and voting or actively.

If you argue that other cultic-style organization (e.g. Patriotism, Nationalism, and other isms) do the same thing. Yes you are absolutely right, they do! However, just because Tom, Dick and Harry are foul murderers it does not acquit Larry from being a murderer too when he has been murdering just as heinously or less so. But I do think that the Abrahmic religions are probably right up there with the most vile of human religions ever invented. Have a look at this post.

Have a look at these questions that I often ask people

You are hungry and you go to a food van parked in the street selling sandwiches. You go there and order a chicken salad on rye. As the vendor is handing it to you it drops and falls right into the gutter.

You can afford a new sandwich.

Do you proceed to take the soiled sandwich and try to pick away all the filth and eat the sandwich?

You are now eating the soiled sandwich and despite all your efforts at removing all the bits and pieces of grime and muck that have become mingled in the salad you keep feeling crunches of something while you are chewing.

Do you immediately throw away the sandwich with disgust and abandon hope of eating it, or do you tell yourself that the crunchy stuff is full of goodness and vim?

What would it take for you to reconsider that maybe buying a new sandwich might be better than eating the old one with all its grungy filth?

What if you could not afford a new sandwich? Do you go through with the above attempts or would you rather stay hungry until you can afford a new one?

Do you see how pitiably pathetic is a person who picks up food that has become thoroughly mixed with feces and tries to pick away at the chunks of fecal matter just so as to be able to eat the sandwich?

What if that person can easily afford a new sandwich? What if the soiled sandwich was not even his in the first place, he just found it in the gutter and he is perfectly well to do?

What would you think of this very same man that despite being offered a clean sandwich for free rejects it and keeps on eating the filthy one even after you have pointed out to him all the feces and filth and smut and muck and grime all over and within the sandwich?​

There are three ways one can do harm

• Directly by doing an action that harms.
• Indirectly
  • Actively - By aiding or facilitating another person to do harm.
  • Passively – By standing by and doing nothing to stop a harm.

Obviously most good people are not going around doing direct harm. However, most attendees of organized religions are doing the indirect part.

By giving money to the church they are facilitating it. By supporting it and not speaking out against any actions they are passively doing harm.

One instance of such indirect harm is by supporting the Church’s political view. Despite the fact that Churches are not supposed to disseminate or advocate any political party…they do. So by tacitly supporting a religious moron to become a president or governor or congressman or senator or even mayor they are causing harm on local and Global scales.

By paying the tithe or more to the Church they are helping to give it power that translates into influence. This enables the church to make life hell for women who want to have control over their bodies or adult homosexuals who want to live in peace with their lovers. Bringing power to bear in order to thwart any research (e.g. stem cell) becomes much easier for moneyed and powerful organizations that work actively to undermine science.

When these churches have their way like what happened in Pennsylvania it results in harm in countless ways by hindering proper scientific education.

By hoping for and actively working towards precipitating the second coming they are basically hoping and working for the destruction of the world even if they do not realize it.

For instance I suggest you find out how much money your church sends to Israel. Much of this money goes towards funding the fundamentalist settlements in Israel. This in turn creates the atrocities we saw recently. Which in turn creates new generations of problems and strife on a global scale. All because of religion.


However, having said all that, I must admit that I do sometimes struggle with the concept of religion being useful for the feeble minded. For instance, the moment I find that someone is all messed up psychologically and that is why they are religious, I refrain from arguing with them anymore. They need the psychological support to stay "sane".


Nevertheless, I do agonize about the Petri Dish Effect, and I am conflicted when it comes to that consideration. In fact that is why I have considered DEISM as a good thing to promulgate. If we could convince all the feeble minded that there is a God (as they believe) but s/he/it is not the god of any stupid religion then they would have the comfort of the delusion without the harmful effects of religions. I wonder though, if the Deist god would have the same palliative effect.

In summary:

• Bad people will do bad things regardless. Good people will do good things regardless. But Religion makes good people do bad things or at the very least acquiesce to bad things being done or have apathy towards evil.
• If I shoot you and then carry you to the hospital to be saved, am I good or evil? Religion does the same. It caused in the past and still in many ways causes most of the trouble which it then proceeds to try and save you from.
• Religion is a DRUG. If someone is addicted to a drug or is an alcoholic but is happy and contented to be in a stupor do you think this is a healthy state of existing?
• Religion is nothing but a brain vitiating VIRUS and we need to counteract its spread and we need to inoculate as many as we can against its Petri Dish Effect.
• In a Petri Dish virulent bacteria feed on a benign sugary matrix and so can a few bad people rally many nice people so as to become a virulent lot.
• Religion fosters, demands and facilitates the Herd and Hive mentality. Unfortunately herds tend to stampede and hives tend to swarm at the slightest panic which they are given plenty of.
• When people are encouraged to abandon reason there is no accounting as to what else they can abandon, willingly or unwillingly.
• When people’s epistemological foundations are faulty then Cognitive Dissonance is always a risk unless they are never exposed to anything that might challenge the fabric of their delusions. Isn’t it better to build one’s epistemology on more valid and solid grounds so as to avoid pain when the delusions are inevitably shattered by the world of science we live in today? Maybe people are unhappy because of fractured puerile delusions and immature illusions. If they never had these faulty ideas maybe they would have had a better grasp on reality??
• Children eventually with growing pains and cries mature out of the Santa and Tooth Fairy delusions which they really loved. Is it not time that adults matured out of the big sky abusive daddy delusions?
• Just as nice people (albeit benighted) are able to interpret their scriptures in a nice way, so can others interpret it in a bad way. And like in a petri dish, bad bacteria will feed and thrive in the environment of nice sugary benign faithfuls and will spread and finally become a virulent poison. So what we need is to make the sugary medium less hospitable to those bacteria......how to do it?????
• Religions when they had power, they abused it and ran amuck. Don’t kid yourself. Do you think if they had the power they would refrain from outlawing any business on Sunday? Do you think they would allow abortion?
• We still till today are suffering from religions’ past abuses in numerous ways throughout the globe. I am sure if they ever get that power again we will all know how insidiously pernicious the Petri Dish Effect can be all over again.

Watch this video and listen to what Christopher Hitchens says in minutes 22:37 to the End.

 

[Howie Felterbush]

Put me down as a non-hater, if you're keeping score. I find religious zealots and atheist zealots equally annoying, but I don't hate either of them. If anything, I'm slightly more annoyed by radical atheists.

I work for a Lutheran charity organization. At my interview, I told the guy, "By the way, I'm an atheist. Is that a problem?" He looked at me and said, "Nobody around here cares. We just want someone who can do the job." There is zero proselytizing in this organization. No one tries to convert anyone else; matter of fact, I have never even heard a religious conversation or discussion. We run a bunch of thrift shops and use the money to fund group homes for disabled people. Some of our clients that are able to actually work with us, doing light assembly and packaging or working in the thrift stores. That's pretty much it.

Anyone who has a problem with this outfit because it has "Lutheran" in the name is a bozo.