Tuesday, 21 December 2010
Catholic Cult Of Mind
I know someone in person, who I used to have on my friends list on Facebook before he removed me. He's a "proud Catholic" and he tried, and failed, to debate me on religion all the time.
I think what made him finally remove me was on the issue of condoms, and how the Pope further proved himself a hypocrite when he recently said that condoms were OK 'some of the time'. This person was trying to make the point that abstinence was the most effective way of preventing STD's, but what he could not understand was that its just not in humans' nature to be abstinent; a nature which he would believe God created.
He was arguing that because condoms are NOT 100% effective at preventing STD's, by promoting the use of condoms, that I was condemning millions of people to death. A moron, right?
But when I asked him "How long has the Catholic church been promoting abstinence?", which is thousands of years and given the fact that it has not worked, condoms are the next best thing. He finally quit and then removed me.
You see, as a person, he's fine. He and others like him who have been brainwashed [he doesn't think he's been brainwashed] to argue for and defend the Catholic cult from an early age, despite all evidence linking them to child RAPE, protecting paedophile priests, obscene wealth, and subjugation and discrimination of women for thousands of years.
How anyone can call themselves a "proud Catholic" is beyond belief to me. But there are, and I am moved to feel physically sick.
Sunday, 28 November 2010
Secularism as Religion’s New Home
We are all too aware of acts and atrocities carried out by religious authority in the past and even in the present, as well as those verses in scripture that justified them. So is it no surprise therefore, that there are people who act on them? The apologist may argue that there may always be violent and dangerous people, but if one were to remove scripture as a source for ‘morality’ then in the very least, such people would no longer have a base to justify their actions. It would mean that their source that justifies their actions would no longer exist. But its really a non-starter because the argument presumes that 'people' and 'religion' are not mutually exclusive, when there is very little way of knowing that.
But while the fact that religion causes so much violence and hate is a good point to make, for me, it comes secondary to my first argument against it, which is "Is it actually true?" Because if it isn't true, as it most surely isn't, then people fighting, sentencing homosexuals to death, forcing women against their human rights, mutilating children's genitals, etc, only serves to make it look even more pathetic and stupid.
And this whole idea "Oh I have the true interpretation of religion 'X'! All those people committing genocide and atrocities in the name of religion 'X' have got it wrong!" is absolutely pathetic, and that's the most respect I can give to that argument.
'Liberal theology' actually derives its values far more from secular (and Humanist) practices and moral progresses, not from religion. Why Christians today don't stone to death disobedient children [Deuteronomy 21:18-21] or keep slaves [1 Corinthians 7:20-24] etc, is not because the Bible says not to [because it most surely does!] but because of secular moral progress - that is, progress IN SPITE of religion. The entire idea that somehow someone is against slavery because they think it what their God or holy book says, is completely, utterly, totally, absolutely wrong, completely wrong. There are no two sides to this. They'll make excuses and pass it off as much as they want, but they are wrong.
I can appreciate that there are decent, civil, kind, generous, warm-hearted people who, at least would like to think, that they're religious believers. I have family members who think like this myself, and I still love them dearly. But I simply argue that they're not really Christian, because Christianity at least, has come so far removed from itself now, that Christianity today would not recognisably be called 'Christianity' hundreds of years ago. 'Moderate Christians' would be classed as heretics or even atheists, heaven forbid [pun intended].
But religion doesn't have a self-correcting mechanism like science does. There isn't any way of changing the 'word of God', is there? The word of God is the word of God, as it is written in the holy books. Instead, it jumps on the back of the secular moral persuasion, which is self-correcting, and then claims that it's somehow 'grown up' or 'not so bad any more'. The so-called 'fundamentalist Christians' are simply the more 'theologically honest Christians'.
In a secular society, we need to make ourselves aware of this, and to not treat religion as some kind of rejuvenated or enlightened instruction manual on 'How to be a good person'. Its not. Religious people in more secular societies are actually far more secular [non-religious] than they realise.
But while the fact that religion causes so much violence and hate is a good point to make, for me, it comes secondary to my first argument against it, which is "Is it actually true?" Because if it isn't true, as it most surely isn't, then people fighting, sentencing homosexuals to death, forcing women against their human rights, mutilating children's genitals, etc, only serves to make it look even more pathetic and stupid.
And this whole idea "Oh I have the true interpretation of religion 'X'! All those people committing genocide and atrocities in the name of religion 'X' have got it wrong!" is absolutely pathetic, and that's the most respect I can give to that argument.
'Liberal theology' actually derives its values far more from secular (and Humanist) practices and moral progresses, not from religion. Why Christians today don't stone to death disobedient children [Deuteronomy 21:18-21] or keep slaves [1 Corinthians 7:20-24] etc, is not because the Bible says not to [because it most surely does!] but because of secular moral progress - that is, progress IN SPITE of religion. The entire idea that somehow someone is against slavery because they think it what their God or holy book says, is completely, utterly, totally, absolutely wrong, completely wrong. There are no two sides to this. They'll make excuses and pass it off as much as they want, but they are wrong.
I can appreciate that there are decent, civil, kind, generous, warm-hearted people who, at least would like to think, that they're religious believers. I have family members who think like this myself, and I still love them dearly. But I simply argue that they're not really Christian, because Christianity at least, has come so far removed from itself now, that Christianity today would not recognisably be called 'Christianity' hundreds of years ago. 'Moderate Christians' would be classed as heretics or even atheists, heaven forbid [pun intended].
But religion doesn't have a self-correcting mechanism like science does. There isn't any way of changing the 'word of God', is there? The word of God is the word of God, as it is written in the holy books. Instead, it jumps on the back of the secular moral persuasion, which is self-correcting, and then claims that it's somehow 'grown up' or 'not so bad any more'. The so-called 'fundamentalist Christians' are simply the more 'theologically honest Christians'.
In a secular society, we need to make ourselves aware of this, and to not treat religion as some kind of rejuvenated or enlightened instruction manual on 'How to be a good person'. Its not. Religious people in more secular societies are actually far more secular [non-religious] than they realise.
Tuesday, 9 November 2010
Rotten To The Core
When we go back to the very beginning in the Bible with the Adam and Eve story, God banished them from paradise because they disobeyed God’s command, which was not to eat from the forbidden tree, which is called 'Original Sin'. But how is this by any stretch of the imagination, passed off and socially accepted? My suspicion is that they don’t imagine. But religious apologists often cite that it was because of Mankind’s ‘free will’ despite the logical inevitability that God knew all along that they would commit the Original Sin.
But the problem that I have the most is how can God justifiably ‘punish’ his alleged favourite creations for acquiring knowledge of good and evil, when they had no prior knowledge of good and evil? It would be like telling a 2-month-old baby that she’s not allowed to play with a certain toy. Then assuming she understood what you just said to her, walking out the room, coming back to find her playing with the toy, and then saying “I told you!” and booting her out of the house because she disobeyed you. It’s insane. You wouldn’t find it morally acceptable in any other context, would you? The issue of ‘free will’ aside, it still wouldn’t be morally justified even if Adam and Eve (and Mankind) did (does) have free will.
But it doesn’t matter whether the story is true or not. The point is that it’s the beginning of concept behind the Christian ideology. Jesus then came to forgive us of our sins, which stems from Original Sin. The central core behind Christianity, and indeed all the Abrahamic faiths, is that “You are created sick, and commanded to be well” as Christopher Hitchens so eloquently put it. I find it morally repugnant and offensive to human dignity.
‘You cannot be ‘well’ if you do not accept Jesus Christ as your lord and saviour’, is the rotten foul stench that has revolted me most about Christian dogma. Anyone who wishes to accept this as a moral basis to their life or to pretend that it makes them a better person because of it is a fool and wishes to be a slave. The entire point as to why Jesus died on the cross is because humans are foul sinful and shameless beings, which God allegedly created in the first place.
And above everything else, it gets even more stupid once you realise the inevitable conclusion that God doesn’t exist.
But the problem that I have the most is how can God justifiably ‘punish’ his alleged favourite creations for acquiring knowledge of good and evil, when they had no prior knowledge of good and evil? It would be like telling a 2-month-old baby that she’s not allowed to play with a certain toy. Then assuming she understood what you just said to her, walking out the room, coming back to find her playing with the toy, and then saying “I told you!” and booting her out of the house because she disobeyed you. It’s insane. You wouldn’t find it morally acceptable in any other context, would you? The issue of ‘free will’ aside, it still wouldn’t be morally justified even if Adam and Eve (and Mankind) did (does) have free will.
But it doesn’t matter whether the story is true or not. The point is that it’s the beginning of concept behind the Christian ideology. Jesus then came to forgive us of our sins, which stems from Original Sin. The central core behind Christianity, and indeed all the Abrahamic faiths, is that “You are created sick, and commanded to be well” as Christopher Hitchens so eloquently put it. I find it morally repugnant and offensive to human dignity.
‘You cannot be ‘well’ if you do not accept Jesus Christ as your lord and saviour’, is the rotten foul stench that has revolted me most about Christian dogma. Anyone who wishes to accept this as a moral basis to their life or to pretend that it makes them a better person because of it is a fool and wishes to be a slave. The entire point as to why Jesus died on the cross is because humans are foul sinful and shameless beings, which God allegedly created in the first place.
And above everything else, it gets even more stupid once you realise the inevitable conclusion that God doesn’t exist.
Thursday, 4 November 2010
Thursday, 28 October 2010
Some thoughts on children’s vulnerability to non-think and evolution.
All children are born 'atheists' by definition, since there don't have any beliefs anyway. That's not to say atheists don't believe in anything, but by de facto, all babies are atheists.
Children's brains have evolved to believe anything they are told, for very good evolutionary reasons. For our ancestors, any child who didn't listen to his/her parents/elders about not going near the swamp where there are crocodiles, for example, would be dead. Any child, in that kind of environment, who applied a scientific experimental approach, would have died long before they were able to pass on their genes.
One can picture the scenario where there is a man and his son thousands and thousands of years ago going hunting, and the man will teach his son all the 'science' in catching prey; how to look for footprints and how old the footprints are, for instance. Also knowing that the prey is likely to be near the waterhole at high sun, et cetera.
But when they catch or kill an animal, the man then turns to his son and tells him "Now we have to give thanks and pray to the forest gods." The child simply cannot tell the difference between VALUABLE information and NONSENSE.
Evolution is a fact. Anyone would realise this if they only went to the fantastic straining lengths of opening up a biology text book.
It’s not that I 'want' evolution to be true. It’s not that I have a deeper need to feel good and better about myself by believing that it is true. Its that, it IS true. Demonstrably! If you can't accept evolution, then that's your problem. Evolutionary theory is the basis for ALL modern medicine, resting on the fundamental FACT that life EVOLVES, and hence, so do viruses. If you can't accept this and yet still go to the doctors for medicine, then you're a complete hypocrite.
I am an atheist because a) there is no evidence for the existence of god (convincing yourself in private is not evidence), and b) I see no reason to believe. Even if a god *could* be demonstrated and tested, and shown to exist, then so what?
It’s like a rock star that everyone wants to get in the picture frame with just to make themselves feel special. The difference is that a rock star gloats about it, but actually exists, and god doesn't gloat about it precisely because he doesn't exist.
Children's brains have evolved to believe anything they are told, for very good evolutionary reasons. For our ancestors, any child who didn't listen to his/her parents/elders about not going near the swamp where there are crocodiles, for example, would be dead. Any child, in that kind of environment, who applied a scientific experimental approach, would have died long before they were able to pass on their genes.
One can picture the scenario where there is a man and his son thousands and thousands of years ago going hunting, and the man will teach his son all the 'science' in catching prey; how to look for footprints and how old the footprints are, for instance. Also knowing that the prey is likely to be near the waterhole at high sun, et cetera.
But when they catch or kill an animal, the man then turns to his son and tells him "Now we have to give thanks and pray to the forest gods." The child simply cannot tell the difference between VALUABLE information and NONSENSE.
Evolution is a fact. Anyone would realise this if they only went to the fantastic straining lengths of opening up a biology text book.
It’s not that I 'want' evolution to be true. It’s not that I have a deeper need to feel good and better about myself by believing that it is true. Its that, it IS true. Demonstrably! If you can't accept evolution, then that's your problem. Evolutionary theory is the basis for ALL modern medicine, resting on the fundamental FACT that life EVOLVES, and hence, so do viruses. If you can't accept this and yet still go to the doctors for medicine, then you're a complete hypocrite.
I am an atheist because a) there is no evidence for the existence of god (convincing yourself in private is not evidence), and b) I see no reason to believe. Even if a god *could* be demonstrated and tested, and shown to exist, then so what?
It’s like a rock star that everyone wants to get in the picture frame with just to make themselves feel special. The difference is that a rock star gloats about it, but actually exists, and god doesn't gloat about it precisely because he doesn't exist.
Wednesday, 27 October 2010
Wednesday, 1 September 2010
Having your cake and eating it too
The believers in the god of Abraham love to have it both ways. They entertain the idea that the god that they believe in is both simultaneously all-loving/all-merciful and all-powerful. This claim is self-refuting, meaning that such a god cannot exist by definition.
If this were true we'd really be living in an Alice In Wonderland kind of world. You can't just say that 'God is all-loving' and yet make excuses why the world contains genocide, murder, rape, torture, etc. Think about it. Are there any circumstances with which an all-loving being, of any kind, would be content with a creation that contains so much hatred? Likewise, if this god is also all-powerful, then 'His Will' (love, kindness, tolerance) could and would be imposed universally.
The issue of free will with the existence of such a being also has a major flaw. If God's omniscience (all-knowingness) is true, and that this god has knowledge of what WILL happen, then logically it is impossible to accept that such a god is all-loving. If such a god is simply an 'observer' and sees what IS going on and what IS going to happen, then what power does he really have? He would be simply bone-idol and doesn't see it fit to act.
And is free will really worth it? The police would have more power and morals than god. Say, for instance, there is something terrible happening, like a rape. Is this god so firm and supportive of human free will that he would say "Oh, there's a rape happening. But I shouldn't interfere because I don't want to intrude on the rapist's free will." It's pathetic. You and I have more morals than such a god. At least we would either try to stop it happening or alert the authorities.
The idea that God is both all-loving and all-powerful just does not make sense, once one grasps reality. And that's the underlining issue here. The god of Abraham does NOT exist by definition. It is logically untenable. If a god does exist, then he is either all-powerful (can perform miracles, etc) but not all-loving (not concerned with human well-being), or all-loving but not all-powerful. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.
If this were true we'd really be living in an Alice In Wonderland kind of world. You can't just say that 'God is all-loving' and yet make excuses why the world contains genocide, murder, rape, torture, etc. Think about it. Are there any circumstances with which an all-loving being, of any kind, would be content with a creation that contains so much hatred? Likewise, if this god is also all-powerful, then 'His Will' (love, kindness, tolerance) could and would be imposed universally.
The issue of free will with the existence of such a being also has a major flaw. If God's omniscience (all-knowingness) is true, and that this god has knowledge of what WILL happen, then logically it is impossible to accept that such a god is all-loving. If such a god is simply an 'observer' and sees what IS going on and what IS going to happen, then what power does he really have? He would be simply bone-idol and doesn't see it fit to act.
And is free will really worth it? The police would have more power and morals than god. Say, for instance, there is something terrible happening, like a rape. Is this god so firm and supportive of human free will that he would say "Oh, there's a rape happening. But I shouldn't interfere because I don't want to intrude on the rapist's free will." It's pathetic. You and I have more morals than such a god. At least we would either try to stop it happening or alert the authorities.
The idea that God is both all-loving and all-powerful just does not make sense, once one grasps reality. And that's the underlining issue here. The god of Abraham does NOT exist by definition. It is logically untenable. If a god does exist, then he is either all-powerful (can perform miracles, etc) but not all-loving (not concerned with human well-being), or all-loving but not all-powerful. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)