Aside from the fact that there can be no misinterpretation of that written by the Omniscience, either: religion (the belief you have directives from the creator of the universe) is most easily construed to reassure and rally sociopaths; or it creates them.
That is to say nothing of the social and personal cost of not being self-critical about the nature of truth.
Of land and religion, the two predominant justifications for war, which is an integral part of life, and which can be argued is rooted in mere fiction?
Is it possible that those attributing the good they do, to religion, would do good irregardless, and only so misidentify their inspiration, for hope that religion can in fact be compelling enough to deter wrongdoers.
#health #love #music #art #science #earth
What are love, art and the question of spatiotemporal limits, if not evidence of something more? Can evidence be inconclusive? “I don’t know!”
Can human being’s confidence they know the will of a creator be construed to justify any immorality? Are all claims to know the will of a creator, equally questionable?
Can empathy exist without revelation? Does ‘survival of the fittest’ negate the notion of empathy?
Can negativity be positive? Should evil be hated?
Is ‘hope’ of value when it’s false?
Had you the means to invent conscious beings, that experience, joy and pain, would you? Is G-d love?
Telling a child to be confident regarding that about which you yourself have doubt, is indefensible.
Consuming a child’s youth with devotional service, is heartbreaking.
Though there can be no evidence disproving supernatural claims, there is plenty of reason to suspect that religions are man made.
Must we commit to faith based belief, even if it inspires a culture of violent extreme, because generations ago a genocidal dictator is said to have lacked fear in a creator?
The catholic church celebrated Hitler’s birthday every year until his death. In 1943 the church declared Stalin “The Divinely Anointed Ruler”. Mao ruled as himself a god.
If these men were in fact atheist, it was not expressed with nearly as much adamants as “god is great” is pronounced nowadays.
“Find a society that said we adopted the teachings of Lucretius, Democritus, Galileo, Spinoza, Darwin, Russell, Jefferson, Thomas Paine and Albert Einstein, we make that, scientific and rational humanism our teachings, find me the state that did that and fell into tyranny, slavery, famine, torture and genocide, then we’ll be on a level playing field.” -CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS
If you need religion in order to be a good person, you’re not a good person.
Is it possible that members of religions other than your own are just as confident that theirs is the one true religion, as you are it is yours?
No amount of historical records could convince me that nature is sometimes suspended.
Why is the religion people find to be the one true one, typically the one they were born into?
I don’t claim there is no god. I only submit that any claim that there is a god, is no more credible than any other work of fiction.
Don’t believe everything you read, especially when the author claims to be the creator of the universe.
If when I die I do in fact find God asking me why I didn’t surrender my life to the dictates of one of the incongruent many books claiming to have been written by him, I’ll kick him in the nuts before spitting in his face.
By conflating objective-fact with mere opinion , we lose the means to address real issues, and in a rational way.
Moses is true and his Torah is true.
Jesus is the truth the way the light.
Nothing can be know for certain (therefor all hypothesis are equally plausible).
As a child growing up religious, I recall feeling excitement when a war broke out. If you, as many Theists do, believe that before the final redemption there will be a great war, you not only lack a disdain for war but at some level actually yearn for it.
If throughout history people wearing polkadots committed heinous acts of violence at a far greater rate than did the rest of society, would it be unwarranted for individuals to elect to personally abandon polkadots?
If at a given time in history the violence was being committed predominantly by people wearing blue polkadots, albeit by just a small minority of those wearing the blue poladots, would it be irrational to be wary of people wearing blue polkadots?
Note: I’ve selected the wearing of polkadots to make my point specifically because it is of no consequence, where as if polkadots were an indispensable part of life, we would need to find a solution that didn’t require us abandoning them.
When someone believes that red is called blue, we don’t respect their belief, but respectfully inform them of their misunderstanding. Why than when people misidentify the unknowable as knowable, do we suddenly find it necessary to blindly respect, without challenge, all beliefs?
The argument can be made that Mel Gibson was right in saying “Jews (the initial and therein too, the subsequent abrahamic religions) are responsible for all the wars in the world”, and Donald Trump has a case for the travel ban. In Canaanite times it’d have been the Jews, and Christians the middle ages, who operated on the most testosterone. Only both Gibson and Trump are professed Christians and unlike religiophobia which is justified, if you yourself believe to know the mind of God, by what criteria can you hold any holy warrior at fault.
Though the claim “to have directives from God” is typically just employed to promote our natural tendency to the Golden Rule, it also lends itself more easily to justify violence than anything else does.
Belief is an, at times, necessary concession, not an ideal to be sought.
The word ‘truth’ appears 222 times in the Bible, and 0 times in a math textbook.