Do we prevent somebody being hurt by superstition or faith by rejecting and challenging those things? 

Is it mistaken to support organised religion in membership or donations?

If people do good because they are human, not because God prompts them then is it right to risk giving God any credit when they alone own their good?

 


POPULAR “MORALITY” EXPOSED
 
People say nice things about each other. We feel that many of these things are hypocritical. Let us examine this issue. What you read may make you more cynical but it will certainly help you be more cynical about the God belief and its followers.
 
THE THINGS THEY SAY
 
The following sayings are condemned as evil but are only evil if free will is true. But still they show the hypocrisy and saccharine selfishness that is rife in the Church and society. For religion to be so hypocritical is bad enough but when they invent a perfect God to endure all this hypocrisy and to endure it being offered up to him it is far worse. The God belief makes hypocrites worse not better.

 

"You may need to feed the serial killer to stop him dying in agony. Some will say it does not matter at this point what he has done."

 

But surely that is saying it does not matter about the people he killed? In fact what did always matters but this thing is not about it. The proper attitude is that it does matter but this is another subject and starving him is not going to help justice take its course.
 
"A: John has treated me really badly and is slagging me off everywhere. I know he is looking at porn while working. Should I tell the boss? B: No because nobody likes or trusts a snitch."
 
Calling you a snitch implies that you are a bad person just for telling. It is about the telling. It is not about you becoming untrustworthy. It is not about you becoming disliked because that might not necessarily happen or happen to any serious extent. It is really saying people should be allowed to do all the evil they wish and nobody should tell on them.
 
To say that you must do x because people will dislike you if you don't, is really urging you not to be your own person and to urge you to refuse to allow yourself to be happy should you be unpopular.
 
It is also urging you to mistrust others by accusing them of being unable to like you and trust you at all if you snitch.
 
People are liked for doing the occasional mischievous thing.
 
People can be snitches and still liked.
 
Plus if you snitch on John, it is he who can't trust you. It has nothing to do with anybody else. You like them and won't hurt them. They can't hurt you like John can so they have nothing to fear.
 
The moral is that the advice is about acting good but not about being good. It makes an actor of you. It makes a fake of you.
 
"Okay she wants to put her children up for adoption because she wants to travel the world. But that is her choice."
 

Saying it is her choice means you don't care what she does to her children. You are glad its her choice for you are glad you don't have to help.  You can tell yourself it is her not you.  Want proof? Think of when you say, "Okay, she wants to have her wedding in winter time. It is her choice". You are clearly saying the same thing but in a different context.
 
Saying it is her choice is a means of protecting yourself from feeling bad about the terrible things people can do.
 
Some say they don't want to accuse her of abusing her freedom because accusing her of abusing her freedom is accusing her of self-abuse. And the person who abuses themselves soon abuses others. Others are affected by what you do whether you like it or not so self-abuse is abusing others. But if she is abusing her freedom then why not say so? Why act as if you want to make excuses?
 
"Two wrongs don't make a right"
 
This sounds reasonable but it is actually very silly. If I hit person X and X hits me back X is not as bad as me for I proved to X that I deserved it. Two wrongs don't make a right slanders X by making out he is as bad as me!
 
If I don't take what the law has coming to me I will never learn my lesson.
 
You can learn your lesson without being punished. Many people argue that you should let the law catch up with a bad person to teach them a lesson. They are hiding their vindictiveness under a platitude. Punishment is not about teaching you what is right and wrong but about paying you back for doing wrong. It is about making sure you don't get the same benefits whether you do right or wrong.
 
"There is no thanks in x. But don't let that stop you doing good things for him."
 
Doing good for an ingrate is not good for you or them. The good you do for them is really a source of pain for them. Go and do good for people who will appreciate it. Kindness towards ingrates is a waste and is not kindness at all.

"I couldn't steal or sleep with x's husband. What kind of person would do that?"
 
This is judging anybody that does just that. It is telling you that you are bad news if you steal or sleep with this man. It is admission that when you say somebody sins or does wrong that your criticism is against the person and is personal.
 
People who say things like in the bullet point often turn around and start bleating meaningless platitudes such as, "I am a sinner myself so I do not judge the sinner but the sin". This is self-deceit. They say it is wrong to get personal but they are personal. They practice the hypocrisy that is often worse than what the sinner is doing and which is more dangerous.
 
"Be the bigger person and say hello to John though you have fallen out with one another."
 
In other words, my claim that all people are equally good is hypocrisy. I am telling you I will consider you better than John if you say hello. I expect John to be silly enough to be impressed at you trying to be better than him. Also, there is a lot more to you than your saying hello to John. There is a lot more to John too. What gives me the right to declare you the bigger person then?
 
"Why don't you talk to Father Bob about it? He won't judge you. He welcomes people no matter how badly they have behaved."
 
It is impossible for him not to judge. Judge means to regard an action as bad and to say the person should be punished and if punishment is not possible then its a pity. He will be judging in his mind though he may not say anything. Some of us seem not to mind people judging us as long as they hide it or lie to us pretending that they don't judge. That is another human irrationality. Why do we hate the whole world knowing our private business and judging it when we don't seem to mind a few knowing it? If one or two know then why not let all know? The reason is that we can live with a few judging us to our faces or in the secretive way Father Bob goes about it. If too many people know our business we feel they judge us.
 
"No person is better than another."


This saying is pure hypocrisy and a lie. Suppose John is wiser than Eve. You may say that Eve is as good as him but in different ways. She may not be as wise but she is kinder.
 
The view that they are equally good makes no sense if wisdom is better than kindness. Its judgmental. What if a person comes along who is not equal to others in anything?
 
What use does it do to tell a prisoner he is equal to the good time girl up the road when he is in jail for life?
 
"Do you think that family in your neighbourhood is a threat to it? Reply - "No comment."
 
No comment clearly means yes. If the person said why the family is a threat and what it might do at least we would know it may not do worse than what the person says. No comment lets us think what we want 
 
"If he takes that attitude then he is not worth bothering about. If he doesn't trust you after all this time, then you are doing yourself a favour by dumping him".
 
That implies that people are only worth knowing if they are very decent. It is very negative. It doesn't take account of the fact that people cannot be all bad. People tell wives or husbands for example that the spouse that hit them is not worth worrying about for hitting them. This is to console the victim. Christians ought to see how it tries to encourage an unloving attitude to comfort. If we listened to that faith and practiced it consistently we would soon be spreading misery.
 
"I have enough troubles of my own without worrying about the problems of others."

 

Contradicts the view that God comes first and that others come before you. It is a sin to be absorbed in your own problems. It shows the fundamental nastiness of encouraging faith in God for it gives troubled people a God to worry about!
 
It is a thoroughly secular and humanistic point of view. It shows that religion is not that important.
 
If morality comes first, and if having others love God comes first, then it is clear that you should worry about how much the old man across the road loves God and not be worried about how you are going to have everything ready on time for your birthday party.
 
"I would love to look after my mother if she got sick or was dying."
 
That is just a boast even if it is true. If everything we do is based on self-interest then you are saying it is your self interest to help your mother - so your compassion is really fake. It is not about you helping her but about you helping yourself with your bad feelings in relation to her suffering. If you do it for her sake and not yours then you won't love it. As long as you love doing it for her and not you you are saying that people should not care about their own rights and if you believe that then you don't have much honour for her and your helping her is done with a bad attitude. It is not about helping her then.
 
Everything we do could be about our self-interest because even if we do something for another and seek nothing back we are getting back the pleasure of being so altruistic. Believers in altruism say we are being altruistic because we don't look for the happiness - it comes from a side-effect of doing good. If that is true then there is a 50/50 chance that we are being altruistic or non-altruistic. What should be the default position then? Considering how much time we spend thinking of ourselves and how we wouldn't suffer all our lives to spare other people and how we want the side-effect of happiness the default position is that we assume no act is altruistic. Also we want the side-effect of happiness. Not thinking of the happiness in order to be indirectly happy is not altruism but self-interest. We know that the more we want to be happy the more we annoy ourselves and drive it away but if we just forget about the desire then we get the happiness.
 
"Don't become a prostitute. Its very dangerous. You could get raped or beaten up."
 
This contradicts the notion that we should think positive and trust and encourage people to work to eliminate risk. Christians urge people to convert to Christianity even in dangerous Islamic countries and yet they would say the above to a woman contemplating prostitution. It makes them look caring and concerned. If they were more honest and were saying, "Our disdain for prostitution isn't about you, but just against the law of Christ that a woman should never prostitute herself - even to a client she knows would never hurt her" the woman would see their true colours. They would have no problem with a wife selling her body to her husband even if he is psycho rapist brute.
 
The more honest Christians will say that prostitution is not bad because of the results but bad in itself and that it only has bad results because it is bad. This sneaks in the idea, "If you get beaten up lady you brought it on yourself!" The prostitute does not ask for or make any man beat her up or rape her. It is not the prostitution that is to blame.
 
God is good - according to the Christian faith. We are expected to trust God. It is true that he can let prostitutes get raped and beaten up. But what if he changes? Are we not insulting him then? Would a doctor who made mistakes in the past be respected if people warned his patients that his treatments might go wrong? It insults God.
 
"I don't want to argue any more for life is too short".
 
Translation: If I could get over the upset fast and if my life were longer, I would argue. I want to but sadly cannot.
 
"I wish I could help you. But I can't tell you what you need to know. I have to observe confidentiality."

"Wish I could break this confidentiality but I can't" is the translation.

Perhaps it only means that he wishes it was not confidential and he could tell it? But its confidential for its bad to tell it. Does he mean he wishes it were good to tell it so it wouldn't be confidential any more? No. The context is not about what ifs. It is about the reality. The reality is that he will not tell and he is claiming he regrets that is the reality. He is saying he would like to break the confidentiality but cannot.
 
Christians praise the man who says the words above though it contradicts their doctrine that one should not desire to do evil. They condemn those who do good with reluctance. Where is the condemnation for this man? Their morality is based on lies and brainwashing. But that basis easily backfires and people end up swallowing lies opposed to the Church's lies.