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?

Patrick H



God by definition is the good being we do all things for. 


If evil can fit the existence of an all-powerful and all-loving God, that means it is entirely up to him to deal with that. We have no business saying it fits God because we are too prone to masking callousness and we are complex creatures who are never as good as we want people to think.  Just as it is not up to us to love somebody else's children when they have parents so that is not up to us either.  It is too easy for us to be interested in this god allowing evil to happen for we want evil and want to condone it and want to cherry-pick morality.  The doctrine even if true and good will be abused.  This is guaranteed for you cannot relate to God as one person on earth to another so there are no checks in place to stop that abuse happening.


If Jesus is God's perfect son and he prays for sinners and those who suffer then what are we praying for?  What can we do that he can't?   How can the prayers of a person who supposedly has snow white motives be in any way as honourable as ours?


If praying out of total concern for others is possible it does not follow that we ever do it. 




You cannot insult God by asking for anything when you are not interested in what he wants.  Prayer presupposes that you must seek a right relationship with God and that means repenting and seeking God's forgiveness.  While it is degrading to the other person to ask them for forgiveness when the wrong is grave, this rule is [conveniently] not applied to God.  Believers think the slate can be washed in a second either by a prayer of contrition or going to a priest for forgiveness.  Forgiveness needs to be difficult for both wrongdoer and victim otherwise it is cheap and the evil is being treated as unimportant and the way is paved for it or something similar to happen again.  It needs two-way communication.  You cannot deal with God as you would a parent you hurt.  You need the arguments and the struggling and the uncertainty that comes from wondering how the other one feels about you today.  To want the slate just washed is immature and selfish and shows you want to be clean without doing it properly.  To want it erased more slowly and carefully and over a sensible period of time - bad crimes need years - shows you are on the right track.


God is all-forgiving.  The spiritual notion that sorry is enough to cancel grave sins trivialises sin and that has to have an effect. Mature forgiving is a process that demands a lot of talking and hard work from the offended and the offender. Religious forgiveness is not forgiveness at all for that element is missing.  If God can forgive that way then he can make a square circle after all.  There is no debate with God.  If a person is harmed then the perpetrator looking for the feeling that he has got forgiveness - that is a disgrace and an outrage.  Religious forgiveness is just being soft on the sin as long as some kind of sorrow however weak is expressed.  The weaker the repentance the bigger the insult.


Forgiveness from God is about changing how God views you.  It is about his opinion.  Thus it is not really about making any change to anything important.  That is why the Catholic idea that priests forgiving sins is a sacrament is so odd.  A sacrament is healing but what is healing about the judge ceasing to have a condemnatory view of you?  As God comes first or alone matters in the Christian scheme, it follows that the bad person treats God's approval as a reward.  If you do something terrible and that is what you want and you think you get it then why is that so important to you instead of changing?  Nobody should be asking for forgiveness.  They should just change for everybody's sake.  You can do both yes but


Prayer is inherently about forgiveness from God and thus prayer is evil and condones evil.  It is implicitly evil.  Few make it too explicitly obvious as well.


Randomness or indeterminacy


Random by definition is that which is causeless so it can do x or y and there is nothing anything can do about what it does.


If the random is not real as some say then it must be harder to make a non-random look and seem like a random than to just make it obvious that all is being controlled.  There would be no point.


You cannot wish for just one random.  One random is not a random so wanting a random means wanting a lot of random.  One random when everything else is is planned means the random is being controlled and is not a random.  To control 9 out of 10 lotto balls means that you are in fact controlling the one left over albeit indirectly.  Indirect can be as much control as direct. Sometimes more.


So random and reckless are the same thing.


Why Prayer is Implicitly and Explicitly Condoning Evil that Befalls Others so that You can Benefit


We like the random to exist when we feel it can give us wealth or health that a God can keep away from us.  This is arrogant and unrealistic and magical thinking for the random by definition can be very dangerous.   By definition it can give you a fabulous existence and then take it away in minutes and leave you wishing you had never been born.  The fruit will be fear and greed as you will need to battle and hurt others to keep what the random has given you. 


Many prayers are really wishes that the dice will favour you randomly.  You want luck not divine intervention and you must think God is stupid.  Or you are confused.  If is luck you want then you have not much confidence in God's help.  You are saying, "Keep out of this situation and let luck work its magic.  Create a state of affairs that functions as if you did not exist." But while you ask that you put yourself at risk for the random can hurt you as well as help you.  And what about other people?  What if luck starts a war that kills millions but for some economic reason boosts your country's economy and you get all the good luck you want as a result?  Looking for good luck is very Darwinist for we all know that there is not enough good luck for everybody!  Children have to die and suffer because of bad luck and you can and do get an advantage out of it.  Even bad things happening to others is good for you even if it is simply bad happening to others.  But often you get benefits from it too.


Part of the reason we may be so bad and belligerent at times is that we want to create chaos so that luck will find its place in the mess of randomness.


People hate each other but though we want to torment and perhaps destroy the people we hate - if we see killing as too good for them we won't - we usually do not have the guts to act on it except by hoping and by praying and trying to magically induce evil to befall them.  If we will not attack them it is because we fear how it shows us how rotten we are or we fear the dire consequences, the trouble it may bring us.  Or both.  We can fear being bad inside even if we act good for we don't like reminders that we are not as good as we want to think we are and want others to think.  We know that being bad inside is a problem for evil is wily and grows legs.


If the hate gets severe enough we will take action and tell ourselves the gods or luck will be on our side for deep down we know one reason we should hold back is that we could be hurting ourselves more than the other.  We see the hate as trying to restore a balance - keeping the good things for the good and away from the bad.  We might make a difference between restorative and retributive justice and there is a difference but human nature always combines them.  It does them both at the one time.


It is easier to do grave harm to others as if we will be lucky when we do it as part of a group.  Being in a group and feeling supported by others encourages you to think that you and they will get good luck.


People rejoice when bad things happen by pure chance to people perceived as a menace or whom they bear a grudge against. For example, what if Hitler got struck by lightning?  They are so happy as if they both want to think somebody did it or sent the accident.  It does not matter that if it was a complete accident or random then nobody was to blame.   They want to feel it is. 


Prayer despite its pretence at love and humility is really asking the random to fall in your favour.  By default that means you are asking the random to disadvantage or even kill others.  Even if you are asking for spiritual gifts such as humility you are still doing that.  You are virtue-signalling before your God.  People do this because they seem to believe both that God creates all and that yet there are events that just happen. They don't worry about fitting them together.  The Bible demands for prayer encourages them. 


The prayer of praise


Let us leave aside the fact that praying for something even a bike is a prayer of praise in the sense: "I know you are good and I can ask you this."  Let us think of prayer as being directly about praise.


Context: You rejoice in God that you have a charmed life.  What about those who have not and who went without while you lavished food on the table that is worse.  If you put others first you will be wishing they had it not you.


Anyway there are two scenarios. 


Scenario 1, You are praising God for making the dice fall in your favour albeit randomly.


Scenario 2, You think there is no random and God planned it all.


Either way you are glad you have these things even if they have been taken from somebody else.  If you deny having that attitude that makes you a worse person not a better one.



It does not matter if you are giving permission or a command to randomness to hurt or destroy your target.  It does not have to make sense in order to show what you are - the kind of person you are.  You defy reason and turn to magic or the irrational to try to send evil to your enemy and evade responsibility by using the random to do it.  By definition the random is not your fault.


They think the villain getting killed by lightning is random so they are happy that if evil is going to happen to anybody it is good it happens to anybody bad.

They know that random evil does not care if you are bad or good but if it strikes a bad person that is the bad person suffering unfairly in the sense that the suffering is not happening because of his badness.  And how can you celebrate what happened for random means you could be the next target?  Random is still random if it happens within a boundary or if it is contained.  Believers must think they are outside the boundary and it is good that the enemy is within it!  They think they slot into a more divinely planned framework.


As bad as the villain is, being glad that nature treats him to its ruthless aimless side is a sort of victim-blaming.  To see the world as good leads to victim blaming.  So see the world as being more than just good for God is in it and made it leads to more victim blaming as if it needs reinforcement!  If the world is good then the bad person is to blame for the random evil that hits her or him and the victim made her or his attackers strike.


If there is no God and people think prayer works enough then it follows that people are rejoicing in luck and its all random and down to cold mechanical nature.



When people are like that with random strikes of nature that dispatch evil people we need a lot of convincing that they are incapable of trying to condone or belittle the suffering of others in the name of God.


 Thus believers condone what the random does and what risk it puts people in as an act of worship even if this is not explicit.  God is held to approve of the condoning and condones it himself too.


Faith condones


Faith in God condones the terrible things that happen to human beings under his watch and "care".


A person who claims to detest how people suffer and who decides, "No matter what evil happens I will hold that it is a mystery and fits the love of God completely" is a liar.  Condoning necessitates making excuses and starting with the desired answer.  It is worse to excuse a tyrant as follows: "He is doing the right thing though it looks otherwise but I have no clue what his reasons are" than to say, "He had those babies murdered maybe because he fears a plague will give them a worse death".  Human nature condones a lot of evil and people cherry pick what they want to get upset about.  Even if belief in God did not need condoners people would still use it to condone. 


Religion blames man not God for evil. Man supposedly misuses free will to bring about evil and God has to let him do it for free will is worth the risk of it being abused. If you believe in free will, it is obvious that believers in prayer pray to manipulate other people's free will. It is a fact that you cannot change another person. But you see believers praying that somebody will come to a better way of life or become holy and religious. This belief is the fundamental drive behind religion and shows that religion is not really based on respect for people and thus has no right to condone a God letting evil happen.
Prayer by default condones the divine role in evil and suffering and needs to be seen for the offensive nonsense it is. It does more than condone - it celebrates! It is based on celebrating God as good. Praying to God for help is praising God as good. It may be in the background but it is there.


When good and evil happen as part of human nature you have no right to look at the good side and not the bad. That makes you bad. You are a hypocrite if you only see the good in people. You care neither for them or the harm they do. You look at the two together, the bad side and the good side, to work out what shade of grey each person is. And so it is with God.  Prayer is meant you make you see the good as the evidence for God but religion surely does not want you to see the evil as evidence for God and what he is like as well?
Condoning the evil of the creator would be bad but risking condoning it is not right either.


Faith shows believers are the kind of people who would condone



Religion says belief in God does not involve you being willing to condone the evil you think he allows to happen.  In this study, we will learn that even if it is not necessary to be okay with the suffering of others in order to believe in God, believers cannot expect us to assume that they are not the kind of people who would make themselves feel better about the suffering of others by making out its part of a divine plan. Human nature does not care enough about most suffering that happens. Each person is deeply wounded or upset or compassionate by only a few people such as family or friends or neighbours.  Period.

You cannot ask people to believe in your compassion for others if you believe in God when that belief involves accusing others of forcing God to set up a dreadful or partly dreadful plan.  What kind of free will to choose good is based on evil? It is bad enough if you theorise that God might let evil happen over free will but worse if you say he did it for definite such as Christianity does.


If it is true that evil is not God's fault and God hates it then condoning what evil you think comes from God is the greatest evil of all.  Those who condone whether there is a God or not adore their own vision of God but your vision of God is not God and cannot be. It is just your vision.  So if God does not want you to condone it means there is nothing to condone for evil is not his doing.  But logically that makes God very impotent.  Condoning evil may imply disrespect for God.  Human nature is indeed capable of disrespecting God in the name of God and religion.


What happens if the unbeliever wrongly accuses God of doing evil instead of condoning as believers do?  Then the unbeliever is the worst creature imaginable for their attitude to evil as a whole is of extreme importance.  God or not you are still evil. 


If God is falsely accused of being a concept that urges and manipulates people to condone then the unbeliever is a total monster inside.


So the lesson from all this is that it is not just condoning evil from God that is an issue but what the person is accused of if he or she should not condone whether he or she is a believer or not.  It is benign hostility.

By itself or of itself evil is not needed for evil by its nature is useless. Evil is in itself futile. All it is good is for putting evil people off evil when they get a taste of their own medicine. We tend to think that we are saying that in that case at least that bit of it is good. But as evil is useless it would follow that it is a bad way to handle evil people. It is a bad way to help people become good. It is fighting evil with evil and that is evil in itself. The "good" only looks good and seems good but it is not. Thus the divine plan doctrine that God is trying to contain evil with evil is itself evil and inexcusable. It is running away from seeing evil in its true nature. Evil is seen as producing good and the fact that such good is not good at all for the worst evil is getting evil to pass for good or good to pass for evil.


Believers hold that God can connect to us through grace - his loving influence. God then would have to arrange circumstances so that people can choose more good than evil. But what he has done is arrange things so that we do all the good we do out of the wrong motive. I mean we do all we do to please ourselves and not him which is sin according to him. Even if we do good for others we do it because we feel we should and don't care if he wants us to do it or not. Even if we do more ungodly good than godly it would make him a failure. He would have arranged things better if he were good. To worship him is evil for he is unworthy and he is the tyrant of the human race. If he has been made up then those who have done that and maintain that are the tyrants!


The Church may as well worship the Devil because it worships that which allows us to really hurt one another for a purpose. Its God hurts us for an excuse because if evil is necessary to develop goodness in us then each person should be put in a world of dreams which they think is real so that God can send exactly what they need instead of having to let harm befall the person in order to take care of other peopleís spirituality. To say that evil serves a divine purpose is to say that God could command mass murder or biological warfare intended to make everybody sick and what disproof is there to shut up anybody who says God is commanding just that? It is different to say that evil serves no purpose but we have to bring good out of it for that is just seeing evil as something that is useless.

How can suffering make me a better person? If it makes me realise that I must not hurt others because I donít like others hurting me then this problem arises. Iím doing it because I donít want people to hurt me so I donít want to promote suffering for that reason. That is actually selfish and selfishness is the cardinal sin in religion. There is no doubt that all who, because of their own suffering, claim to be better friends to others for they want them to avoid any suffering are really acting against suffering for they know if it exists or is enabled it can bite them as well as others.
The Church says that evil starts with man not God. God gave us free will and we abused it and caused evil and temptation and sin.


Do people want you to believe in a loving God because they don't love you enough and want there to be a God to value you for them? Do they want you to believe in God because they want to condone their own lack of love? Do they believe in God because they don't really care? Are they willing to condone the evil and suffering in the universe because they do not really care?


People alarmingly seem to think that the notion that God tolerates evil as part of lovely plan for his children is a nice thought. The plan might be ethical but that does not make it a nice or comforting thing to believe in. It is akin to thinking World War II was nice. Ethics can be brutal scary stuff.


The truth about evil and suffering and what needs to be done to help is extremely hard to face. Most people have some way of avoiding the full truth. It is too painful and risks terrible fear. Religious people will regard God as wholly good and then say that the evil he lets exist which contradicts goodness and therefore him somehow does not contradict. They water down the truth to overcome it. They try to make truth by denying truth. That cannot be done for truth is truth and is not about us. It is selfish to treat truth as if it is or should be. Faith in God is a vice - even if you don't think selfishness is always bad that type certainly is.


Religion comforts itself in present suffering by thinking suffering will help bring better days because God is in control of it all.  Good being brought out of evil in the future Ė what other time will it happen? - by an agent has nothing to do with justifying evil now at all or justifying letting it happen. You have no right to feel okay about current suffering for the sake of a future that does not exist yet and which may be unlike the good future you imagine.  You need to be extremely careful and get good evidence before you judge an evil was worth it when it is all weighed up for evil is mixture of good and bad anyway. Evil uses good and to justify it because you think there are good results is practically speaking just being okay with it. It is arrogant how you imply you should be trusted as one who cares about evil when you belong to society and society cherrypicks what it wants to get annoyed about while worse evils than it thrive. Where is the evidence you have that you can be trusted despite all that?