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
Gormley


IF YOU DROP GOD IS IT ALWAYS FOR ANOTHER GOD?  DOES SOMETHING ALWAYS HAVE TO FILL THAT VOID?

Your belief about God is your God. To believe in God is to make this belief about God your God. It is the belief telling you what God is like but belief is not God. To see a person through a vision is not to see the person. It may be countered that to believe there is no God is to make this belief your God. But that assumes that if you have not got the true God then you have another one that may not be even honoured in religious terms or religiously recognisable such as money. If there is a need for a God then that means the vacuum that you should fill with the real God is going to be filled with something else that functions like a god be it sex or drugs or money or even religion!

Many say, "If education is given in a value free or virtue free vacuum, something will have to fill the void and it will be vice which may often dress itself up as virtue. If virtue is not there then fake virtue will be there. Pride will grow. It is the foundation of all vice and false virtue.  We end up with things such as racism and hate and warmongering."

This obviously presupposes that we do not have inbuilt goodness which will emerge and develop even without guidance.  You do not need anybody to tell you that you can't kill your classmates for fun.  Those people are really about trying to come across as helpful to those who need wisdom when it fact what is happening is, "You need wisdom as I see it."  It is an excuse for indoctrination.  The Church has stolen the beautiful ethics of Aristotle and given the impression that they are her ethics.  She has hijacked them.  She gives them a bad name by putting them into the mixing bowl that contains alleged revelations from God and rubbish religious history and superstition.  The end result is that if people are conditioned to believe in rubbish religious doctrines they end up accepting the ethics as part of the deal.  Proper acceptance of something means seeing it as true without being unduly influenced.  As the ethics is more conditioned into a person's mind than accepted it follows that religiously conditioning a person to believe a ridiculous religion with a good ethics will lead to the detriment of the ethics.  When the superstition goes the ethics will be in danger as well and if you can condition yourself to accept that hurting a baby for fun is wrong you can condition yourself to believe it is okay if the baby is of another religion.  A conditioning religion is to blame for evils it does not approve of for conditioning can take a new direction - a deadly one.  Part of the conditioned person knows a wrong has been done to her head and that will have consequences.

If we are made to love then it follows that if we say we donít love we are wrong for we do but just in another way. The vacuum is filled with bad love not good love. This bad love will harm and lie and it will easily blind the person and others under her or his influence.   The religious doctrine that we are made to love then is cynical and has nasty implications.  It accuses bad people of making a huge effort to be bad and resisting their nature.  It is bad enough to hold that we exist to love and leave it at that but worse to hold that an all-perfect and almighty God made us to love and made us for love alone.  It is salt on the wound.

What if we are not made to love but to choose love or whatever is not love?  This is a better view.  It does not degrade and insult those who do bad but stresses how they don't have to.  It is better to do good if you are not made to.  The best person is the person who does good regardless of what his nature wants.  The person is bigger and better than their morally indifferent make-up.  This is why true atheism is fundamentally about human dignity.  A God who is good by default must make free agents so that they may love.  This doctrine like much evil, looks pretty.  If we are made to create love or not create it that means whatever made us is not a God.  A purpose can be a real one or a functional one.  The universe acts in a purpose way but has no purpose.  Something acting like a purpose is more important than it being a purpose.  It is more important that a purpose exists than that a person exists to have the purpose.  Those who go on about a divine purpose care about who has the purpose not the purpose.

What if you are made to be indifferent?  That means you are not about love for indifference is the true opposite of love.  It turns the other into a complete unimportant object.  If you are indifferent the reason is because you love yourself and you feel it is good for you not to care.  If you love then  you are better than what made you be it chance or gods or a God.

Religion asks, "Why cannot people do without religion in some form even a weak form?"  When religion worries about giving people a vacuum that evil will fill its real worry that some other form of religion or spirituality will take its place.  That is to say that when Catholics worry about a void in a child's religious upbringing they are in fact worried that the void will get filled with something other than Catholicism. 

If lacking religion leaves a vacuum then what questions does that raise?

It is impossible to know how many people have a religious void.  Many unreligious people pretend to be religious to get good music or get a career in the ministry or to fit in in the community.  It is not about the faith so much as the trappings.

It is impossible to know if those who claim the void is filled would not be better off in another faith for no one religion can fulfil everybody.

Do some people find that not being religiously fundamentalist and bigoted leaves a vacuum?  Yes.  They are religious and feel unsatisfied so they deal with it by becoming more extreme and certain in their beliefs and end up being trouble.

Some say that the vacuum left by religion will be occupied with money or power or something evil.  But notice this.  Why does the void have to be taken over by something seen by religion as inferior to religion?  It is like religion is somehow evil - perhaps secretly or internally - and if it goes another evil will take over.

People who tell lies such as that terrorism or violence or lies have no religion and all religion is good probably think as religion is going to be around whether it is good or not and will be around forever.  They feel defeatist and they feel that religion is evil and that telling it how nice it is helps keep it from turning nasty or tempers its viciousness.

Proof is good.  Not having proof for something leaves a void that something else will fill.  You may try to fill it with the feeling that the something is true or fill it with evidence.  You may even fill it with self-delusion so that you think the something is undoubtedly true.   If God is good then God is proof. If you cannot worship the proof that is God and that shows you God is there then you will worship proof for something else.  Atheists and believers are in the same boat here.  Neither say there is proof for God.  Many turn something else into God.

People say that looking for happiness in success will fail for it is looking in the wrong place.  So there is a vacuum or void that you will try to fill with something that will not work.  But looking for God is about looking for success too.  You want to succeed in finding him.  You want to be the success that finds God.

The vacuums and voids that supposedly exist when religion is eased out or kept out show religion is not a good or rational or healthy thing.  We should try to accept the voids we are stuck with - if any.