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?

 


RELIGION - INHERENTLY OPEN TO VIOLENCE OR INHERENTLY VIOLENT?

IT IS NOT REALISTIC TO EXPECT ANY RELIGION TO BE TOTALLY PEACEFUL

"Religions that are totally pacifistic have to rely on the good graces of others who are willing to use violence to protect them; and religious that are totally devoted to violence do not survive long since they either kill themselves off or are broken up by their neighbors as a matter of self-protection. For a religion to serve as the basis of a culture, it must seek to preserve peace in substantial measure but also be willing to use force. Thus, all of the major world religions tend toward this mean."

That quote is from the Catholic book, Islam: A Catholic Perspective by Catholic Answers (2003).

The quote is refreshing in its honesty. 

It shows that a religion that uses the violence of others while it proclaims pacifism is intrinsically hypocritical.  It is still responsible for violence though it will not get its hands dirty.

It says a religion has to be inherently prepared to depend on violence even if it is not inherently violent.  A religion cannot oppose all violence.  So even if religion were not inherently violent it is definitely inherently open to violence.  There is a difference.

THE DOCTRINE OF DIVINE HELP ADDS FUEL TO THE FIRE

God does not matter much if he cannot create help and better situations to assist you when you want to become a better person.

Atheists are a hounded minority in many parts of the world. Christians persecute atheists and write against them in a vicious way which leads to violence against atheists.

Atheists are demonised even by the Christian claim that faith and the Church and Jesus have a special power to heal hate. The implication is that atheists are doing positive harm by not being Christian. They are harming the only help for sin. They would still be saying their faith has a special spiritual power to heal bad character if the troubles were double or treble what they are. Whether it is 100 atheists burned to death in their homes or 1000 or 100,000 by Christians the Christian line will still be that Christianity has unique power to fix the tendency to hate or to correct hate.

The Christian is using the victims as an excuse for defending the faith and excusing evil. To say that millions suffering at the hands of a faith is irrelevant for the power of the faith to heal the soul of hate and evil is using the victimís fate to make the religion look good. It is trampling on them for the sake of an ideology.

Religion or faith in God, taken together or separately, are reasons for hate not excuses.  Even if they were excuses they too easily make good excuses so that is important too.

Many religious people and their defenders are stupid for saying religion is an excuse for hate as if that helps.

If the teachings are manmade but good they cannot take the credit for making people good. You know as man nobody should listen to you. To say your manmade religion means they should is a boast.

A religion needs to be taught and supported by a God who be really good. Saying religion is a mere excuse for hate is strange for nobody wants an excuse for hating. Something puts the hate in them and that can be the religion or anything. The religion is not giving anybody an excuse to hate. It gives a reason. Christianity and other faiths such as Islam are just evil doctrine systems or religious social constructs.