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?

 


GOD IS WHAT MAN WANTS TO THINK HE IS
 
Man tells you what to think of God. You take man's word for it that he really got revelations from God. Man always judges morals and doctrines to see if they came from God. Religion is human opinion pretending or imagining it is not. It pretends to be God's work.
 
God and religion are simply masks. Man cannot claim to be God so man does the next best thing - claim to be inspired to speak for God. Though we are not to condemn something just because it can be abused, we can condemn religion for the harm it has done because religion is an abuse.

Let me explain.
 
In the light of man's involvement in alleged communications from God - they are only ever alleged and some allegations are convincing but still false - it is man who tries to come up with explanations for God allowing evil. It is man's word we take for it. That is so repulsive and is repulsive because of the nature and magnitude of human suffering.  It is unspeakably repulsive when it is not God that is condoned even if there is one but man's version of God or religion's version.  It is like people imagining they know Madonna through the media when in fact that does not amount to knowing her at all but only knowing what perception there is of her.


HUMAN NATURE LIKES TO DEFINE GOOD ON HUMAN TERMS
 
The more evil and suffering you see around you in the universe you say is God's creation, the more condoning you are doing.

If we look at human nature we worry more. The human being is selective in her or his compassion just like everybody else is! She or he can be glad that others are suffering and not loved ones. She or he can think that those who suffer deserve it. Human nature often condones terrible treatment of oneself and others for it relieves and keeps anger and hatred at bay and they are horrible emotions. Human nature does not love good - it loves good when it fits what it wants it to fit.
 
Is that the kind of creature that should be respected for saying God lets evil happen for a purpose and even writes violent commandments for a purpose? And people are attracted by imperfection to one degree or another. Some like everything to have another side, an evil side. Are they in a religion that praises the God of the evil Bible because his commands were evil?
 
Do you want to be the kind of person who deliberately condones? You may do it because you see many others doing it.  You may fear their condemnation and backstabbing if you stand up to them.  So you just play along.
 
Do you want to be the kind of person who sees inexcusable evil, useless evil, the suffering of little babies, and who imagines there is a divine purpose? That is very serious if there is no God. If there is no God then man is disgracefully condoning terrible things in its name and pretending it is in God's name.  It means you fail to understand fully what happened to the babies. You are not trying to. You are excusing something that cannot be excused. You are hailing vicious ruthless blind nature as God. To worship a non-existent God means you imagine that God has done what God has not done. If you are decent, you will expect to be told if you are making such a hideous mistake - the greatest one of all. Remember if you believe, "God is right to let that plague torment babies to death though I don't know why" you are saying you would do the same thing or try to if you were God or if God asked you to run things for a while. Surely God should not be told he has such a huge responsibility if he has not?
 
FREE WILL DEFENCE: THE SMOKESCREEN
 
What does the teaching of free will say about believers?
 
Christians condone God letting us suffer by saying that he is right to allow it to happen so that he can respect free will that is let us do things without him controlling us. They say God is perfection itself. They are saying then that they would send us that suffering if they had the power to. If the freedom defence is wrong then there is no God so you have to assume free will exists before you can assume God does.
 
The Church says that not all believers approach evil with the attitude: "I don't care if the evil is intolerable and if there can be no divine plan for it. I will condone it. I will assume there is a plan for I want to feel good while others suffer." But how does the Church know this? At least it admits that for many, the problem of God letting evil happen is about blessing evil and not about trying to be part of his plan to eradicate it. Human nature is dark and hides its true nature so would it be surprising if all believers were wilfully condoning God's role when a baby suffers under his care?
 
People care not about good but about what they want it to be. Human nature likes inventing its own good. It may be close to the real thing but it is not the real thing. Even if it is a perfect match for real good, it is not mean we are really attuned to what good is. It could be that we don't care about good as good but only care about good for it happens to match what we want good to be.
 
Thus people have no place speaking up for God when terrible evil befalls. It could be their hypocrisy talking.


God would not send man on a mission to condone the divine role in human suffering.  It is like sending Jack the Ripper into a mission field of prostitutes.

FINALLY
 
Human nature tends to condone evil. Some condone evil even to the point where they will spill their blood in the service of evil. That is why no reasonable person would let you get away with it if you do anything that looks like condoning. 
 
Condoning is too serious of a matter to ignore. If religious people deny they condone the evil that happens, what if what they do and say is indistinguishable from condoning? Anybody can and will condone and deny it. Assume they are condoning. Assuming they mean well is not fair on the victims of evil.
 
If you talk and act like you are condoning you are condoning - period. No loving God would create a religion that creates such a terrible risk. The risk has to be looked at as extremely serious and important. It is people who suffer we are talking about.
 
Many condone what is obviously harmful. They might be okay with vigilantes attacking a drug dealer.
 
Many condone the evil they do themselves and often deny wrongdoing.
 
Many condone evil when they feel that nobody will challenge them.
 
Many who condone cover it up. For example, they could say, "God has to let great evil happen for we have to have free will to do good or evil." Even if that could be correct, is it the reason they say God should let evil happen?
 
For the purpose of argument, if many are not they are still at fault. They make it easy for others to condone divine evil. And they are at risk of condoning it themselves.
 
It is extremely easy to condone divine evil for it is impossible to be caught out. Condoning human evil means some people will see what you are doing. But God's evil cannot be checked out the same way. Thus it makes sense to assume that a person who is okay with what God allows to happen no matter how terrible is condoning for they will get away with it better.
 
God cannot ask you to just assume that the evil he makes and the evil he allows is necessary for a good that is greater than the evil and makes it worthwhile. It is evil in itself to assume something like that. It is like you are permitting him to hurt babies and you don't know if you should. No matter how much good you do, your empathy for the sufferer is lacking at least as far as God is concerned. It is possible to care about a suffering person one way but not another. Love does not stop you degrading those you love in some way.

As terrible as it is to condone the evil done to you, it is heinous to encourage others to condone what happens to them. It is even more heinous for you to condone what happens to them.
 
Believers in God are using suffering people as a means to an end. They try to turn the suffering of others into a lesson about faith in God. I mean they look at a baby suffering and look at any alleged good in it that results or happens in spite of it as evidence that God is with the child holding her hand. This is about them idolising faith. It is wrong.
 
The believers in God are condoning divine evil. To put it another way, they are refusing to see what divine pitiless nature is doing to innocent creatures. They are like people who reason, "This baby has a terrible disease. Somehow this disease has intelligence. It lovingly afflicts the baby for if it does not a worse one would happen." That is refusing to admit what evil is and it is whitewashing it. It is a kind of praise.
 
People who offer to pray for you should be firmly put in their place. Doing that presupposes that God is right to let bad things happen. It is an insult and a mark of evil. It is extremism in principle.
 
If you want to say God is right to allow suffering, then your responsibility is to abandon a normal life and dedicate yourself to others and give them your food. Put your actions where your faith is for there is something disgraceful about the likes of the Pope praising God when he has comforts that are denied little babies and little animals.
 
A supreme God who exists only in the mind of man will produce evil for man thinks much evil. Such a contrived God even if it does not encourage evil does nothing to thwart it. It has no intrinsic power to help with evil. And the supreme God notion gives man a way to say, "It is God making these rules not me". How clever and how empowering for man! The human origin of faith in God and how dangerous that faith is in the hands of religious fraudsters and liars and politicians and monarchs and prophets shout one thing out: DROP GOD!

 

Everybody agrees that nobody's suffering should be used by you to show yourself or anybody else how good you are.  Let us put aside the fact that you have literally NO entitlement to do that.  The more innocent the person is and the more helpless then the less entitlement you have to do it.   You will use their suffering by praying and by saying you have faith. It is vile for you are not the one in their shoes. They are doing the suffering . Risking using or creating the temptation to use is bad enough but doing it is worse. There is no justification for it for their suffering is not about you.

If I did not have to make a substance and make it and it is only good for poisoning people then I would be called evil for making it if it were the case that people would be better off if I just hid the then why is it okay for God to do that? Even more to the point why is it okay for me to judge, or worse assume, that God should be okay with that? That is me inventing and why am I not condemned for that when I would be if I made up a God and excused the evil I think he did?

Religion says God gives suffering so we may use it.  So the "evil and suffering has a purpose" brigade are saying, "When you suffer you are an agent."  That is a diabolical suggestion.  It blames the sufferer.

To argue that God uses your suffering to do great good means you have a high opinion of your suffering and its value. You are soothing the pain and fear with pride and arrogance. That leads to a poor attitude to the suffering of others.

To argue that God uses the suffering of others is worse. You cannot suffer as much as most people do. So you have to be talking only about their suffering or mainly about their suffering. There is something sick in arguing that other people's suffering benefits while practically leaving your own out of it. Unless you are willing to take what they have to take instead of condoning their suffering you have no right.

Faith in God needs to cease being esteemed for it tempts and seduces people into condoning divine cruelty.  And some think God is indifferent but they don't care as long as the indifference does not affect them.  An indifferent God can still give you good things for indifference is simply not giving a damn about you.  Indifference is worse than cruelty for it follows no rules at all.  You should do anything rather than risk condoning or worse worshipping a cruel or uncaring God...


APPENDIX

Re Barbara Smoker

Well done Barbara!

"I am ashamed, in retrospect, that I ever found it possible to worship the supposed creator of over-reproduction, sentient food, disease, and natural disasters. If I still believed in an omnipotent creator, I would have to heap curses on him".

I love these lines. They simply express the assumption that instead of trying to make out a baby's terrible suffering is allowed to happen for a good reason by God you help the baby. Do not waste any of your care on God and bestow it all on the baby. If hypothetically we have to help the baby for her own sake or for God's (because he wants us to help others not because they need it but out of devotion for him and he commands it) and it has to be one or the other who should we choose? If we say God then it follows that there is some misanthropy in us. Human nature needs an outlet for its dark side. Some would say that the saints were able to be so good because their outlet for evil was in condoning the sick and twisted ways of God and of those lousy enough to back him up. Not so good underneath it all then...