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?

 


 
Why do people lie that religion is goodness and inherently good?
 
The reason two-faced people lie that religion never harms is that they don't really care, are religious themselves or simply fear a religious backlash.
 
Cultural values and beliefs are so strong that they can turn you against good persons. Their power is frightening. Also, when people think culture will be soft on their evil they are more likely to engage in it.
 
Religious people know that if society begins to take action against religion if it is dangerous that they would end up in the firing line - sometimes literally.
 
The lie is promoted by politicians who fear the bother that will ensue if they recognise a religion's teachings and practices as harmful or risky.
 
The lie suggests that if by religion you mean a specific one that it alone is truly good and the others are inferior if not evil. The lie suggests that if you mean all religions or the ones you know of then you are totally deluding yourself. A faith that sacrifices animals cannot be equal to one that does not at least in that matter.
 
The lie leads to people who see that religion has problems and dangers of being called bigots.
 
So those who say that religion is pure goodness and that it is man not religion that there is a problem with need a reality check. Let us extract what they mean.
 
Translation: "Religion is good but it can be used for evil or as a cover for evil. Therefore when religion is bad it is being abused and is not really bad. You cannot use clean fresh air to poison somebody."
 
This blames people not religion and refuses to care if religion is the problem. And some religions are more adaptable as a cover for evil than others. You should not be in a religion that becomes a cover to a greater extent than another religion does. The true colours of the good tree are known by its fruits.
 
If a religion is intrinsically good then the bad member is a lone wolf. But lone wolves do not really exist in the sense that none of us are totally individualistic. It is demonising the lone wolf to make religion smell of flowers.
 
If a religion is man-made and pretends to be from God how could it possibly be all-good? It is based on error and error is an evil and creates evil and risks evil. If it wrongly thinks it is from God then that is error enough - it does not need any more errors.
 
The religion is good or okay for not all the members are bad thing pretends that religion is justified for it is intrinsically good and it tries to blame the bad ones as if it has nothing to do with them. It is based on lies.
 
Anyway a religion being good means little if it is the enemy of the best. People like to be good but they don't want to be very good.
 
Translation: "The evil or wickedness is not an indication or a symptom of a problem with the religion but with human nature."
 
They refuse to check or see if religion is the problem. They insult human nature by blaming it instead of examining the role of religion and faith. If you have to insult to be religious then that is proof that religion is bad or risky. It is a bad risk. Even the Bible God did not blame human nature but false religion when religious prostitution and idolatry was rife.
 
If human nature is the problem then if humanity makes religions then the religions will have the problem too. To say a religion is not to blame and human nature is is to assume the religion really is from God. If that is wrong then you are denying that it is a man-made religion and thus that it is as liable to doing harm as much as anything man-made is.
 
If you don't know if the religion is man-made or not then it is still irresponsible to say humanity is to blame not it. Religion is based on such irresponsibility and we do not need you enabling it.
 
Favourite religious vice
 
If religion is so good then why does each religion have its favourite vice or as some would call it, sin? Violence is the favourite sin of Islam (or Muslims) and bitching the favourite sin of Catholicism. Total disregard for the environment is the favourite sin of Calvinism. Avarice is the favourite sin of Mormonism. Discrimination against caste the favourite sin of Hinduism. Being a waste of space is the favourite sin of Buddhism. Lying is the favourite sin of Scientology.
 
But religion has high moral standards!

Morality if necessary would be a necessary evil for it decrees that people who disobey must be made to obey or be punished. Religious morality cannot make a religion good but can only make it a necessary evil at best. It would follow that only one religion could be that necessary evil for only one religion can be all true or the most accurate.
 
Religious people do more “wrong” than just social wrong. To do what you think is wrong shows you intend to do wrong and that is bad even if it is not wrong. The atheist or non-religious person does not have this problem. The problem is a complete disproof of the notion that religion is not all bad and therefore okay. It is not okay. It is all bad in outlook and its core outlook even if in practice it is not too worrying.
 
Scientists and atheists who have serious disagreements among themselves about belief and knowledge do not persecute each other. Religious people have always set out to destroy people of a different religion to theirs. What is it about faith in God and the supernatural that leads to atrocity? Isn't religion about being good? In fact, the higher the moral demands a religion makes the more likely it is to turn bigot and persecutor. Big demands lead to people giving up trying or a backlash against the religion may arise. The religion does not like to tolerate any of that.
 
And worse, it invents moral rules - consider how it is a sin for a Catholic priest to invent a form of Mass that differs from the Missal even if the people hate the Missal. To invent moral rules is to make gibberish of your moral code. It is immoral to invent morals.
 
Religion is full of arbitrary doctrines and morals. Religion makes it a duty to believe that stuff. But people forget that arbitrary rules are intrinsically unfair and seek to harm the person that disobeys them perhaps by disapproving of them or punishing them in so additional way. A religion can seem good and act good but be latently evil. It can be passive aggressive when it stands by unhealthy and dangerous teachings and refuses to change them. People are quick to judge a religion with "moral" rules as good just because it has rules. It is not that simple.
 
Every religious organisation has people in it and “in” it who are better than the faith it preaches. The goodness of the people is natural. Thus it is wrong to say that good people show a religion to be okay as a religion. The goodness is irrelevant. But then how can you say that a religion is bad if its people are bad? If you cannot call a religion good can you call it bad? Or is it just beyond good and evil (which is like saying it is neither good or evil or both)? The answer is that it has to be something. The default is it depends and is about different shades of grey. A religion with more bad people in it than good is too grey. You cannot just call it good! At best it is both bad and good and at worst it is bad!!

Some religions produce more bad people than you would expect. The religions will say they do not produce them but they just appear. But they do not just appear. People are formed by what they experience and are involved in and that includes religion.
 
A religion has to involve human action. Without that there is no religion so it is essential. Thus religion cannot claim to be good for nothing is really that good that comes from humankind which is imperfect and inclined to hurt people. It can only claim to be trying but trying means it has to take responsibility for the wrongs done by its members for it identifies with them.

If religion claims to be good then it is being unrealistic for true good is not attainable. If your religion claims to be good and you realise that it is not attainable that will give you a terrible attitude towards dissenters from the religion and those who have never been part of it. The claim to be good is the reason why religion is so divisive and arrogant and sectarian.