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

When you worship God, you worship not God but how man wants you to see him

So deeply has the need of a revealed religion been felt,

that many who have not received revelations from God

 experienced the need to invent them. Fr Leslie Rumble




Only what is valuable and important gets counterfeited.  Religion counterfeits truth.  It risks truth as well.  We need knowledge and truth and that is what we want faith in God for - God by default would be totally intelligent so he is a shortcut to truth if he speaks to us.


God is the being you can have a relationship with and who is absolute limitless truth and love and there is no real love without truth.


Therefore to see God through the lens of a religion, Muhammad or Jesus is idolatry.  Seeing somebody's image of God is not seeing God.  To take a person as an authority on God who is absolute truth is contradictory.  Whatever comes from a man even if right by its nature could be lies or error and to make the word of man absolute truth is foolish.  Absolute truth by definition means it stands for itself and should be taken on its own authority alone.


There is never a revelation from God except from somebody who thinks God is inspiring them what to say. That is dangerous because of the chance of error and the chance that the person is trying to be treated like God the easy way. If you are treated as Godís mouth that is as good as being treated as God and you have no hassle having to keep being angelic all the time or right all the time. A fraud then is more likely to claim to be a prophet than a god.  You can just say God occasionally inspires you so that you don't need to be right or sinless all the time. You can even say revelation is a process so that you can err and work with God to weed it out and that the end product, a holy book or whatever, is the authoritive truth from God.


In some cases, the person claims to get revelations from God but does not claim to be inspired in how he reports these revelations to others so errors can creep in.  That is the craftiest scheme of all.


The goal is to get seen as a revelator of God and protecting your claims from exposure and ensuring that there is an "explanation" for the exposure.  It works very well for lots of religious frauds thrive after being caught out.  They get the believers to doubt themselves when they experience doubts about them.


Because godlings and prophets are human and they know it they will do the following. They will say God inspired their teachings thus they turn their word into the word of God. If man cannot be God then speaking for God is just as good. Claiming to be divine becomes a problem if you are caught sinning or unable to do a miracle. The drive behind godlings and prophets is arrogance and craftiness and their ego gets addicted to people believing in them - believing rubbish because another says it is true is a huge compliment to them.


If you would like your word to be treated as the word of God then you can follow a prophet and revere his utterances and that may be enough for you.  You make his word your own and he does the work. Easy!






Lies are very rife.  Individuals lie and more importantly keep up structures that lie such as politics and culture and religion.  They lie by not challenging lies and letting people wander into the dangerous blind unknown.


A man says God spoke to him.  Other men say that he did speak to him.


Is human nature too deceptive to take such ideas seriously?


For you to say all people are irrational or bad or sinful means you are cutting off your own foundation for if those things are true then who can trust what you say?  You are left with a foundation but it is a weakened one. Sometimes there is no foundation but that depends on the magnitude of the lies.


Some limit the irrationality to religious believers. They say we get by knowing we cannot fully trust people but given the importance of God claims and the claims of religion we should pay no heed to religious believers.  Life can go on without believing anybody's religious claims.


If you are a prophet or Messiah or pope who reports what you say is a revelation from God then what?  You are top of the untrustworthy list.  If people can get by without paying much attention to religious hearsay they definitely can get by without you.  You are in such a tiny minority.  There is also the problem that you are asking people to trust your miracle stories even though miracles need a high standard of testing for they are so like magic.  Let the evidence make the claim not you!


Protestants say that all we do is tainted with sin which is why God cannot be pleased with our good works so only grace, his free gift of salvation can save us. Catholics say the same thing except their idea of what grace does is different. It is a fact that nobody really loves God with all their heart so that they would suffer forever for him. He does not get the love he deserves for his perfect love.  These faiths and Islam warn about how clever Satan is and that Satan manipulates everybody so it gets worse.


If you are coming from the angle that all people lie, this adds to the mistrust especially in God matters.


The religionists wreck their own foundation.  Religion is not about God or faith at all but about culture.  God and faith are just props for the culture.  There is no foundation left.  Religion cannot be inherently morality promoting or morality preserving. 


Imagine you are Jesus who said that nobody is good but God.  Imagine you are his mouthpiece St Paul who said that all are divorced from God by sin.  You are asking others to be so keen to accuse that they would take your unreliable word for it to blacken people as sinners who have no God in them until they repent or whatever. That is just hate.  It also shows your pride.  Religious leaders are masters at using humility to hide their pride. Catholicism reaches a new low by inventing the idea that babies have no God in them until baptism puts him in.


Religion is not about character building but about religious character building.  You are not to be a good person for the poor but a good person for the poor for it pleases Jesus.  This outlook says that suffering does not matter. Only growing a good character through it does. You may interject, "Does suffering matter a lot or not at all? Is it only becoming more compassionate, fair, kind and loving that matters?" You are turning your suffering into a means to an end.  There is a pride in saying you should be compassionate and fair and loving just because you can as if what they are for does not matter.

If there is any time it is right to say that man should not be listened to just because man in general is unreliable, it is with God. You should not take manís word for it that God speaks even if God does speak.


Ad hominem arguments are mistakes for they attack the person saying something instead of challenging what they have said.  If x says God exists don't say, "X is stupid so I will not listen."  That does not make x wrong.  Keep your focus on the argument made by x.  It is possible for a system of thought to be ad hominem on itself.  When and only when religion claims that God uses it to show his love and good works which means ad hominem applies to religionists and religion.  Religion by calling man unreliable in God matters is inviting it.

To say all people are not very dependable is saying you are not that reliable either. So logic says you should not be taken at your word without checking. But evidence gets you out of the quandary.  You cannot use God to get people's attention.  Realistically a man saying God said x or y is going to get more of a hearing than one who does not.



A sense of morality does not necessarily intend what is best for others -  a moral person may put obedience before the happiness of others.   That would happen more often than not even if it should not.  But there is another reason why moral teaching is risky.

If good people can be got to do terrible things by an authority figure when they feel they should obey then clearly there is a risk that all morality systems carry.  They demand obedience and that comes across as being more important than what is commanded.  To obey a God telling you to love your neighbour in fact stresses obedience to God more than love.  Obedience and love - either of them can make you miserable and joyless.  But obedience is more likely to do that than love.  If God commands you to love there is a risk of putting you off love.  Loving for no reason and certainly not because you were commanded is everything while loving for God orders it is nothing in comparison.

Doing the good can be more dangerous than doing the bad.  That is true if you do good just because it is good and good is more dangerous if you are ordered or pressured to do it.

God presumably only directly commands one in a billion!  The trouble is the rest us of have to go to his prophets and holy book or religion to get the information second-hand or infinite-hand.  So God sends you to man - how strange and how risky.  The risk increases if the authority is seen as a man of God or an authorised spokesperson for God and that is down to the fact that belief in God goes with the doctrine that God lets evil and suffering and death happen for good reasons- he uses them.  Whoever says that it is okay for God to send terrible sickness to kill babies but not to tell you to make the sickness in a lab is just a fantasist not a believer.  She or he is a hypocrite.  In their hypocrisy, they insult those who suffer for they use their suffering to build hypocritical delusions on it.

The good may feel that they are so good that some bad now is fine.  We see that once God and religion get involved in moral deliberations that this is happening in some form.

If right is right and wrong is wrong then let that be enough!  Why do you need to reinforce and increase the problem caused by commands by making out God commands?

Even if God is right for us and moral then it is clearly a very dangerous thing to go to man for his word.  No loving God would want that.


The Bible God demands that spiritists and psychics be put to death for the sin of trying to dabble with the supernatural - that shows how serious God considers their sin to be.  God's ban on mediums and fortune-tellers is given in the light of command to look only to his authorised prophets.  So if you want hidden knowledge you have to hope that God is willing to give it to you. So the condemnation is not about looking for hidden knowledge as such but not in trusting God if he wants to give it to you or not. So if God is good and trustworthy looking for any information he is kept out of is necessarily but perhaps subtly evil. Science would then be condemned as much as mediums etc. In fact a person claiming to be channelling God would deserve more belief or credence than somebody who is giving a message about somebody else who has channelled God. There is no point in telling people to take their information from God if the information has to come second or third or whatever hand.


God represents the view that you must trust he exists and what he allegedly reveals. He has countless secrets and secrets are a danger to truth. The argument then that we do not know all truth so we can believe that a revelation is from God is invalid. There are more likely to be false revelations than true ones.  Man is more likely to pretend that God has said x y and z than God is to really reveal.


Most followers of God if not all are only pleasing God because it pleases them. It would be a stupid god who would be happy with that!  The doctrine that all are sinners hints at how people tend to use God or their idea of God to serve themselves.  So no loving God would give revelation through man or hearsay.  No loving God would send his son to talk to us directly and then leave us having to go to men to learn what he talked about.


Deism assumes that God creates all things but is uncaring and thus does not communicate. But what if he does? If he does, then he could truly have founded say Christianity though it is a pack of lies.  Even if a revelation comes from a  higher power it does not mean it is really telling us the truth.  It could still be untrue.


Arguments just from authority are useless and the worst of all. Nobody uses them in good faith. To say that concentration camps are good because Hitler says so is not different in kind from saying that dairy is bad for you for some teacher says so. The content and the consequences differ but both are equally deference to authority. You cannot say it is irrational to listen to Hitler if you are listening to some authority too be it benign or sinister or stupid. The argument from authority is about power and manipulation. In its worst form, it is men pointing to God as authority rather than themselves. And of course they are the ones telling you what God wants!


If there is no God then the authority of clergy, popes, prophets, religious terrorist leaders and Messiahs is illegitimate. They do not have the authority to give you God's word or to channel God's blessings to you and give you orders in the name of religion. They do not have the authority to sell you books and services and to take your stipends.


It is interesting that God's word is revealed practically speaking to clerics. Messiahs and prophets are clerics in their own way. The people have to go to the clerics for them to discern what God has revealed.


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 it is not. It pretends to be God's work. In that sense, God is what man wants to think he is.
In 1973, a Stanford University experiment showed how moral people soon abandon the morals when they are given power and authority. Religions leaders get spiritual power and influence and will lie and hurt people to protect this power. That is why you can show a theologian his core teaching is wrong and he will seem immune to the truth. He will not change for he is lying to himself.


Man says God revealed himself to man. Man must be wiser than God when man is able to decide if God is talking to him and if others are able to decide the man is right. There is no real humility in a prophet no matter how well humility is simulated. If you want power over people and the feeling of power, there is no greater ego buzz than getting people to think you are God's spokesperson. The atheist does not think that God sent him and the believer does. Such arrogance!


Nothing needs divine inspiration unless it is a mistake or it is a lie or unless it wishes to force or pressure you to believe. You are expected to accept doctrines not because they are believable but because God says so. True respect for you means you will be given the tools to decide for yourself.

We have only a prophetís word for it that God revealed to him or her what he or she says. The whole thing rests on faith in the prophet. That is bad enough when it without evidence, but worse when it is against all the evidence which is available. And religion makes the prophet untestable for it says that sometimes outlandish testimonies can be true and this is the testimony of God. Nobody can ever prove that a prophet did not in fact hear something that claimed to be the voice of God. Religion takes advantage of that fact too. It even argues that God is in a position to give commands that seem harsh and mad for he alone knows why they are needed.


Religion tells people that if its members and leaders let you down then not to give up for the religion is about God and not them. Now you know that is not true! A man-made religion would say that anyway. It is horrendous how the Catholic Church in particular manipulated people to keep using the Church for sacraments and worship and give it money in the wake of the universal clerical sex abuse cover-up in the Church. It told them the Church is about God. If the Church is man-made then the Church was fooling those people. If they intended to worship God, they failed. They worshipped God as created by man.
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.

Hearing a voice does not mean it is Godís and only God can know if he is really speaking. Even the person who hears cannot be sure but can only guess. If anyone claims to be hearing the voice of God and giving his message to others he is a liar. To think that you donít know where the voice comes from means it is not from you is arrogant. It is, ďI donít know where this inspiration comes from so it comes from God.Ē It makes no sense. By spreading your message you inspire a worse arrogance in others. X has a voice in his heart or head and doesnít know where it comes from therefore it is from God. The more your faith in a prophet is based on hearsay the worse the problem gets.


In the light of man's involvement in alleged communications from God - they are only ever alleged - 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 magnitude of human suffering.


God supposedly asks for us to be virtuous. A being that asks for virtue from us is not necessarily virtuous itself. It may not be a good being. Believers forget that if God is not violent he might still be bad. It may be that violence is not his thing and his tricking you to have a relationship with him based on lies about what he is really like is his thing. Are believers guilty of believing God too easily?  Yes.  That impacts on believing what man says about God.  The word of a God who may not be trustworthy is a problem and if he speaks to man it should make you trust the message even less.  So being a revelation does not make it right to believe it.  Also, if the message does not come from God but from some other power it follows that something being a revelation does not make it reliable.

The Bible says in 1 Corinthians 14, "Now, brothers and sisters, if I come to you and speak in tongues, what good will I be to you, unless I bring you some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or word of instruction? Even in the case of lifeless things that make sounds, such as the pipe or harp, how will anyone know what tune is being played unless there is a distinction in the notes? Again, if the trumpet does not sound a clear call, who will get ready for battle? So it is with you. Unless you speak intelligible words with your tongue, how will anyone know what you are saying? You will just be speaking into the air." Yet why is all claimed divine revelation so hard to interpret and engage so much controversy and even bitter division that leads to blood being spilt? Because an unclear revelation is a human scam and not a revelation never mind a divine revelation. Simple.


1 Thessalonians 2:13 says that the word of the apostles is really the word of God and is not to be accepted as a human message.  This is pretty clear that liberal Christians who water down the Bible's teaching into something vague and open to too wide of an interpretation are frauds.


Hypocrisy is inherent in man-made religion in so far as it thinks it is not man-made!!


Pope Francis said in 2017 that it is better to be an atheist than a fake Catholic or in other words a person who is bad but pretends to be a good Catholic.


But don't forget that Catholicism teaches that belief is a supernatural and supernormal gift from God that enables one to believe all the Church teaches.  Catholic faith must have Catholic content to be really a Catholic faith.  If man is telling you your belief in his creed or religion is inspired from God in you and God is inspiring you to believe it that is another way of taking man's word for it that you have the word of God.  It exalts man not God.  A God who man speaks for is not a God at all.


The Church also claims to be a hospital for sinners - it means it has treatments that are of God not man. Thus if the religion is just man-made delusion and has no intrinsic power or unique power to help anybody be a better person then it is just quackery and should take responsibility for the terrible consequences. For example what about paedophile priests who find themselves abusing again after thinking they were helped by prayers and masses and sacraments? So it is simple - if the Church is purely of human origin then clearly it is hypocritical even if it does not intend to be or think it is. Being a hypocrite doesnít always mean knowing you are one Ė hypocrites are exposed only by the evidence.  The hospital claim is totally unconcerned about evidence which is a sure sign that it is about hearsay and listening to man.


List of ways you listen to men when you imagine it is God you listen to


+Listening to those who say they have God's word is listening to them not God.  Even if God is speaking it is as good as no communication for there is no communication unless the messenger is verified.


+Listening to those who tell you the faith they give you can be believed by you if God supernaturally helps you and forms it in you is a form of taking man's word for God's word too.


+It is not up to men to tell you that treatments (eg sacraments) for the bad side of human nature work.  It is up to the evidence.


The evidence is that most, or all if you like, who pass you the word of God are wrong and probably lying.  The risk of following them is a sign that you don't care enough about any real God.


Even without the risk, you are still not trying to listen to God.  Trusting in what men say is a sign of caring about what you want the truth to be. It is anti-truth and no real God of truth would praise you for it. 


Thomas Paine

Let Thomas Paine have the last word, "It is a contradiction in terms and ideas to call anything a revelation that comes to us at second hand, either verbally or in writing."  In other words, it is a lie you tell yourself.  He is talking about alleged revelations from God or supernatural beings.  The huge majority of that material is unbelievable literally because it is full of tell tale signs of delusion such as one revelation disagreeing with another.  A person getting a revelation from a person and then passing it on to you is different.  It can be checked out better than supernatural revelation and is not really a revelation until it passes some tests.  A revelation from a God has no tests and you are forced to take the prophet's word for it.  That is not good enough in principle or in practice. It is selfish and lazy on your part to embrace what the person says.




An idol is whatever you think of as being of supreme importance when it does not deserve it. The idea of God will be the biggest idol of all for God is not about what you think of him or think he is. If you have the truth about God and his true religion and your motive is, ďIf I didn't have this I'd make do with inventing itĒ that is still idolatry for the truth means nothing to you.  You will never get away with trying to make truth what you want truth to be.

Disobeying a man-made religious rule to say not draw Muhammad or to baptise your child does not make you the instigator. They are the instigator and you are the hero. When your rule is against somebody's rule for you what else can you do but break it?