Silly Religious Beliefs
-
Upload
susan-bvochora -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
0
Transcript of Silly Religious Beliefs
-
7/29/2019 Silly Religious Beliefs
1/12
Introduction
In an increasing number of countries religion has a major problem on its hands
the majority of citizens are no longer ignorant and uneducated. Science and
reason has replaced religion and faith. The battles have been fought, the war is
over and religion has lost. Their power gone, they can no longer force our
obedience. Having their primitive stories exposed as fictions mean they can no
longer even persuade us to follow them willingly. Yet religion refuses to
surrender. It struggles on mortally wounded, gasping and wheezing, attacking
when cornered with the only weapons it has left: denial and isolation. For the
first time in history it goes off the offensive and onto the defensive, and we get
the pathetic plea of "Please respect my religion".
Is this a legitimate and fair request? Should we feel obliged to back down?
Definitely not, and we'll explain why this request should not only be ignored, it
doesn't even make sense. This is just another bogus religious statement, asubterfuge designed to keep reason at bay while religions attempt to protect
their ill-gotten assets, reinterpret their myths and brainwash a new generation of
followers.
The Decline of Religion
How did religions slip from the authoritarian "Stone him" to begging "Please
respect my religion"? Let's recap on the way things were and what's changed to
bring about this new wimpish approach from religious believers.
For most of recorded history persuasion and force, working hand in hand, has
kept religion to the forefront in most societies. Persuasion worked mainly
because it was very easy for an educated, literate priesthood to convince
illiterate, ignorant and superstitious peasants of anything they wished. For those
that could see the flaws in the religious argument, fear persuaded most to feign
belief. Fear of divine punishment if religion was true and the very real fear of
how religions responded to disbelief. Religions have never been backward in
resorting to torture and execution. Torture would 'convince' non-believers that
religion was obviously true after all, and execution would permanently remove
their negative and unwanted influence from the scene. Either way, religion heldits grip on the populace with an iron fist.
Of course many intelligent people throughout history have questioned religion,
but most still found themselves concurring that while obvious flaws exist, the
overall premise that a god created the world must be true. They reached this
conclusion because there was simply no other alternative. If a god didn't create
the world and life and the amazing way it all fits together, then what did? No one
could come up with an answer that made sense. And so even in recent centuries,
with science on the rise, religion was still able to persuade the great majority
that religion was right, with science merely verifying the details.
-
7/29/2019 Silly Religious Beliefs
2/12
Then in 1859 along came Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution by natural
selection. For the first time in history there was an alternative explanation as to
how life evolved, and it didn't need a god. More than any other, this one event
was the beginning of the end for religion's hold over society. Scientists,
philosophers and anyone that was never completely comfortable with the 'God
did it' solution finally had an alternative answer to 'Life, the universe and
everything'. Darwin's success at explaining the evolution of life gave scientists
new found confidence that the universe could be explained in a naturalistic way,
without resorting to gods, demons, fairies or leprechauns.
As science advanced in leaps and bounds, religion found hallowed belief after
hallowed belief being debunked. Of course religion vigorously attempted to
defend its position in not only its churches, but universities, schools,
governments and the media, but slowly and surely religion lost its grip and
scientific answers took precedence over religious ones. Science and reason
effectively and conclusively demolished religious dogma. Their holy books havebeen shown to be fictional, their histories mythical and their explanations of
natural events fanciful magic. Religion has lost the enormous power it once held
and has largely been relegated to a "private and irrelevant superstition practised
by a minority". While admittedly the majority still holds vague religious beliefs,
only a minority still holds a literal belief in religion as practised by their
ancestors. They can no longer threaten us with torture and death. Even their
threat of Hell and divine retribution does nothing but raise a giggle. The universe
is a completely different place to what religions would have us believe, and their
silly stories about vengeful gods and talking snakes persuade few. Religions have
been marginalized and what power they still appear to have is largely symbolic.They are impotent. The days of an ignorant society cowing at their feet are long
gone, their proclamations are ignored and their mystical explanations laughed
at.
So in the 21st century, how can religious leaders and devout believers
religion's eunuchs ensure the survival of their faith?
With the option of force outlawed and their explanations ridiculed, religion is left
fighting a rearguard action. The best they can do is attempt to retain what
followers they do have by insulating their beliefs from analysis and criticism. For
all their blustering about open discussion and debate, the intelligent andknowledgeable among them have rightly concluded that real debate would be
disastrous for religion. While the church could easily fool ignorant and
superstitious peasants, they know that if educated and open minded people are
exposed to all the arguments of religion verses science, history, philosophy,
ethics etc. they will clearly come to realise that our origins are best described by
science and not religion. That our laws are best formulated by the people and
not Yahweh, Jehovah, Jesus, Allah or Shiva.
Religion's realise they need to limit the damage that science and reason is
inflicting on a daily basis. If they can't convince the rest of society of their views,
they need to at least to shield their followers from alternative views. But how can
-
7/29/2019 Silly Religious Beliefs
3/12
they prevent public commentary, the publication of books and the screening of
science documentaries, comedies and movies that expose and highlight the
absurdities, contradictions and falsehoods contained in their faith? How do they
stop rational, intelligent people picking on them?
They appeal to our sense of fairness, of justice and of equal rights. Put simply,they ask us to respect their religion, to respect their beliefs, as they respect ours.
Respect Our Religion
But this is nothing but a scam. Nothing but the latest ploy used by religions in an
attempt to prevent criticism of their beliefs. Since no one wants to feel that they
are being disrespectful, rude or discourteous to someone's personally held
beliefs, this demand can stop debate in its tracks. It effectively prevents us from
even discussing let alone challenging, ridiculing or criticising religious beliefs. But
is it a valid demand or are we simply being silenced by religious arrogance? Isthis demand merely a cunning ploy to prevent us showing up religion for the silly
superstition that it is?
Yes of course it is, and we'll endeavour to explain why.
To start with, here are some quotes that show this ploy in action. In NZ the two
main examples of recent times (2006) are the publication of the Islamic cartoons
featuring Mohammed which offended Muslims and the broadcasting of 'Bloody
Mary', an episode of South Park featuring the Virgin Mary, which offended
Catholics.
Protest A TV3 news item on a Muslim protest march in Auckland stated,
"The [Muslim] organisers were at pains to say this was
a protest about respecting all religions, including their
own".
The protestors carried banners that read:
"Stop offensive publication. Do not offend any religion."
-
7/29/2019 Silly Religious Beliefs
4/12
"We Muslims respect our religion and we have to be respected as well."
A Muslim woman went on to state:
"I think it's disgusting. They should respect our religion just like we respect
them."
Around the world Muslim leaders, community leaders and even Christian and
Jewish leaders added their voice to the protesters, saying that while they didn't
condone the violence or the threats that occurred in Europe, they did support the
Muslim outrage at the disrespectful treatment of their prophet and their religion.
Roy Greenslade, a former newspaper editor in Britain was quoted as saying:
'You have to respect race, colour and creed, and that means not being
gratuitously rude about religion.'
Australian newspaper 'The Age' stated that:
'The Vatican yesterday appealed for mutual respect.'
Raymond L. Flynn, National President of 'Your Catholic Voice', and Former
Ambassador to the Vatican expressed his view:
'I sometimes don't agree with other peoples' religious positions either, but I
respect them and don't criticize them or tell them what to
do or believe...
Respect my religion as I respect yours.'
South Park The Christian outrage over the South Park episode, like the Muslim
cartoons, again centred on 'respect' and others also took up their cause. A
commentator on National Radio's Media Watch programme stated that religions
are not getting:
'the respect they deserve'.
Even NZ Prime Minister Helen Clark commented on the problem saying,
"... but I think it is important to show religious faiths respect and tolerance... I
think the critical thing is that we show respect for other people's beliefs."
-
7/29/2019 Silly Religious Beliefs
5/12
A Christian web site that was protesting the screening of the South Park episode
stated,
"We value and respect a New Zealander's right to hold a religious faith without
condemnation."
So the general theme is: Respect the Prophet. Respect the Virgin Mary. Respect
other religions. Respect all religion.
What's happening here, with conflicting faiths supporting each other? Each
demanding that we not only respect their faith, but the faith of their adversaries
as well?
Devout Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus etc are all utterly convinced that every
religion but their own is false. Each would be ecstatic if the secular world would
help them probe, analyse and convincingly debunk the false beliefs of other
religions, relegating them to history. But at the same time they all realise thathaving eventually discredited all other religions, reason and science would turn
its spotlight on them, and their foundations are just as weak and rotten as the
others were. Once started, the search for the truth wouldn't stop. Science and
reason would destroy all religion.
Actually much has already been lost and we believe every religion is already
mortally wounded, lying in a persistent vegetative state with the ageing priests,
mullahs and rabbis unwilling to pull the plug.
Realising that if they openly encourage criticism of other religions then this will
eventually come back to haunt them, religions have tried to hold off theirinevitable demise by forming a coalition with those that follow 'false' religions.
They all recognise that free inquiry is a far greater threat to their existence than
other 'false gods'. Thus the leaders of these many religions, but certainly not all
their followers, have reached a fragile truce. They have agreed not to publicly
challenge, ridicule or criticise the beliefs of other faiths. They have agreed to
'respect' each other's religion. They have agreed to 'respect' the lies and
falsehoods of other religions, all in the name of self-preservation. But this is only
the first step. The crucial step now is to stop the penetrating gaze of science and
reason, thus the secular world must be convinced to abide by a treaty it was not
a party to. The secular world must accept that if religions have agreed toeffectively ignore each other, then science and reason must do likewise.
Sorry, but we in the secular world do not have to turn a blind eye to your silly
little games. Truth knows no boundaries. Science and reason will not stop looking
at religion just because religion is afraid of what it will reveal. Reason refuses to
put on the blinkers that religion has provided.
This 'respect' ploy isn't new, remember the protests over the piece of art known
as 'Virgin in a Condom', 'The Da Vinci Code' and even Monty Python's movie 'Life
of Brian'? Christians bleating on about their right to have their religion respected.
But this right is a myth. It doesn't exist. They are confusing it with their right to
'freedom of religion or belief'.
-
7/29/2019 Silly Religious Beliefs
6/12
Section 13 of the NZ Bill of Rights Act states that:
'Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion, and belief,
including the right to adopt and hold opinions without interference.'
This guarantees them the right to believe anything they wish, but it does not
promise in any way or form that the rest of us have to accept or even
understand that belief, let alone respect it. They merely have the right to hold
differing beliefs. We are not compelled to accept these beliefs and we most
certainly don't have to respect them. I repeat, we are respecting the right to hold
a belief, not the belief itself.
OK, so there is no law saying we must respect religion, but do we have a moral
obligation perhaps? Is this what they mean, that some sense of fairness should
cause us to respect religion? But does the demand, 'Respect our religion', even
make sense? What does 'respecting' something actually mean?
My dictionary defines 'respect' as:
respect
To feel or show deferential regard for; esteem.
To avoid violation of or interference with, eg respect the speed limit.
To relate or refer to; concern.
For definition #1 it goes on to say that respect:
'implies appreciative, often deferential regard resulting from careful
assessment'.
I believe it is correctly used in statements such as 'I respect so-and-so for the
outstanding work they've done in their particular field', eg I respect Sir Edmund
Hillary for his mountaineering achievements and his humanitarian work.
However it is mischievously hijacked for dogmatic commands such as 'Respect
your parents, Respect your elders, Respect your superiors' etc. As we all know,
respect in this context must be earned. Why should a child respect a parent thatabuses him? Why should we respect elders or leaders that are corrupt? Since
most people know little if anything about the religious beliefs of others, there can
be no respect, since there has been no 'careful assessment' of them.
Of course some people may truly believe that they have investigated and
actually respect religions other than their own, but this is a naive. To have
deferential regard for a belief system that insists that your belief or religion is
false, your gods are false, you are deluded and you're destined for eternal
torture because of your refusal to accept this, is stupid in the extreme. You can
respect your own religion but you can't respect an opposing one, at most all youcan do is tolerate it. More on this shortly.
-
7/29/2019 Silly Religious Beliefs
7/12
'Respect all religion' they say. Not just 'our' religion but 'all' religions. But why?
No doubt if I asked them if they would in turn 'respect my religion or belief', they
would immediately reply with an emphatic "Yes!"
But again, why? Shouldn't any reasonable person first ask, 'What is your religion
or belief?'
What if I stated that my religion was Satanic worship involving human sacrifices,
or that my belief was that magic fairies told me that to reach enlightenment I
must sexually abuse small children. Would they 'respect' my belief and leave me
alone to abuse small children as long as I 'respected' them in turn and left them
alone? One would hope that given these answers they would refuse to respect
my beliefs. They would probably insist that after due consideration of my beliefs
they feel that they can't respect them after all. But why do they have this right to
choose whether they will respect my beliefs, while demanding I blindly respect
theirs? We can't enforce respect for all beliefs because it is impossible to respect
beliefs you don't agree with. Do Christians have 'respect' for Islamists who
slaughter infidels according to their deeply held religious beliefs? If they do then
they should be viewed with contempt, if they don't then they are hypocrites.
They can't demand that we respect and refuse to criticise their religious beliefs,
while they freely condemn the religious beliefs of others.
Thus one cannot blindly follow demands to 'Respect the Prophet' or 'Respect our
beliefs'. If this is the meaning of 'respect' adopted by these proponents, then
their plea for 'respect' fails and can be ignored.
However if religious proponents merely wish to prevent criticism of their beliefs,then definition #2 has more power when it comes to preventing debate: 'To
avoid violation of or interference with'. This is a blanket 'hands-off' approach.
Regardless of your view, you are being told not to challenge their beliefs. You
must leave them alone. To violate in this context means: 'to do harm to
(property or qualities considered sacred); desecrate or defile'. Thus to make
statements that suggested their sacred views were false would be to violate their
beliefs. Those that claim this defence, this definition of respect, knowingly do so
to prevent any challenge to their belief.
Thankfully we no longer live in the Dark Ages. Unlike the dictionary example
given above, 'respect the speed limit', there is no legal requirement that states
'Respect your parents', and there is no law that states 'Respect the beliefs of
others'. In fact we have just the opposite, it's called 'Free Speech'.
The third definition of respect, meaning 'in relation to' or 'in reference to' doesn't
apply when used in this context so can be ignored.
So, we have three options in the way we can respond to calls of 'respect my
religion':
We respect their beliefs by showing deferential regard for them.
-
7/29/2019 Silly Religious Beliefs
8/12
This fails since having no knowledge of their beliefs means we have no
reason to have esteem for them. In addition, gaining knowledge would still not
guarantee esteem, anymore than learning about Nazis would increase our regard
for their beliefs. It is possible that after due consideration some beliefs may be
found worthy of our esteem, but this should change their initial claim to, 'Please
examine our religion or belief'. They can't demand blind 'respect'. In this context,
and in freethinking New Zealand, I will decide whether I will 'respect' something.
I will not have this demand placed on me.
We respect their beliefs by not violating or interfering with them, regardless of
our opinion of them.
This fails since they have no authority to make such demands. The right of
'Freedom of religion and belief' merely gives them the right to hold different
beliefs, not that those beliefs should be 'off-limits' to inspection and utter
rejection or ridicule if deemed appropriate. Take NAMBLA (North America Man
Boy Love Association), a real group whose belief it is that sex between men and
young boys is appropriate. They have the right to hold this belief, but if we
accept 'respect' in this context we must not attempt to interfere with or harm
this belief in any way. After all, Muslims or Christians can't insist that 'respect'
should only apply to their beliefs and not the beliefs of other groups. It's all or
nothing. A genuine example of 'respect' in this context is: 'respect the law'. We
may or may not agree with every law, but a condition of living in society is that
we will accept them, and if we refuse to 'respect' them, a legal authority will
punish us. In our society religions no longer have the authority to demand
'respect', unlike the legal system, anymore than do Neo-Nazi groups or NAMBLA.
The final and correct option is to realise that religious proponents have given
us no good reason to blindly respect their beliefs under either definition.
We need to realise that demands to 'Respect our religion' etc are used to
intimidate us, to silence us, and thus discourage analysis of their silly beliefs. A
quote on the website 'About Atheism' puts it beautifully:
"They don't want my respect, they want my submission."
-
7/29/2019 Silly Religious Beliefs
9/12
Tolerate our Religion
Ok, so the demand that we 'Respect their religion, belief or whatever' fails, but
others may claim that what the person should really have said was that we
should be more tolerant of religion. They meant 'tolerate' not 'respect'.
But does the modified request that we 'Tolerate their religion or belief' achieve
their desired outcome?
My dictionary defines 'tolerate' as:
tolerate
To allow without prohibiting or opposing; permit.
To recognise and respect (the rights, beliefs, or practices of others).
To put up with; endure; reluctant acceptance despite reservations.
Let's look at definition #2 first. If people take 'tolerate' to mean 'to recognise and
respect the rights, beliefs, or practices of others', then this is just another way of
saying, 'You should tolerate my religion, and by this I mean you should respect
my religion'. All they've really done is redefine 'tolerate' as a synonym of
'respect', and we've already gone down that path. Religions can not demand our
respect or our tolerance when it is used in this sense.
However, if by 'tolerate' one means 'to allow without prohibiting or opposing; to
permit; to put up with; endure', we are again presented with a problem. As withdemanding respect, who has the authority to demand that others tolerate
-
7/29/2019 Silly Religious Beliefs
10/12
something? One authority would be our legal system, and thus we must 'tolerate'
the situation that women are allowed to vote, that homosexuals can walk among
us and neo-Nazis can legally hold meetings to idolise Hitler. It matters not
whether we agree or disagree with these things, we must permit them, we must
put up with them, we must tolerate them. As the dictionary says, toleration in
this sense means 'reluctant acceptance despite reservations'.
The only thing that we must legally tolerate about religion is the right of people
to hold religious beliefs.
Do religions and other groups or organisations etc have any authority to demand
that we do more than this? No. Can they demand that there is no analysis,
criticism, satirising, lampooning or debating of their views? No. Thankfully
religions have not had this authority for centuries, and neither do special interest
groups such as Neo-Nazis, alien abductees or NAMBLA. Many religious groups, in
their arrogance that only they are right, fail to realise that if this authority to
demand toleration, in the sense of not challenging their beliefs, was granted to
one group then it must apply to all, religious or otherwise. It's hypocritical to
insist that people must tolerate your beliefs, but not those of others. If we have
to tolerate Catholic views, we have to extend this courtesy to all Christian faiths,
then to Islam, Judaism, Hinduism and right down the line to New Age religions
and Satanic worshipers. All religion, good or bad, popular or unpopular, would
have to be tolerated. Then the paranormal wackos would want their beliefs
tolerated. Everyone who felt picked on because they held some silly belief
against all evidence would demand that society tolerated them as well.
Yes they have the legal right to hold these beliefs, we've already agreed on that,
but they don't have the legal right to force us not to oppose, investigate or
criticise these beliefs.
If society foolishly accepted that it must tolerate (and not oppose) all beliefs,
then even objectionable fringe beliefs must be tolerated. People would have to
tolerate groups that advocate slavery, racism or inequality for women or the
execution of homosexuals and adulterers, likewise groups that practise female
genital mutilation, child abuse and honour killings. Unfortunately there are
religions and groups that still believe in all of these things. Accepting their
demand that we tolerate their beliefs is little different from condoning them. We
would have to agree that while barbaric and inhumane things were going on
under our very noses, we wouldn't challenge or criticise them. We would agree to
ignore them, to tolerate them.
But the fact is that we don't have to respect or tolerate any religious belief. If we
did, slavery would still be a part of our lives, since for most of its history
Christianity supported it, as did Judaism and Islam. The Bible and Koran go into
considerable detail over how we should treat our slaves. Remember that when
slavery in the West was finally outlawed that it was Christians who were tradingin slaves and owning slaves. The American Civil War, the war that freed the
-
7/29/2019 Silly Religious Beliefs
11/12
slaves, saw Christian fighting Christian. Evidently slavery still existed in some
Muslim countries right up to the 1950s. We refuse to tolerate Christian groups
calling for the execution of homosexuals, adulterers and abortion doctors or
Muslims that maintain that giving up or changing your faith is a death sentence.
Even though these religious fundamentalists insist that we should at least
tolerate their barbaric demands, people with any sort of decency refuse and
actively oppose them. Enforcing tolerance would take away our moral right to
oppose them.
People that push tolerance or respect for religious beliefs that they agree with or
those that they deem harmless, while condemning and opposing those that they
disagree with or find reprehensible are nothing but hypocrites. Think of
Christians that say we should respect their religion, but then criticise Muslims for
wanting to stone an adulteress to death, or Muslims and Jews that insult
Christians by stating that Jesus wasn't the Son of God. Why can they analyse and
criticise other religions but we can't? With due consideration and free will theyhave decided which beliefs they will tolerate and respect, which is good and
proper, but when it comes to us making a decision regarding their beliefs, they
refuse us the same courtesy and make the decision for us: 'Respect our religion'.
If religions didn't want me to laugh at them
then they shouldn't have such silly beliefs
Rather than respect or tolerate religion we must be free to investigate, analyse,
challenge, criticise, debate, satirise, lampoon, ridicule and mock any and all
religious belief. We need to continue this until everyone that has the intellect tocomprehend sees religion as the superstitious and dangerous nonsense that it is.
We need to expose the terror that religion has evoked throughout history and
that is poisoning our world once again, especially by Muslim terrorists, but also
barbaric acts by Christians, Jews, Hindus and even Buddhists. We can't let our
inquiry into these atrocities or even our curiosity about some silly religious claim
like the virgin birth be stopped in its tracks by their demand to back off: 'Respect
our religion'.
Religions correctly view science, reason and critical inquiry as instruments of
their destruction, as an acid slowing eating away at their cherished beliefs, and it
must not be allowed to come in contact with believers, especially those whose
faith is weak, for they will be more easily persuaded to cross over to the secular
'dark side'. Religions know that many of their so-called followers lack the
indoctrination and the required dullness of thought to resist reason and logic,
and are seduced by the notion of thinking for themselves and living in a universe
where they're not playthings of a vengeful and barbaric god.
Religions are putting up a smokescreen, a diversion, when they demand we
respect their beliefs. By isolating their faith they are attempting to put their
beliefs off-limits to science, reason and critical inquiry. They are trying to
maintain the fog of delusion that envelops their followers. Their hope is thatthese god-fearing, gullible, ignorant, and usually poor and uneducated sheep will
-
7/29/2019 Silly Religious Beliefs
12/12
have lots of sex without contraception, preferably in the missionary position, to
produce a new wave of children that can be brainwashed and mentally and
physically fucked by the priesthood into continuing their crusade of ignorance.
Religions have always seen childhood indoctrination as the key to their survival.
They hope that by pushing the likes of 'Bible in Schools' and repackaging 'Biblical
Creationism' as 'Intelligent Design' that their army of zombies will multiply until
once again they're in control. But at the moment they're weak, vulnerable and
ineffectual. Until their numbers swell they must stay unobtrusive and non-
threatening, protecting their followers and beliefs from criticism. Gone are the
days when they could force belief onto the multitudes and so new tactics are
called for. Rather than instil terror, their beliefs now invoke laughter and
incredulity. And so they meekly ask us, 'Please respect my religion'.
We need to realise that if groups have to demand that you respect their beliefs,
rather than letting their beliefs speak for themselves, this is automatically a
mark against them. If their beliefs and claims were true and just, they wouldn'tneed to demand that we respect or tolerate them, we would adopt them as our
own.
Far better that one adopts the beliefs of science which doesn't demand respect
or tolerance. On the contrary, it demands critical inquiry, debate and rejection of
theories if the evidence doesn't support them. Religion should demand no less.
Authors: John L. Ateo, Jason C.
Copyright 2008, by the 'SILLY BELIEFS' website. All rights reserved.