Thursday, April 2, 2015

They Are All Liars!

I have pointed out on numerous occasions the extent to which believers are dishonest.  They frequently tell bald faced lies.  They engage in systematic and nearly uniform intellectual dishonestyThey will do nearly anything to make sure that the marketplace of ideas is never given a chance to honestly evaluate their claims so that there is nothing to impede their efforts to brainwash the entire population.

Today there was news story regarding the recent "religious freedom restoration" law in Indiana that illustrated the way in which religious people are bald faced liars (especially when their religion is concerned).  The christian owners of a small pizza place in Indiana announced that their religion would prevent them from serving pizza for a gay wedding.

Almost in the same breath, the owners insisted that they were not discriminating against anyone.  Obviously, refusing to cater gay weddings while agreeing to cater straight weddings is discrimination.  How can such a bald faced lie ever pass through the lips of a supposedly honest christian?  Simple, their entire worldview is a lie.  They live in world of lies that they tell themselves everyday.  They are so accustomed to telling lies where their religion is concerned that they are unable to distinguish the truth with regard to it.

In a way, this isn't surprising.  After all if a person can't tell himself the truth, it's nearly impossible for him to tell anyone else truth.  What is religion except a giant lie that a person tells himself.  For religious people, the "truth" is whatever makes them feel about themselves and look good to others.  They are pathologically dishonest.

Thursday, February 19, 2015

They Are All Hypocrites

Some time back I told a religious relative that "religion is how bad people feel good about themselves."  This is one of the many purposes of religion and one that I believe figures prominently in the popularity of religion.  It is an essential part of the attraction of religion both for true believers and those manipulative psychopaths who use it to control others.  It allows the believer to feel good about himself without justification and thus also allows the psychopaths to manipulate the believers more easily into doing things that would ordinarily make them feel guilty.

I received the predictable reply that this may be true of the "hypocrites" but wasn't true of true believers.  This is, of course, how all religious people will see it if you point out hypocrisy in their religion.  They see it only as an indictment of the human frailty of some members of their religion.  They will almost certainly not admit to hypocrisy themselves and will never see it as an indictment of their religion itself.

I think, however, that it is an indictment of their religion.  Hypocrisy is built in to religion.

Hypocrisy is defined as "a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess."

Clearly the key pretense is that of having a virtuous character.  Moral and religious beliefs are relevant only if they cause the person to behave virtuously.  If someone doesn't follow his alleged moral or religious beliefs, then that person is the sort of hypocrite that even the religious would label as a hypocrite.  My point is that possessing moral or religious beliefs do not necessarily make one virtuous.

What makes this hypocrisy part and parcel of religion is the notion of third party forgiveness.  Believers almost always think that if they do something wrong, they can get forgiveness for their transgressions through religion.  This forgiveness, however, is an obvious fantasy.

If a person has transgressed, the only source of legitimate forgiveness is the party or parties who were harmed by the transgression.  Getting forgiveness from your invisible friend--even if he were real--is hypocritical.  It is a pretense to a virtuous character that one does not really possess.

This is the inevitable result of refusing to engage in critical thinking.  And, what do you call someone who is less than critical?  "Hypocritical", of course.  In fact, that is the literal meaning of the word hypocritical.  The prefix "hypo" means below or less than.  To be less than critical is to be hypocritical.  They are all hypocrites.

Thursday, January 22, 2015

Pointless Debates

I have urged those who read my posts to avoid debate with believers because it is both futile and dangerous to the non-believer.  The religious, however, are frequently insistent when it comes to trying to discuss religion.  One way to put an end to such efforts while simultaneously giving the believer something to think about is to say:

It is pointless to debate someone who has rejected both reason and honesty.

Depending on the scenario, you may feel the need to give a brief explanation concerning how faith is the rejection of reason and how belief in one supernatural hypothesis while being totally skeptical of others is not honest.

Thursday, January 8, 2015

Politics and Religion

Religion is necessarily bound up with politics because religion encompasses the worldview, beliefs about morality, and (most important) social status of believers.  Religion and politics are more than simply inextricably intertwined; they are different sides of the same coin.  Yet, those anxious to defend religion often try to deflect criticism by claiming that the numerous bad deeds done in its name are "political" rather than religious.

Claiming that religion is separate from politics is another of those baldfaced lies that the religious try to slip into debates.  Like most of their lies, they have convinced themselves it is true.  And, if you look at it from just the right angle, it can seem true.  After all, one's personal beliefs about the afterlife don't seem to have to much to do with politics. 

The trouble is that the only way to sustain this viewpoint is to pretend that religion is a far smaller part of a person's life than it actually is.  You have to ignore the mountain of evidence to the contrary as well as the obvious logical implications of believing in a religion.  You have to pretend that religion is a circumscribed and simple set of beliefs instead of a worldview.

The only believers who can legitimately make this claim are deists and the like who believe that a god exists but who don't make any claims to knowledge about the nature, thoughts, and edicts of god.  Consequently, I think a good reply to this claim is to point out that a person who claims to be speaking for god in some fashion is essentially claiming that everyone on Earth needs to listen and obey.  If that isn't a political statement, I don't know what is.

After all, one is claiming to be imparting the wishes of the being that allegedly made the entire universe, including the Earth and all of us.  The thoughts and wishes of such an entity, if it existed, would and should be of paramount importance to us all.  Such an entity must be in possession of a great deal more knowledge and wisdom that any human or group of humans and such an entity must also possess a great deal of power of one sort or another over us all.

Combine those implications with the ways in which religions everywhere seek to coerce human behavior through threats, promises and other manipulations, it should be easy to see that all religions are political and not an aside but as their primary concern.

Frankly, to a nonbeliever it is obvious that religion has always been political.  It is clear that even in its very genesis, religion was political because it was always meant to be a way to manipulate the behavior of others.  Even its simplest and most basic function, conquering the fear of death, is political.  The goal is to get people to accept their own death and the deaths of others with a minimum of grief and attendant disruption.

Consequently, if you hear this ridiculous canard, I recommend saying:

If your religion claims to know what god wants from mankind, then it is political.

or,

When you claim to speak for god, you are making a political statement because you are claiming to know what everyone should think or do.