A. Uiet Bhor Presents -------------------------

 

An illustrated Guide to religious and philosophical architecture. _ 1.5

(i.e, me resorting to dumbing down my attempts to educate the masses my including crude little drawings, to delight and stimulate their little minds.)

My attempts to explain the inherent problems with religion and the urgency of embracing a secular ethical system usually results in a prolonged rant that is dismissed by theists as the ramblings of a disgruntled atheist. In an attempt to demonstrate my thinking on such matters I will keep this brief and include visual demonstrations of why I consider all religion irredeemable, and what actually makes a decent ethical philosophy. (I include the opening exchange between myself and a theist that followed the publication of this guide on another site. Hopefully more to follow)

Fig. 02

Religion is a very complicated phenomenon, and there are many ways in which it can be studied and understood. History, cognitive anthropology, psychology and meme theory have all given us insights into how religion develops and occasionally what is wrong with it. My personal approach is to look at how religious institutions are organised, and what effects their structure has on issues such as ethics and the worldview of its adherents.

I use the term theological architecture to describe how concepts are arranged due to the way religious and theistic influences define how things should be organised. For contrast I also studied other philosophies including various political ideologies and the outlook common to many rationalists, those of a scientific persuasion and of course humanists.

I did this in order to understand why certain institutions commit atrocities or demonstrate inhumane tendencies. From my personal philosophy any inhumane behaviour invalidates a religion or ideology, but that is due to my strict moral principles which dictate my attitude towards religion and the severity in which I judge it. As far as I am concerned, anything which creates that much harm must have something inherently wrong with it. However I find that when arguing with theists, I need to do more than merely cite the many brutal examples of history. As they see things entirely from a Theistic Vs Atheistic point of view and they clearly think that communism and its death toll is a good defence against their own.

Fig. 03

I need to show that immoral and inhumane behaviour is inherent to the way religion is structured, and the only way to remove such in-built tendencies is to remove the very elements that make a religion a religion.

I also need to demonstrate why it is that non-theistic institutions also commit atrocities, and why it is not purely down to their lack of religious adherents.

I looked very intensely at four main ideologies, Communism, Nazism, Christianity, and Humanism. I found that the one thing that they all have in common, (all except humanism), was there in-built focus on non-human and non-ethical considerations. When you have a religious system you encourage your members to fixate on deities or concepts removed from the material or human world. Mankind is usually demeaned and a religion’s "ethics" are mainly included as part of a faith's justification for its existence, as well as an attempt to further glorify it's deity(s) by claiming it has moral supremacy. Such "pseudo-ethics" are designed to control humanity with ritual and social constraints, as well as act as demonstrations of divine authority. As a result they serve religion rather than life, humanity or any humane ideal. They are not derived from any empirical data or observations of what works in society, they have a life of their own, inexplicably linked with the destiny of the religion in question.

Occasionally such "ethics" are maintained even when the religion has faded away, only then can they be questioned or altered, and they are often found to be lacking in relevance, and trail far behind the moral values that a more enlightened and secular society have developed. Although they originally were derived from legal or moral customs, once they are included in a theology they are no longer modifiable and are followed regardless of what effect they actually have on society. They do not promise to make a culture more humane or society safer or more stable, but justify themselves by their sacred origins rather than any practical or humane applications.

"But what of secular tyranny?" I hear you say, well there are two types of secular governments, those that become secular in order to monopolise their authority, greedy atheistic tyrannies like communism, and those enlightened democracies that recognise the need to create safeguards in order to reduce the risks of any dictatorship arising, whether from a political or religious source. Democracy is in itself a safeguard against political dictatorship providing it is correctly structured. The only safeguards against a theocracy is the separation of church and state. The self evident nature of which often results in even wise and cautious religious people often creating what is referred to as a secular state, but what is really an anti-totalitarian political philosophy, trying to be fair, and recognising the tendency of unaccountable religious authority to do terrible things. Such people can be very religious, but also very keen to create a just nation and realising that regardless of God's existence or inherent goodness, no religious governments in history has any ever been anything other than a nightmare for many of its subjects.

Fig. 04

This is the most common type of decent secular authority, but my personal favourite would be a humanistic democracy that allows religion to exist only under its strict supervision. As leaving religion to fend for itself often creates desperate money grabbing ministries, which can range from enlightened to fanatical and immoral. This can be seen very clearly in America where religion is a given enormous tax brakes and allowed to do whatever they want, perhaps as compensation for the separation of church and state, and perhaps because most members of the government are stupid religious jerks. The trick is to find a balance, we do not want to be seen as a power hungry Commie style atheistic dictatorship, but you do not want to allow religion the run of the land, as that will create isolated pockets of backward superstitious loony bins, which can often be as bad for those within such hellholes as a theocratic despotism.

Fig. 05

So religion tends towards despotism, but then so does politics, both must be controlled by rational ethical standards, why rational? Well, that is all we are left with when religious ethics are shown to be impractical, as well as having a rather large impediment attached to it, mainly religion. For a theist the removal of religion is evil, for a hard-line atheist a secular government is a necessity for any civilisation, both tend oversimplify the complexities of the issue, and demonise each others perspectives. To me whether a government is religious are not is irrelevant, as many hard lessons are learned from communism. It is only a pity that theists seen unable to learn from the lessons of the many theocracies of history, but one thing we both having in common is Nazism, which was a example of what can go wrong both with religion and a secular authority.

Despotism's like Nazism maintain ties to religious organisations but do not allow any power to be kept by the churches within their control. They do not harbour any pretence at being above religion like Engels or Marx, but many see religion as a cynical ploy, mainly because it takes one to know one. Nonetheless in the case of Nazism many of its queues were taken from the Christian church, such as its attitude towards Jews and its belief in a manifest destiny from a higher power. The religious like a reverence and awe that the political propagandists attempted to foster in the German people very much played on their Lutheran and Catholic backgrounds, and no one really saw any problems with war, oppression and genocide given that the Bible consisted almost entirely of the same. Many dictatorships, white supremacists, and dangerous cults model their behaviour on that of the Israelites in the old Testament, from harsh laws to absolute confidence that they and they alone are chosen among over all other people's in the world.

All in all I think the blame for Nazism must lie with both politics and religion, triggered by economic problems, and a culture on the brink, so desperate that they'd accept salvation from anyone, much like first century Judea. ( I’ll avoid all the usual Hitler and Jesus parallels, and just mention that both leaders created ideologies that killed countless numbers of Jews, made promises that came to nothing, and died shortly before their nations were reduced to rubble. )

Fig. 06

Such parallels can be dismissed as trivial, but one thing that is not so easily ignored is that both showed no signs any knowledge of what their work would come to. Both, judging by their words and actions, would not have wanted what history tells us happened their regimes, or the legacy their lives created. Hitler would not have wanted his Reich to have lasted for only two weeks after his death, with his name cursed for ever more. Jesus, giving him a generous appraisal, would have been driven insane to know his name would be used justify every horror mankind could commit, and for 1700 years it would bring out the very worst in entire continents. Both fucked up, and both clearly didn’t have a clue about the future, or both would have kept their stupid mouths shut.

The Imperial government of Japan during the Second World War was another example of politics and religion intermingled to create a nightmare state, only this time the ratio was more in favour of religion, combining the hitherto benign Shinto spirituality with the rigorous code of the samurai and the ruthless efficiency of Western-style authoritarianism and industrialisation. Essentially it was the worst of everything, and a clear demonstration of what can go wrong with virtually every aspect of human civilisation.

Fig. 07

 

Many of my essays had built with similar political and economic difficulties, as I find an intensive study of the problems of religion often leads to an larger understanding of ethics and culture. It is important not to fixate purely on religion as although it has many inherent problems, the same flaws can be found in almost all other institutions. Anti religious bigotry may be entirely justified but it is narrow minded, and all too similar to the theistic tendency to demonise all secular organisations. In attempting to identify what the problem really is, I have found that the cause lies in the organisational structure and order of priorities. A re-ordering of the place that ethics and life has among institutions can quickly solve the problem.

Both politics and economics can be reformed in this manner, however religion would have to be changed beyond all recognition, and specific faiths like Islam and Christianity would have to be totally abandoned. This conclusion is not derived from my dislike of religion but purely from the way these religions are structured. This judgement, that certain religions are unsalvageable, also applies just as much to Communism, Nazism, and any authoritarian or inconsiderate economic model, but it is this conclusion when applied to religion that I will get the most flak for. If I were in China my condemnation of Communism, not religion would result in the most negative feedback, so I do not see this as an atheist verses religion issue but rather a vested interests issue.

So anyway, I found that only one of the four institutions I studied was set up in any way not open to abuse. That was of course Humanism, because if you are worried about ethics and humanity then only an institution dedicated to those two causes stands much of a chance of creating a humane society. This has been clear to me for quite a while, the trick is getting the point across to other people, particularly theists. Some challenge me to show a humanistic society that works, and then ignore the examples I provide, so I will emphasise the logical results of any given hierarchical or philosophical structure within any organisation.

The first step is to illustrate what these structures are, and then demonstrate why they will lead to the end I predict. I will begin by showing the contrasting structures of Christianity and humanism.

Xtianity, especially Catholicism and Fundamentalism

Fig. 08

As you see in fig. 08, Christian theological architecture tends towards a "few ruling the many" model, with two major problems, the first being that the authority depends on a spiritual or transcendent ever increasing degree of removal from humanity and the material world. This means that the public are made to have a greater degree of trust in their theocratic rulers than is reasonable, as such leaders are semi-divine, or at least able to benefit from the unquestionable and unassailable nature of the powers that they "represent".

Above them is the Bible, which in some liberal Christian communities is seen as a guide to life, a series of allegories and metaphors, but among the more extreme Christian sects it is seen as an absolute authority, with every word taken seriously. And as the Bible is an amalgamation of nationalistic and religious propaganda by various groups of scribes, priests and crazy hermits, ( along with of course the usual cults leaders and religious authorities after power ), and as it displays all the flaws inherent to humanity, particularly those of past days, this makes the Bible a particularly bad thing to render unquestionable. It is this very degree of detachments that results in the cognitive dissonance, the myth of inerrancy and the ever recurrent use of quotes to justify any action for thought.

Above the Bible is the ultimate authority, God, and abstract concept with as many different interpretations as there are believers, that can never be questioned, understood except via other people's interpretations, or consulted on all that has been done in his name by all the various denominations and religions. The Bible as an objective thing can be analysed, dissected and discredited, and among the more rational theists this is already acknowledged as having been done. But other than through semantics and logical analyses that only serve to question the existence or nature of God, the character of God can only be analysed to the Bible.

Although there are plenty of more enlightened or mentally developed people who can defy, and disbelieve or even despise God, it is a difficult thing to do if you acknowledge the transcendent hierarchy, particularly in versions of Christianity like Catholicism where the theocrats are a significant obstacle, let alone the Bible. This creates a spiritually unbreakable chain allowing any person to convince anybody else that they represent God, or more commonly allows the priests to convince the masses that their reading of particular words of the Bible signifies what God wishes to have them do or believe. It is very difficult for anyone else to work their way through the hierarchy to investigate anything for themselves. This in itself causes mankind to be crushed under the weight of authority that is, within the confines of belief, unapproachable and has many mechanisms that it can use to get people to obey them, from threats of hellfire to bribery and psychological control. But all such methods would be difficult to utilise without this theological architecture.

The second problem with this structure is that there are levels beneath mankind. Not the levels of animal or material existence that can be verified through science but personified lower life forms that are either anthropomorphised forces or concepts similar to those of other religions, or labels which serve to de-humanise people in the name of the Christian agenda. These are derived from doctrine and the church’s various strategies that it has used to destroy its rivals. The parallels between this and the race ideology used by the Nazis to dehumanise the Jews and it's other victims is obvious. The Church has consistently for a great many centuries used this tactic to get its followers to destroy the followers of rival religions. From pagans to Muslims to rival versions of Christianity and even people who have conformed and live within the control of the church, simply by declaring that they are heretics, thus transforming them into handy scapegoats.

A political or economic system can be reformed or replaced, people will always have a tendency to fight for a flag, a nation, a culture, perhaps even a race, but all these things can be dealt with using reason and objectivity. Although such tools can render religion vulnerable it is much harder to convince someone of the non-existence of God than the irrelevance of race or the insufficience of nationality as a justified label of superiority to others. It is also dangerous having a subset, of which sections of humanity can be placed, and as both the absolute authority and the subhuman category are such an integral part of most Christian denominations, it is for this reason that I consider religions inherently inhumane and immoral.

These subset categories are particularly worrying, and I've noticed this tendency in computer games, television and movies where they come up with some way of having people killed in an acceptable manner. Either by, in the case of Buffy the Vampire Slayer saying they are demons or vampires, or in the case of The Terminator by saying they are machines. Whichever method they utilise it doesn't change the fact that, visually, human beings are seen as being rightfully killed. Though they are not all humans within the story, but they are still human physically and people get used to the idea of heroes being able to kill things which, although they are sometimes personifications of evil or danger, they nonetheless are personified as human. If you look at Nazi propaganda posters or the drawings of medieval Crusaders you notice the way they render the Jews or Muslims as demonic creatures, making it a more acceptable spectacle when their heads are split open or when they are burnt alive, either in illustrations or in reality. We need to make the image of a humans being killed less acceptable or common, people should stop simply accepting that certain people should be harmed, or that it's OK to see people killed as long as in some way they are not really human.

Fig. 09

Now my pyramidal diagram is a simplification, as I've not included ethics or the various levels of angels, church hierarchies or editions of the Bible, principally for clarity, but also because in the case of ethics it is the importance of the authorities that defines the importance of the ethics. Such "morals" are interwoven through the image, reputation or example of these theocrats, the message of the Bible, and the nature of God. As the ethics are dependent on such authority and open to gross misuse, reinterpretation and negation they are not such a considerable factor as theists have been led to believe. An example of this is the idea of God as an all-powerful creator being the most important consideration, rather than his alleged goodness. "God is good" is a recent emphasised label, and not only one that contradicts the way he's displayed in the Bible, but also a very clear attempt to con people into accepting Christianity out of a fear of such ethical dilemmas as abortion, crime and invented concepts such as sin and the devil.

The principal problems with this religious architecture is not just that it is very much to mankind's disadvantage for such a system to exist, but also that it is built on a lie. An issue which will not be dealt with in this article, but one that needs to be briefly addressed here, as the so-called ethical values of Christianity as well as the evils it claims to combat are, like all the theological concepts, complete fantasies, specifically invented so as to manipulate humanity. They invented the devil, demons and witches to keep you afraid, they invented angels and God to make you humble and grateful, but worst of all they redefined ethics as meaning something other than the best and most moral behaviour for a human being, making it what pleases God. Leaving aside the Euthyphro dilemma, this simply means that, not only are actions or thoughts made "sins" when they are not even unethical, but also that people are made to waste their lives doing things which they think our eternally good. Whereas they are not even moral, but simply a waste of time, such as praying, or proselytising. This ability to make black = white, to make what some people regard as unethical and intrusive a spiritual "ideal", or to make things which are perfectly natural, sinful and evil, has really screwed mankind up. Creating an entire industry of psychiatrists dedicated to trying to sort out all the people whose minds have been seriously damaged by the pressures of their religious society. Forcing on them inhuman standards with the intent to make them more like the spiritual (i.e. non-existent) ideal rather, than simply accepting their humanity and allowing them to lead full and natural lives. The problem only get worse when the church authorities choose to use their extremely subjective and presumptuous interpretations of "God's will" to condemn things that have either appeared after the Bible was written or were simply never mentioned, such as abortion, mercy killings, scientific discoveries or certain types of music.

This insistence that morality is dependent on the Bible or on people's ideas of God, means that the ethical standards of many Christian denominations are not only completely insane and irrelevant but also do not really deserve to be categorised as ethics. This is why I do not consider the moral pretensions of religion to be in any way a factor when deciding what is best for humanity. These "pseudo-ethics" that the church authorities use to unjustly steal the moral high ground in the eyes of the public is just a confusing distraction, similar to all the theological inventions and issues which are best ignored when dealing with a subject as important as morality and the human race.

Ethics must be derived from reason and observation. It is insane to suggest that we should follow a set of "ethical" laws because they were allegedly dictated by some fiery God up a mountain 3000 years ago, according to the tradition of a superstitious and backward tribe of Semitic zealots. Especially when it is clear that if such principles were applied, they would do humanity great harm. So the best test for any morals is how they affect humanity, after all we are the ones that are going to have to apply them, as well as the only things that are going to be affected by them. Thus taking ethics from the realm of religious absolutism to rational and empirical objectivity. No theist can show me why I am wrong in this issue, so we will continue on the assumption that ethics refers to morality as defined by reason, not the church.

Humanism

Fig. 10

 

Fig. 10 demonstrates the radically different philosophical architecture of humanism, such a diagram can also apply to philosophies such as Epicureanism, Stoicism and Buddhism, because their ethical principles, although not always so dependent on empirical reality or on scientific objectivity are at least the principal factor of such philosophies.

It will require a brief explanation as again this diagram is a simplification, but basically it can be approached either from the top down or the bottom up.

Bottom-up basically shows that the many values that we have, either political, patriotic, economic, or materialistic must serve the ethical values of society. Now humanism as a philosophy recognises this necessity and thusly places itself between all other values and that of ethics, essentially acting as a custodian of society, making sure of that our values do not subvert and remain subservient to the right ethical values. In a sense humanism can be bypassed, as you can be an economist or political leader that continually bears in mind that no matter what you do or want, all things must pay heed to ethics. However it is difficult to convince people of this, and humanism as a philosophy is dedicated to that end. It is one of the few philosophies that recognises the Moral Imperative and places things in what I consider to be the best conceivable order.

Fig. 11

One crucial thing, is my definition of humanism as either a broad umbrella term that can even be used to describe people who do not consider themselves or do not know anything about humanism, or as anybody who places ethics above all other values, and humanity above ethics. My use of the term humanism is inclusive, which is why I do not use the term secular humanism, or any of the other denominations. Simply because I think that as many people as possible should be convinced that such a philosophical architecture is the ethical minimum of any civilised human being. I do not wish to scare people off who have alternative lifestyles or philosophies, but convince them that whatever they think or believe, such a set of priorities can be easily integrated into their worldview. With of course the obvious exceptions of Christianity, Islam, Communism and all the other absolutism doctrines.

Many people here who have liberated themselves from Christianity have found other paths, such as paganism, Universalism or Deism. It is to these people as well as the undecided or agnostics that I appeal, has whatever our differences are humanity must be our common bond. All here who are not still chained to theism would either feel better about themselves in relation to Christianity or be more closely united under a humanistic outlook. As you can be many things and atheistic, you can also be many things and humanistic. I feel that we need to be united by more than just our common dislike of Christianity, otherwise the organised religions will always have the advantage of unity as well as the moral pretensions. We need to, not only demonstrate that we are morally superior to them but also that their religion is a curse on humanity. To this end I will further demonstrates why humanism works and religion doesn't.

In the top down approach you can see more clearly that the ethical values, for all their superiority over other values, (including humanism), always remain below humanity, as they derive their importance and purpose from human life. This is of course because they are invented by humanity, entirely for humanity, and by maintaining this relationship, human life will never be harmed in the name of ethics. Examples of this inhumane action in the name of morality are when a person is executed for breaking a law, when a person is demonised or ostracised for breaking a taboo. Corporal punishment, pseudo-ethical religious oppression and the corruption and confusion of normal morality with entirely theological or ceremonial principles, that in turn effect humanity, are all examples of ethical principles being placed ahead of life. Now of course people should be imprisoned or otherwise punished for unethical behaviour, but it must always be because they harm mankind in some way. Not purely because ethical rules were broken, as although the definitions of a victimless crime are very much open to debate, there are ethical principles, particularly within religions, which do not in any way have anything to do with humanity, such as the ceremonial or dietary laws of Judaism, and especially blasphemy or other laws based on superstition. We must never forget why we have ethics, they must never become the supreme goal that would, like God, the state or the Law become the alter on which so many people will be sacrificed.

To reiterate, we must always start with life, move on to ethics, and then, if so inclined to humanism, and only when all these three things have been consulted, in that exact order, do we consider other values. This is the order, this is the way, anything else is immoral, anything else is inhumane, I hope I have made it clear.

 

 

Just as a quick further demonstration, the remaining illustrations will show the equivalent philosophical or theological architecture within other worldviews.

Nazism

Fig. 12

Communism

Fig. 13

Liberal Xtianity

Fig. 14

 

 

AUB - Giving religion a flippin headache.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The responses - - - - -

 

david (the theist)

Fascinating caricature of Christianity, but a caricature only, drawing on the worst of humanity manifested in religion. I would never defend the evil that has been perpetrated in the name of Jesus. But that does not make theism or religion inherently evil. It only points to the reality of sin. (Most of the evil done "in the name of Jesus" was actually done out of political motives, just employing a religious cover) And remember, there has been much good done in the name of Jesus. If religion/Christianity is inherently evil, how do you explain that?

A totally atheistic/humanistic view has to explain WHY atrocities committed "in the name of God" would be labeled "bad." Upon what foundation is such a judgment made? Isn't the fact that we view it as "bad' evidence for some moral principal built into our very being, perhaps even the universe?

But to admit that pushes one toward the reality of God.

Yet to deny God only leaves us with the ability to say "Well, it's bad to me," which leaves the perpetrators of the bad with the ability to say, "But not to me. And who are you to tell me it's bad?"

 

webmaster (an associate)

Ah, david, david, david!

You are victim to the Christian myth that without the Christian god and bible there is no right and wrong.

I wonder how mankind ever survived before Jesus and his band of merry men showed up?

If an atrocity was performed on you, would you think it was bad? If so why? Just becuase the bible says so?

How about because it f***ing hurts! A LOT! That's what makes it bad! If you come to my house and try to kill my family, I would consider that bad, because it is my family, and I would defend them by killing you. Killing you in self-defense would be GOOD! I don't need the bible to know what every animal on earth already knows, namely that survival is a good thing.

Sheesh...

 

ME

Don't worry webman I've got this covered. He's not going to know what hit him.

This is for the most part addressed to Christians in general, as quite frankly he's not worth this much attention on his own.

So if there are any aspects of my tirade which do not apply to you personally, I suggest you regard them as an attack on other Christians that we have had the misfortune of sharing this planet with.

To start with we will examine this being's response, Christianity being an inherently reactionary religion, founded on the accusing and condemning rantings of Paul, has an in-built hostility towards everything outside itself. (Like all effective cults) Tolerance has never been in the Christians vocabulary, and never will be (except for those who make good conversion fodder). What we have here is a typical example of a person who, when faced with a condemnation of his religion, completely ignores all the points made, and goes straight for the old "blame humanity for everything" approach, in order to get his beloved cult of the hook. An in-built defensive reaction, common to religion's built on the de-humanising "them and us" principle, which includes liberal examples of demonisation and use of Christian patented "logic". What you are about to see from me is a rational dissection of this Theist's comments. They will be thorough, they will be brutal, and with any luck, final, but he may well, like many of my theist "opponents" find some points that I have not made sufficiently clear for him, and use them as an opportunity to create a straw-man argument, and so it will continue until he breaks.

We shall see, on with the show.


"Fascinating caricature of Christianity,"

Notice how he ignores all the other examples of ideologies with inherently inhumane natures, he ignores all the parallels, and the fact that I am attacking ideologies in general not his religion. (Except as an example.) He claims that it is a caricature rather than an accurate appraisal of an ideology's logical outcome. Clearly misunderstanding the difference between determining through rational inference the end ethical result and effect on humanity, for a description of the ideology as a whole. (And the fact that I was trying to demonstrate how a system can be built without such potential threats, not that he'd care about that sort of thing, just sticking up for his designer-pet deity) Add to that his condescending use of the word "fascinating" and you have a very vacuous opening.

" but a caricature only, drawing on the worst of humanity manifested in religion."

How can it be a caricature when the only examples I sight are factual, historical events? Were the 300 years of systematic witch hunts, trials and executions committed by virtually every Christian denomination at every level of government, theocracy and society mere glitches? Exaggerations? Do I even need to exaggerate? No, I have the facts on my side, and he refuses to accept them. Like most Christians he is in denial about the history of his own religion. Like a neo-Nazi when dealing with the Holocaust, he tries to claim either that the facts are in dispute, which they are not, or that they are exaggerations of true events which, and I can see this coming a mile off, do not represent the general ideology at that time or ever. These are not, in fact, the "worst" of anything, these were a significant percentage of activities fully attributable to the churches, and the theologies which were forced even upon secular institutions, who where made to be implicit in these atrocities.

And of course he blames all this on humanity, failing to see that without these theologies unique to Christianity such atrocities would not been committed in the first place, so it is only logical such religions be removed. He is clearly extremely ignorant of the motivations of such atrocities, putting it down to human nature, and not for one moment daring to blame the religions that created the excuses, theological justifications, means of control over the population, supreme unquestionable authority needed for such crimes. Or "historical" (i.e. Biblical) justifications through their reading of the O.T., the decrees and papal bulls with which such activities were usually instigated, the institutions and hierarchies dedicated to pursuing these ends. Or the paranoia and continuous environment of fear used to manipulate the populace, which resulted in people seeing witches and heretics behind every shrub and the long and well established history of pious frauds needed to fabricate evidence. Not to mention the lives lost over the de-valuing of their existence when compared to some fantasy about immortality, judged "souls" and afterlives, more important than our only lives. Fiction destroying fact, you tell me anything other than a religion could do that. +Plus those who gave up their lives voluntarily, due to promises of a martyr's heaven, which is just as bad. The finite nature of life, makes it all the more important to preserve every instant, yet no religion has so systematically dedicated itself to premature death than xtianity, all due to its "shoot/burn/impale/crucify/eviscerate them all! Let our pet deity sort them out!" attitude. Newly baptised babies killed to save their "souls", you telling me that could have happened without the specific doctrines of xtianity? Where else could they have got the idea?

Lets take the witch burnings for example. Maybe not the most ideal example, as a Christian he no doubt has a very inferior view towards women. (If not then he's not a "true" Christian, he he.)

It is not just the religion, or it's theologies that I blame. It is also the institutions set up around these theologies and religious concepts, that are principally dedicated to maintaining and spreading their power, and prepared to use any technique available, due to such self righteous certainty, imprinted on them from such sources of bald-faced lies as the Gospels. Power at all costs, even if it means burning a significant percentage of the female population, or uprooting entire communities and sending them over to the middle east to be slaughtered. Or to committed terrible atrocities that in terms of sheer bloodthirsty savagery does not compare with any other events in history, save perhaps in the Huns or the Mongols. Maybe you could blame human weakness for "corrupting" these Christian institutions, however that does not cover all those events where they were merely following Christian doctrine or biblical commands to their logical conclusion. Surely it would have occurred to even you that not every event used religion just for its justification, but its very inception? I know what you have been told, but its just doesn't match the facts, ask any historian not in the pay of apologists.

At every level in all these events there is the breadth of religious influence, not only is it used to justify such "incidents" before and after, but also are entirely inspired by either biblical events, regulations, or mythological inventions. Do you think the witch trials would have been instigated without the reference to killing witches in the Bible? (leaving aside the fact that people didn't really believe in witches in that sense until the Christians came along) Do you think people would have been accused of consulting with demons before demons as we understand them today were injected into western cultures along with all the other absurd mythical creatures of the Bible? You think epileptics and people with other physical or mental disorders would have been treated so badly if the concept of demonic possession were not introduced? How many people have suffered because of Jesus's habit of mistaking natural disorders for possession, in his need to show off?

You think we would have invented all this bullshit anyway? And how many otherwise decent people have been persecuted because of the label "sinner" a concept totally alien to our continents before Christianity came along? How many more labels and excuses have been created out of Christian dogma, how many more have suffered due to the words of condemnation put into the mouth of God or Jesus, or written by Paul himself? If these were not inherently inhumane, and were merely excuses used by people to commit atrocities they would have done anyway, why is it that the human rights record of pre Christian Europe is considerably better before the missionaries came along? Why is it that Christianity has the worst human rights record of any religion in history, you can't blame humanity on the whole for that, because that would not explain the demographic discrepancy of humanity under Christian rule behaving much worse than any other religion. Did we westerners become more inherently evil just before we became Christian? Did we suddenly find the needs to fashion excuses for immoral behaviour out of Christian doctrine, whereas before we were happy to simply live and let live? Did the pagan Romans who had a policy of tolerance to other religions, when they became Christian, suddenly become intolerant to paganism and every other religion for some other reason? Is it's just a coincidence that we felt the need to destroy non-Christian civilisations, (Inca, Cathar, Aztec, Moore etc.) and even other "not our denomination" Christian civilisations (Byzantine, Orthodox, Protestant, Levellers) when we became Christian? Or is Christianity not the root cause or the trigger for all these atrocities? Just how deluded are you?

So you believe a perfect god sent a perfect son to create a, a what? A perfect religion? No? Then what? If its just as corruptible as any other institution then in what way is xtianity worthy of defending? As it's no different to any other religion, or organisation, flawed, and riddles with humanities "sin". Is it just because you think it's deity is real as opposed to all the others? On what do you base that opinion? As you clearly cannot do so on xtianity's history, (unless you think god is evil) and in any case your allegiance is entirely due to theology, not on any morel grounds, as on its own record xtianity has no justification for its existence. Only of your faith's version of god is the right one is it "legitimate" but you never argue for you faith on those grounds, but on moral, which your kind have no right to do. Its "ideals" you hold in such high esteem are subject to such interpretation as to become the standard of no code but what is desired. If you deny it's your cult's fault, then it’s the members, but in that case were is the good? In the members, or the cult? If the former then xtianity has no inherent good, if the later then how do you explain why xtianity not only fails to prevent atrocities, but presides over many of them? You condemn communism as an immoral ideology for allowing so many millions to die, yet you cannot see the same applies to your ideology? What's the difference? Why such hypocrisy? Why the sudden concern for humanity's welfare when it come to secular on non-xtian organisations, but never your own?

What about the xtian T'ai'ping culture? One xtian convert was all it took to create a civil war with a death toll of up to 40 million Chinese. Were these Chinese converts not xtians? Did they not base their lives on scripture? Yes, they did, and there was nothing within xtian doctrine that prevented them from massacring millions of their fellow countrymen. That is the issue I have with such ideologies, no safeguards, and no restraints, as your "higher authority" is seen to back them, when they choose him to. And only condemn or judge those at the receiving end of xtian aggression. Your god is not a constraint or an encouragement to behave.

In the final analysis the whole concept is nothing but a green light to anyone who claims to be doing his bidding, and will be able to make evil into good when they finish writing the history books in the blood of their victims. You god is a relativistic justification, and in the worst case scenario, which often seems to be what actually happens with your religion, it is able to justify anything. You forget, god isn't real, but an authority to invoke any time we choose, unable to speak for himself. When has he stepped in to explain his meaning in order to stop fights over interpretation of his own words? Doesn’t he have any sense of responsibility, just creates a contradictory doctrine, in only one language and abandons us? Isn't that like giving a gun to toddler? Are the thousands of denominations a sigh of clarity? In the bible he gives his consent to war and genocide, but it was really just the Israelites using him to put there actions above reproach, yet you have no problems with you god preferring such atrocities, then. I wonder if you'd have any problems with him ordering exterminations and mass rapes today? If you don’t except the use of his name for crimes against humanity at least in recent history, mainly because you don’t think he really backed them, why do you except his approval of biblical crimes? Just because it says so in the bible? Does you sense of ethics stop at that book? Does this supposed period of "grace" mean he couldn't possibly order such atrocities anymore? Then why don’t other xtians know this? Not that it matters, as clearly the mere concept of god has genocidel potential in itself. Any theist could always twist out of it somehow, and its not like god's going to correct your presumptuous use of his name is it? He clearly doesn't care if schizophrenics hear a voice they think it's his, as he's in no rush to speak for himself but allow anyone to claim to be his voice, no matter what they do as a result, how many armies they raise, or horrendous cults they organise. Has he no voice of his own? What would it take? Clearly not war or genocide, he's slept through several hundred of them, maybe he's just waiting for judgement way when he can kill everyone once and for all. Nice religion you've got there.

Is xtianity so great today that is was worth those millions of lives to get it to where it is now? Just how fantastic do you think it is? Is it worth everything it has put humanity through? You blame the perpetrators, are you going to blame the victims to? I hardly thing that a great consolation to them to blame their inherent "sins". They may wonder why xtianity's claim to be able to "save", when it clearly can't when it matters. Jesus obviously didn't come to "save" us from anything in this world, either suffering caused by humanity's actions or god's, so as a temporal institution it is useless, and irrelevant, and yet you defend it, when the likes of myself criticise it for being that way, why? Save our "souls" if you wish, but do so without killing and controlling us if you don't mind. If xtianity was purely a "spiritual" (i.e. non-material) institution I wouldn't complain about to, just focus on the other immoral; ideologies, but your lot insist on power, money and influence in our physical lives, when you have no more moral authority than anyone else.

If xtianity is guided or founded by a supposedly good god, is he not responsible for all the carnage his religion creates? Didn’t he now it would happen? Wasn't he aware of the dangers of creating yet another absolutist religion? How can something so supposedly good cause so much suffering and still be considered good? If you Jesus hadn't created his cult, would the world be worse off? Are you still glad he did it, knowing all that has happened because if it? Are you prepared to say that to all the millions of victims? How many more millions would it take before you regard the overall effect to be negative 20, 50 million? Is it still just about what you think god wants? Are you so removed from humanity that life and death mean nothing compared to your deity? Without such beliefs clouding your judgement, I guarantee this would not be an issue. It would be about the death toll, and nothing else. You xtians need to learn the value of life.

Was anyone burned as a witch before Christianity came along? As anyone persecuted as a "sinner" before Christianity came along? Did any Europeans still feel the need to go on crusades to the Middle East before Christianity? Did any European persecute Jews as "Christ Killers" before Christianity? Did anyone feel the need to persecuted anybody else on religious grounds before Christianity? Did anyone feel the need to enslave vast numbers of Africans before Christianity came along? (Although technically they got the idea off the Moslems, but that just proves my point even further, as they used the Koran to justify the enslavement of Africans, in the same way that the Christians used their Bible) Maybe the enslavement's would have happened anyway without Christianity. (Leaving aside the fact that this is a poor advertisement for your religion if you could not prevent such atrocities from happening) I mean what good is Christianity if it cannot prevent 437 years of such brutal slavery? What can it do? Stop wars? No, it starts them. Protect the innocent? What, from itself? Promote sexual or any other form of equality? Are you kidding? Prevent people from less developed or far-flung civilisations from being exploited? Missionaries anyone? Encourage science, truth seeking, unbiased investigation and medical technology? Galileo, Darwin and Bruno? Eradicate poverty? You'd think by now you'd have managed to do that, and yet despite all Mother Teresa's efforts (or rather contributions) there is still poverty in Calcutta, ( I wonder why?) despite having all Europe in your thrall for over 1700 years economic equality has never been achieved. You have failed to live up to any one of your promises, and you have failed to prove that any of your claims are in anyway true, and the more science and civilisation progresses the less truthful you appear. Christianity is the biggest failure and disappointment in the history of humanity. That is a fact, and I would not recommend arguing with me on this one, as I have all human knowledge on my side, and all you have are a few desperate apologetic lies and the delusions of presumption, ignorance and fanatical devotion to an immoral cult. If xtianity cannot work because of human failing. (Rather than its own colossal flaws which you won't let yourself see.) Then it won't work, period. If it can, why hasn't it yet? Are we supposed to just trust that it will finally deliver, and just hope it won't commit any more atrocities in the mean time? You think it's worse the risk? Of course you do, what do the lives and suffering of more millions matter compared to your deity? Especially as your membership in the cult pretty mach means you'll be the persecutor not the persecuted.

Back to what we did to Africa...

It is interesting to note that such slavery did not exist until Christianity, as before its arrival slaves were invariably indented servants. They were usually captured during wars, or submitted to slavery due to debts, and usually treated far better, with far more rights, and even granted their freedom after a period under pagan law or even paid. It is doubly interesting as the degree of slavery that the Blacks endured was even worse than that described in the old Testament, and was done by Christians who totally ignored one of the few decent aspects of old Testament laws. The relatively fair treatment slaves under the Israelites, which although brutal were at least a certain guarantee of rights which none of the Africans ever received, you ignored the principle of the jubilee or the eye for an eye or any other slave based commands. So you have a culture of Christians who claim moral superiority to everybody else, practising a form of slavery far worse than the standard form of slavery due to economic or military considerations under pagan cultures, that had many legal provisions for such slaves, with many Jewish equivalents. Yet at the height of Christian power a total complete slavery based on race, and biblical quotations, appears. The Christian habit of ignoring laws and regulations from the old Testament, as we are now living in a period of "grace" with new Jesus-based covenants only makes the bad situation worse, when they would have been better off even under Jews, let alone pagans. You have to ask yourself, what the hell is going on when Christians behave even worse than their brutal Jewish origins? Yet their God is supposed to be one of love, and forgiveness? Which they claim is superior to the Jewish model? Or at least I would ask, as I hope any other civilised human being would. But you're ideology makes you neither civilised nor even a worthy member of humanity, as even the act of defending such atrocities committing organisations clearly shows you are an inhuman, inhumane, un-caring un-compassionate, un-empathic and atrocities dodging disgrace to life on this planet. In other words a Christian.

Back to the witch hunts...

And even if I were to blame humanity for its violence towards women, where do you think they get this patriarchal and misogynist attitude towards women? Where women treated as unclean temptresses before the Christians? No, they had guaranteed civil rights under Roman law, and were even treated as superiors in many Celtic societies throughout Europe. Women were seen as the life givers, the herbalists, guardians of earth magic, until the goddess or mother earth hating patriarchal religions of the middle east mingled with those of certain Greek theologies and created the worst religion in human history as far as women's rights are concerned. You may blame humanity, but it is not human instinct to persecute women, or it would be universal, it is a cultural and psychological phenomena, and retracing the origins of such phenomena you find they don't begin with human nature, they begin with perceptions, and those perceptions derive from either tradition or religion. And as the persecution of women was not traditional in Europe, it came from outside, it was Christianity, and entirely Christianity, (plus a few Greek attitudes) that is to blame for both the witch hunts and the general subjugation of women. There is no conceivable way you can blame humanity in general for these crimes that although where not isolated, were entirely limited to Christian nations, or those with such patriarchal traditions. Lastly it is these traditions and religions that I blame for the witch hunts not human nature. Because although you Christians may have sick ideas about humanity, this immoral attitude is recognised by decent people as the picture your doctrine has painted of us, in order to justify its treatment of the only sentient race known in the universe for the sake of a "higher good" you call a god. That nonetheless behaves by standards that all ethical (i.e. secular ) people regard as totally immoral in every respect. (but of course to an xtian what god did was perfectly OK, 'cause he was god, and totally good, even when he was evil, go figure) You think the Crusades would have taken place if such emphasis on Jerusalem was not placed in the Bible? Do you think the likes of the Inquisition and conquistadors would have killed men, women and babies in order to save their "souls" if these religions have not invented such concepts? Your need to deflect blame from the institutions most culpable will always fail when it is clear that this wasn't just politics or economics, but often events entirely inspired either by theologies or the brutal example of the characters in the Bible. The genocides in the Bible, the genocides in Christian history, the parallel is exact.


"I would never defend the evil that has been perpetrated in the name of Jesus."

No, but you would defend the institutions responsible for those evils, and attempt to explain them away, which amounts to the same thing. By deflecting blame away from a mere flash in the pan of a cult, one that will, one day, be justly confined to the foolish mythologies of our ignorant past, you attempt to blame all of humanity. Which is a far worse things than merely defending these crimes, which would merely make you a fundamentalist arsehole, instead you're a spineless jerk.


"But that does not make theism or religion inherently evil."

Why not? If it does not, then explain the flaw in my reasoning. I notice you have not actually dealt with any of my specific points. Which is just typical of you theists, you merely object and throw mindless Christian polemics at me, but you've as yet failed to address any of the issues raised in this essay. Despite the fact that I tried to make them as clear and simple as possible, clearly I did not aim low enough for a theist like you, maybe I should have included more pictures?

What more do you want? Sock puppets?

You've done precisely what all the other theist I massacre do, attack without reading my work, and I went to such length to get the silly little pictures put up, so as to keep your goldfish like attention spans that all xtians seem to get upon signing up.

I'll repeat. If a religions is based around core doctrines that regard humanity as inferior to other forces or beings, and creates sub-human categories, then the potential for de-humanising policies and attitudes, not to mention the sacrifice of human life for the sake of non-existent places, rules, concepts, beings, creatures, and "historical" events rapidly increases with each new layer of similar theological "truths" and degree of emphasis. Surely this is obvious? Even to a theists who probably hasn't used his brain since conversion.


"It only points to the reality of sin."

It points to the reality of Christianity, how can these be the kind of "sins" that Christianity is supposed to prevent when many did not occur until Christianity turned up? Your religion is the one that promoted a great many of them, while claiming to deal with such "sins" which people didn't even know were "sins" and were perfectly happy till you declared they were evil, and said we needed your "guidance" to get rid of "sin". It's a recent concept, not universal, not eternal, but an invented layer of theological control, one that seriously fucked humanity up, and one you've clearly fallen for. Most "sins" are an unnatural view and unnecessary moral judgement against normal human activities, that are best left alone, and are non of your cult's damn business, you intrusive and perverted megalomaniacs

But the ones you commit, ones I'd be prepared to call "evil", they are not "sins" anyway theist, they are human rights abuses and in-humane atrocities, many committed by those thinking they were preventing "sin". You're just using the word as a dodge, it is pathetic and weak-minded. Again you use a concept which was one of those I included in the list of theological institutions used to justify atrocities. It's like a Holocaust denier defending the Nazi human rights record by blaming the Holocaust on Jewish "racial characteristics" or "bloodlines", which was precisely the fiction that caused the problem in the first place! You invented "sin", not the Jews, not the Moslems, but you Christians in order to demean and denigrate humanity, by far one of your worst crimes. "Sin" is merely disobedience of your pet god's will, but as neither God nor "sin" exist, it is a meaningless word.

Maybe your predecessors in those torture chambers should have worked harder at getting all that "sin" out of those heathens when they had the chance? If only those crusaders had succeeded in exterminating all those "sinful" Moslems, as well. Oh wait, that's what you'd call "sin" these days, silly me.

There is only rights and wrongs and life, and as sin has nothing to do with life, and has no genuine correlation with either good evil, right or wrong, but merely the dictates of your pet deity as differently perceived in any given era, then it is a totally meaningless objection. You cannot use the atrocities of your religion, often based on the excuse that your victims were "sinners" as evidence for the reality of the concept, that is circular reasoning and another typical example why you theists are such mental midgets within our civilisation. +Plus trying to convince me that your cult is not guilty of these crimes by using a concept which only your cult believes in, is as pathetic as a medieval nights setting fire to a village and then blaming it on dragons, then demanding money from the survivors to go hunt them. Neither myself nor any other sensible human being will buy it for one instant, try something that is not an insult to my intelligence and my sense of moral decency.

You can use the word sin as many times as you want, you cannot invoke such an abhorrent concept into existence, any more than you can create your God by believing in it.

You still have to convince me that such a clear and transparent example of social manipulation actually represents something real. Then you would have to explain why it is that this inherent nature within mankind is what is ultimately responsible for the atrocities of Christianity. As you failed to do any of these things, and it is not within your abilities to do so then I suggest you don't use this defence again. Let alone assume it's worked, because you buy it.


" (Most of the evil done 'in the name of Jesus' was actually done out of political motives, just employing a religious cover) "

I have already demonstrated that it was not. You may want to believe this dusty old apologist lie, but even they are getting wary of using it.

At best your religion is guilty of negligence, and an inability to prevent the worst possible crimes humanity could commit. At worst it is the sole reason for them, take your pick, either way your religion is crap and an inferior example for humanity. You cannot use your usual Christian propaganda lies against me, because I am not a Christian, desperate to believe in them, I am someone who has actually objectively and dispassionately studied history for myself, and ripped your religion to pieces and found only immorality and diseases of the mind. I am not some raving bigot who hates Christianity, I am a humanitarian and has dedicated my life to exposing the horror and fraud of your religion and all other corrupt and twisted ideologies on this planet. All your kind are utterly beneath contempt, and the only reason I'm bothering to respond is to demonstrate this fact. I do not feel the need to defend my ideas from the likes of you, or any other immoral monster that humanity's biggest mistake has spawned.




"And remember, there has been much good done in the name of Jesus."

News to me.

I'm sure that's what you, in your unquestioning mental enslavement, have been told and beleive, but that is not the reality. You might actually want to learn something about the world you live in instead of hiding your head in a stupid and childish fantasy world. You may "think" (if I can use that term) that Christianity amounts to charities and brotherly love, but this represents an absolute minuscule percentage of both the actions and the ideas that you're theistic cancer has spread. This could quite easily be put down to mankind's inherent goodness, like you put down the majority of your atrocities to mankind inherence "badness".

Two can play at that game, and I have the facts on my side, most of the more enlightened attitudes of Christians today have been derived from the overall moral progress of society, not due to religion. During its greatest periods of strength the church's and society's atrocities were far greater, and only now that religion has become weaker within society has the innate goodness of humanity come to the surface, and the previously despised instinctual values have at last been allowed to assert themselves. For example, tolerance of gays has only been allowed to surface with the fall of Christian authority. Are you saying that tolerance is wrong? It certainly was under Christian rule. What about women's rights, the end of slavery, the Geneva Convention, the universal declaration of human rights. Civil rights, democracy, free speech, free press, independent courts, all these things either predate Christianity or appear after its loss of complete control, and non of things were ever done in the name of Jesus. Whereas your "charity" work fosters dependants, a loss of dignity, and is the totally wrong way to deal with problems in a society, which needs economic and political reform to solve these kind of issues, not proselytising and two-faced Christian "charities".

I suppose you are going to suggest that our law is based on the Bible? Nope, Roman law and modern precedents are responsible, not anything that Moses invented. You try living according to the commandments of the Bible, see how long you last. A few fundy judges may entertain the fantasy that the laws they barely uphold are xtian in origin, but it is demonstrably false. We could have skipped all xtian history and carried on from were the Romans and Greeks left of, no loss, we still havn't fully caught up with some of it. We'd just be cutting out a colossal waste of time, that we could have done without. Horrible to think of all that wasted effort, but that's reality for you. Or mine anyway, your "reality" is a baby's security blanket. Mine's a very real wall, you cant break though and make a difference until you acknowledge its there. So all xtians can ever achieve is a slow down of the inevitable death of their cult, allowed others to waste their time, just as much, when they could have lead fuller and better lives.

Are you telling me that the evils done in the name of Jesus somehow balance out the "good"? What kind of scales are you using? No amount of charity work or "ethical" pretensions can cancel out mass murder, war, genocide and gendercide. Clearly you do not regard these things as of any consequence, but then you're a Christians, and I shouldn't expect any love for humanity in someone who thinks that were all sinners under the childish whim of some psychotic Bronze Age Semitic war deity. You live in a very sick and twisted world, I'd pity you, if my disgust for your kind was not so great.

Beside a lot of this so-called "good", is not so to anyone outside your cult. What is good by the standards of any reasonable and genuinely ethical human being may not be good to the likes of you, any more than what you consider "good" matches are definitions. You forget the you're talking to someone who does not hold to your fantasies or your "morals" and you cannot appeal to me by assuming I see things away you do. As a Christian, you see things only as a Christian does, whereas the rest of humanity see things very differently, and may regard what you would consider "good", and especially what your predecessors consided "good", as either morally abhorrent or just plain stupid. For example many of the atrocities committed by your cult were considered "good" at the time by your brethren perpetrators. While morality is not as relative to a humanist, it's certainly very relative to the likes of you.

I've no way of knowing what you personally consider "good", or what is "good" according to the latest declaration of your cult. Because while your kind continuously redefine both good and evil by the latest interpretations of doctrine (often in order to keep up with the progression of secular values in society), most people don't. One moment it's okay to impale Muslim babies on spits, the next moment it's not. One moment the Jews are collectively responsible for the death of Jesus, the next moment (just after the Holocaust, funnily enough) they are not, one moment slavery is okay, suddenly it is not (largely because of the efforts of freethinkers like Wedgwood and Erasmus Darwin, or non-Christians like Abraham Lincoln). One moment it's okay to bury lepers alive (temporarily), then all of a sudden it isn't (after science found a treatment), first it is considered perfectly acceptable to kill homosexuals, all of a sudden they are only to be despised and considered insane and in need of "treatment", one moment it's a common event to dig up the newly tortured-to-death remains of Cathars and drag them through the streets shouting "Anyone who doth the like shall suffer a like fate!!!" and the next moment it isn't, (probably because the last 200 men women and children had just been burnt alive at Montségur Castle), One time an exorcism was the standard treatment for epilepsy, the next it's left to doctors, (most of the time) how do you keep up? Oh yes I forgot that very short-term memory your guys have that makes you think the watered-down and humanised Christianity of today is the same post Enlightenment cult it has always been. And those "little incidents" in the past can just be put down to other factors, not in any way due to the gross moral relativism that in every single respect typifies your religion more than any other philosophy that has ever existed.

The rest of us simply live our lives according to what common-sense and the inherent nature of humanity considers right and wrong. And this is the problem, your religion is so capable of defining and redefining good and evil that it is capable of committing what most decent human beings would consider evils in the name of "good". This is the principal cause of all the atrocities your religion has committed. Not that it's members or its doctrines decided to do evil behind the cloak of religious respectability because of human flaws or "sins" as you put it, but that they redefining what evil is, as well as good.

The problem I am trying to demonstrate is not just that these atrocities were committed in the name of Jesus, but that they had been committed so easily, because of the flexible and completely inconsistent moral concepts expressed within the Bible and other Christian manuals of justification.

You clearly missed the point of the entire article, and assumed it was just another attack on your religion. Justified though that would have been, I'm not quite that crude, I am trying to get at the root cause of these problems, which is not human nature as you have been programmed to think. (Again using concepts only to be found in your cult, designed to serve as reassurance to it's members, not as an effective and relevant defence capable of impressing or swaying those outside its influence, which is beyond the meagre abilities of apologists, who non the less claim they can you this. Strobel anyone?) And the cause it not just that your religion is evil, but that there are aspects and factors within your religion and other ideologies that allow these atrocities to be so often and viciously committed. Not by rogue agents or by extremists but by the status-quo defending majority within Christian institutions, the majority. All you Christians have only ever done is what you've considered "good", the problem is that most of what you consider "good" does not match up with what we consider good. Your definition is very different to what was "good" according to atrocity committing Christians of the past, and for all I know you may still have an idea of good which is very different to myself or any other ethical human being. Again as Christians are not actually capable of being moral and are never trustworthy, I cannot just take your word for it that your examples of good that you claim your cult has committed are actually so by the standards of any decent ethical philosophy.


"If religion/Christianity is inherently evil, how do you explain that?"


Simple, Christianity is (strictly speaking) not inherently evil, many Christians are, and it's largely because of Christianity that they get that way, or because of Christianity that they are allowed to be so. You cannot just throw out a vague reference to "good" that you think your religion has done and expect me to explain away as if they meant anything.

As Christianity is not a human individual, it cannot be held morally accountable in the same way, so it is not evil in itself, but merely allows evil to be committed due to it's inherent theological architecture, again I suggest you read the actual article. Besides the little good Christianity may have committed, is not in any way payments for its atrocities. Nor are they indicative of Christianity but of humanity's inherent moral nature, but as you do not believe in this natural goodness (at this point in your post), and you have such a distorted view of reality in general as well as your cult there is very little point in arguing with you on this point.

Humanism and Christianity are diametrically opposed concepts, they are based on totally opposite worldviews, different definition of humanity and mortality, and while one is grounded in moral principles the other is not.



"A totally atheistic/humanistic view has to explain WHY atrocities committed 'in the name of God' would be labeled 'bad.' "

No it does not, an atrocity is an atrocity, regardless of whether or not you use your God as an excuse. If a person commits genocide, they are to be held accountable, if they say they did its "in the name of God" that doesn't mean that whatever authority is attempting to prosecute him has to defend their moral position just because they may be secular. Any more than an atheist judge has to explain why a Christian rapist did something wrong. Wrong is wrong, once again you Christians demonstrate your moral relativism, and this time, not by using your ever-changing standards of biblical comprehension, but instead by using your skeleton-key God to escape accountability. Or at least you attempt to, but that attempt in itself is a demonstration of your inherent immorality. The very idea that I should even have to explain why an atrocity of yours wrong just because I'm not a Christian appals me and I imagine other readers that aren't infected by your insidious mental pollution. I know what you getting at, but regardless this is a defence often offered, and I will explain why it is wrong, then deal with your attempt at a point afterwards.

We are accusing you of inhumane behaviour, you are on the defensive not us, and are definition of atrocities is based on what any decent human beings uses. Even if we had no well worked out philosophical grounds for morality (which we do), we should not have to defend a concept, the very absence of which removes the right to the title "civilised" let alone "good". It is something so basic that there is never any need to mention it. Except to a Slobodan Milosevic or Adolf Eichmann, who like many Nazis during the Nuremberg trails, or the former leader of Serbia in the Hague, proclaims "by what right do you dare to judge me?", with the murder of millions on their heads. That is the ultimate evil, by any standards, and that is what you have just done. Defy something so elemental to human decency that the very questioning of which shows just how truly immoral Christians really are. So don't try to turn this around, you are the ones with the appalling human rights record. You are the ones constantly redefining morality to suite yourselves, and you are the ones that use your God as an excuse, both to commit atrocities and as a counter accusation against those secular forces that would bring your kind to justice. Just because you think you have a god on your side, does not mean you can do whatever you want and are beyond judgement by anyone else, any more than the Nazis were. You need a damn good history lesson, or you'll go though life spouting Nazi like rhetoric and thinking its "godly" and will get you into your "heaven", all the while further dragging you faith's reputation even further into the gutter. You are not writing the history books anymore xtian.

We do not have to come up with explanations for why it is that we judge things as immoral without a god reference, as you have yet to in any way explain why morality depends on a god. You seem to think that you have scored some victory, that most people agree with you. Your opinion is the minority in this world and in my country, most human beings regard atrocities as evil regardless of cause or justification, and also of course regardless of whether on not a god was invoked. Unless of course they are immoral theists, and it is their god invoked, in which case they will either support the atrocity or try to squirm out of accountability, like you are doing right now. You fail to realise that reality does not conform to your definition of it. If you guys act like the total arseholes you are virtually destined to be, then we have every right to point this out, we don't have to explain why it is that we can do this, just because we don't hold to your bullshit doctrines. In other words you don't need to be a Christian to point out when something is wrong, this is your presumptuous position, that is the very definition of the kind of total moral arrogance that you Christians are so despised for.

The mere fact that you need someone else's definition of atrocities clearly shows that you cannot function as an ethical being without your religion as a reference. In other words without the standards of a seriously fucked up fiction and made up god you would be completely without any ethical references, this makes you a threat to civilisation, a typical Christian in other words.

You lack all human decency, you do not regard human life is of any importance without reference to your deity, and you do not regard ethics as having any value except as the commandments of your God. You do not believe in morality or of the ultimate sanctity of life, and you do not believe that humanity is of primary importance, but only a product of your father figure. This is an abhorrence position, one you have been made to assume, by being tricked into thinking that all ethics and value of human life has to be tied up with your religion in order to be valid. You have been conned, you have been fooled and it has turned you into a right little bastard. If I had my way, you'd be arrested, because people like you do not deserve to share this planet with the rest of us, we'd stick you in a rocket and send you to Mars.


"Upon what foundation is such a judgment made?"

How about morality, and the inherent worth of human life, not enough? Does it have to come out the butt of your Jesus in order to be worth anything? How about I just say fuck you, and simply lead a better example than any xtian possibly could? The results matter, not the polemics, theist. Your kind have been using hollow promises for centuries while the rest of us have been living up to far better standards than you laughable attempt at "ethics".


"Isn't the fact that we view it as 'bad' evidence for some moral principal built into our very being, perhaps even the universe? "

Yes, it is a demonstration of our common humanity, one that exists because humanity exists. The universe is what spawned us, it has nothing to do with our existence as life forms, nor as our specific nature as sentient beings, it's just us, we are the measure of all things. If you're trying to wedge your deity in with some universalist concepts, forget it, I'm totally uncompromising and see no validity in any of your "arguments". You claim we humanists are wrong due to what you perceive as moral relativism. Then give your deity credit for any inherent good we have, that is in fact the basis of humanism, and the product of reason, cultural necessity and evolutionary psychology, but you don't; want to except the facts, as it gets in the way of your "god exists" strategy, so it's a "mystery" that only god can explain. Just one of your irritating little win-win fantasies, specially invented to con people who are not as ready as me. Our innate goodness, which you denied we had earlier, you self contradicting moron, is due to our nature, and says nothing about anything but ourselves, it's a stretch in the least to say that a deity exist and he reflects that nature. As you have yet to show why your god is good. Let alone anything other than the fevered dream of ambitious patriarchal power hungery despots. Your blame your crimes on humanity's evil, then claim our "good" is because of a god that exist because he is "good" and so are we, so he must also be real, as we are. Even for an apologist that's fucking weak.



"But to admit that pushes one toward the reality of God. "

Maybe for you, not for one who doesn't assume whatever gets you that emotional buzz they've all got you on these days. They tried fear, then torture, then social pressure, and bribery, now joy-joy feelings, with after-brainwash-rationalisation, nice to know they're diversifying

God has no reality, but in your subjective world-view driven by your desires, and inability to think any other way. Humanity is an objective reality, if you're suggesting that your God is more real than humanity or exists because we do, then you are the most deluded idiot I've ever had to put up with. It's desperate stuff, and not the reason you converted, it's a post emotional and psychological reaction, attempting to justify, to yourself more than anyone, that there are firmer grounds for your delusion than the subjective emotion dependency you've developed. Reason to cover up a lack of it. No theist goes that way because of "reasoning" like this, you just come up with this stuff so you can pretend to be one of the rational people you envy. Well, news flash, all you have is blind faith, based on subjective perceptions that you what to be real, nothing more. No amount of piss poor "reasoning" can change that. They told you this knowing you'd except it, as you blindly trust the idiots who come up with this crap, and wouldn't question them for fear of, well, hell and stuff. But no argument for your deity has ever, and will ever work. Faith, Vs Reason. That's all its ever been about, your attempt to "cross-over" to reason is one of so many failed attempts, just stick to the prayed and stuff, and don't bother to justify it, you can't.

(How's that for armchair psychology?)

"Yet to deny God only leaves us... "

I do not have to deny anything, you have not yet given me any reason to think that your deity exists any more than any other mythological creature. I no more deny your deity than I deny unicorns or pixies, I'd have to have a good excuse to believe in them, not a good excuse not to.


"...with the ability to say 'Well, it's bad to me,' which leaves the perpetrators of the bad with the ability to say, 'But not to me. And who are you to tell me it's bad?'"

Once again you demonstrate your obsession with moral relativism, which you attempt to stick on humanism, but instead demonstrate that it is in fact what you believe in. We Humanists know there is no need to discuss what is right and wrong on this level. There's no need for moral relativism, that is something only obscure branches of philosophy and Christians fixate on, it is not a problem to us, it is only you who cannot comprehend morality without your deity because you been programmed to be unable to.

This is your problem, your lack of comprehension, this is a difficulty you will have to face, not us. We are perfectly Okay with humanity and with ethics, we can solve these problems, we have the answers, you're the ones whose answers are completely false, and you have to resort to such desperate tactics in order to try to discredit our position. You state that there are difficulties within secular philosophies and defining things as moral or immoral, just because you have been told there is. You have not bothered to investigate yourself, or you would find out that no such problems exist, and that this is only an issue among your kind alone.

We know full well how morality can be based without God, it's pretty obvious except to Christians, because such philosophical realisations have been carefully kept away from you, along with everything else that your little bubble of a religion screens out. I suggest you wake up and join the real world, you'll find that your perceptions of morality are merely the in-built pretensions used to secure adherents. By convincing them that everything outside Christianity has no moral anchor, a common attitude among religions, Moslems say precisely the same thing, however they are as much full of shit as you are. Such patiently false dogma is not going to work on someone who knows better. You are displaying your ignorance, nothing more, although I am sure they convinced you, they are incapable of doing so to anyone who actually uses their minds outside the narrow confines of your religious dictatorship. +Plus you're pathetic arguments for the existence of your deity are so bad that I won't even bother with them. Instead I will now proceed to demonstrate why it is that you need to rejoin the human race.


First, I would advise you to give up your hypocritical lie of a life.

You seem to think that because we do not have the absolute "moral" pretensions of your cult that we can just make up any ethics we like. But the opposite is in fact true, we are basing our morality on the objective reality of human existence, whereas you are basing your "morals" on your subjective understanding of your deity, or your equally subjective interpretation of the Bible, as demonstrated by all the different Christian denominations. Different views in different eras, lacking any consistency whatsoever, or any other sign of a derivation from a real deity or theological reality. Exactly what you'd find in a made up religion, like all the others. Can you spot the difference? Not to mention the fact that, as god is entirely subjective, with no reality outside you tiny little minds, there are as many gods as there are believers, each one representing your own ideas "ethics" and wishes, how else you explain all the conflicting messages gods sends through all those xtian followers? How can he want peace and war? Tolerance and gays in asylums? Depending on which denomination the xtian he is talking to comes from? So much for absolutes. You're the ones that are making your "morality" up as you go along, using the Bible to justify your bigotry and your narrow-minded and backward attitudes, which lacks all the consistency of ethical values based on the empirical reality of human life, and its needs and rights.

As you xtians no longer have the control over society you once did, you protest and whine. You are indeed very poor losers, you use the charge of immorality or ethical relativism because we do not have the intolerant and rigid "ethical" values that you in your hypocrisy claim to follow. Because our morality is not based on a false certainty and rigidly defined lies, you claim that we have no ethics at all, or nothing to base them on, when we have the reality of humanity and you have a mere phantom. We humanists have the certainty and moral consistency, and can trace our principles to the virtually identical values of the teachings of either Buddha, Confucius, or the Stoics, Epicureans and Sophics.

You xtians are the ones who constantly change your ethical values based on reinterpretations of Scripture, who argue amongst yourselves on ethical issues that splits denominations apart, (often with far greater violence than you'd ever find among secular moralists), and attempt to explain away atrocities committed in past eras where your morals were even worse then they are now. Rather than us being without morals we are the only moral people in the West, with the exception of those influenced by alternative cultures, and philosophies. You're the great moral vacuum in society not us. Everything you say is wrong, everything you claim is a lie and total bullshit, and until humanity realises this, it looks like the Humanists and other ethical people around the world will just have to put up with you. Except I never was one for tolerating intolerance, and bigotry, I hate to see people living a lie, if you can call what you do living, as it's certainly a lie. So while you try to impose a false sense of ethical security on a humanity that has outgrown you, we are the ones with true purpose and direction on the ethical oceans that humanity must navigate, and we will carry on without you, to a better future. While you in your rudderless and sinking vessel of false morality will continue to think you're the only boat in existence.

You are the ones without consistency, and when your fundamentalist ilk do try to be consistent they only end up causing greater harm to humanity. You may claim that these extremists do not truly represent Christianity today, and you may pretend to be responsible for all the moral values in today's society, but the true source of all goodness in our progressive civilisation is anything but you. As you could not possibly name any recognised enlightened value that derives from your archaic Scripture.

Don't Kill, Don't steal? Gee, I bet no civilisation before Judaism ever came up with those principles. Perhaps it never occurred to you that rather than being profound, these are in fact so completely obvious that they are utterly redundant, and hardly worth a five-tonne monument in a courthouse.

We value human rights, you're kind don't, you are pro-life and yet pro death penalty. Your hypocrisy is plain for the world to see, yet your ignorance of your own natures gives you the ultimate arrogance to presume to dictate what is right and wrong. Even what is true, to the rest of us who know better. You do not even know what right or wrong is, let alone have any justified certainty that you are right.

You do not have ethical values of any kind, just slavish obedience to an archaic creed based on a subjective and ever reinterpreted doctrine that is no better than any other religion with absolutist pretensions. Would it be fair to allow such minorities among humanity as yourselves to define what humanity is? Or define what is right and wrong, when clearly you have no idea, which contrasts so greatly with your certainty? Who do you represents other than yourselves? And yet you would tell us how to interpret our history, using concepts and theological fantasies that we have rejected. You do not even have any just cause or reason to tell yourselves these things, let alone anybody else.

You live in a world of absolutes, only one degree removed from the fundamentalists or extremists who terrorise in the name of Allah. Your black and white attitude is lazy reductionism, we Humanists need to teach the world the value of the middle way, it works in England, and it can work everywhere else.

This false claim to the moral high ground is demonstrated in your objections to such things as reproductive technology. You develop these objections in the reaction to events or concepts that were brought about by people who saw no moral problems with them, as there were none at the time. You developed them only when you decided your Bible wanted you to. Not by reading any passage specifically referring to such concepts, (as the rag's writers were ignorant of them, and most other things), but by inferring them from your once again subjective view of such over-interpreted and irrelevant material. The next moment you are bombing clinics. Just who are the terrorist threat to America?

These moral absolutes and certainties are for the lazy, those who cannot be bothered to wrestle with such difficulties and multifaceted issues. But would rather resort to crude and primitive standards, out of fear of independence, or having to use your atrophied intelligence, and do objective and balanced research among the many vibrant and progressive philosophies within the sphere of ethics.

That would be too much work for your kind, who just get it all out of a book, or rather from the current interpretations fed to your unquestioning and uncritical minds by your theistic masters, as you cannot even be bothered to read the Bible at all. You are simpletons, yet you claim to be better than us. Mankind is complex, you seek a simple solution, and fight against people who are more moral, more intelligence, more reasonable, and more realistic then you could ever be. You have yet to realise just how far behind you really are, just how wrong you really are, just how stupid you will look when all mankind finally comes to it's senses.

You are a petty and minuscule force in human history, you build great cathedrals so as to render the masses meek with awe to your petty temporal power, but the universe is a far bigger house than all your churches. And all your efforts, all your "achievements" will pale into insignificance in the greater scheme of human history and endeavour, and even today we can clearly see that you wasted all that time, money and resources, not to mention peoples lives, in those great buildings that serve as clear testimony to your arrogance. They're still nothing compared to what was already here, a vast universe far bigger and more beautiful than any of your biblical writers could have possibly imagined in their primitive ignorance. Such a reality is only understandable and knowable by human efforts, brought into existence and sustained by no God, but by principles that only science can reveal. We live in a universe that does not judge or condemn us, but gives us the freedom we deserve, without bribery or sadistic punishment. Whereas your churches, just like your gods, are man-made, temporary, and can only ever be a testimony to mankind's creativity, not to a deity's glory, but the glory of humanity and the universe, which is bigger than your gods and bigger than your religion.

The main reason why you attempt to defend mankind's greatest mistake is because you buy the official version, without thinking, without knowledge of any alternatives, without context, without reason, and without any search for truth, merely what you want. But I like to think for myself, I do not accept any authority just because it is an authority, and do not recognise the "truth" of something just because other people do. As I have no way of knowing how reliable any source is. But you do not do this, you cannot claim to know what is right, or claim to be speaking the truth, as you have never objectively analysed your religion. If you did you'd realise that there is no truth in any of it, and it does not deserve your services and efforts that you waste in attacking my words. They are based on experience and knowledge beyond your comprehension. I suggest you look at your religion to see if it is truly as you describe, not just as you have been told, you may find that it does not match up to your pet delusions.

Christianity can only be said to have made no mistakes, in the sense that Christianity is one big mistake, and if a mistake cannot itself make mistakes, only be one, then your religion is ultimately only guilty of being itself.


It is a thorn in the side of all that is decent in this world.

Humanism will remove it.

 

A. Uiet Bhor

 

 

---- bAcK 2 hOMePAgE ----