Skip to main content

Another Man's Poison

By Carl S ~

There's a current saying: "Whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger." l suspect a Darwinian survival list of experiences are behind that saying. An older saw is: "One man's food, another man's poison."

Centuries ago, there was a practice of poison-resistance, when a person would consume ever-increasing doses of poison over time, until he could tolerate an amount that would kill another who had not been exposed to the poison. The resistant one could thus poison another without any concern about being poisoned himself, accidentally or intentionally; a sure way to guarantee that the other would die.

Maybe indoctrination works like that. The poisons of indifference to another's sufferings, of intolerance, and acceptance of the irrational, are sneaked in small doses, into the minds of children with a spoonful of sugared poison to make the "medicine go down." Gradually, the dosage is increased. After so many ever-increasing dosages of the same poisons, they become imbued into the organism with an intensity fatal to rational, sensitive, tolerant, non- poisoned minds and hearts. The poisons of indoctrinations do not kill the victim; rather they make him stronger in resistance to the poison.

Those indoctrinations swallowed whole, consumed as part of most people‘s daily diets, make me physically ill. Most of the time, the exposure to them brings on nausea, and sometimes nerve-jangling pains induced by the close-mindedness religions take for granted. Thinking about the poisoning of trusting children's minds frustrates me because others refuse to see it. My mental and physical health are affected and the more aware l am, the more sensitive l become. Yet, l persist, hoping against hope that l can detox those who are suffering.

Would that religions would leave us all alone, especially children, but the believers persist in blithely passing out their poisoned candy treats which l insist I will not eat. (l can't even enjoy birthday, anniversary, get-well cards from them - they always insist of making any occasion a reason for sermonizing.)

Parents who would not give milk to their lactose-intolerant child, or peanuts to a child who would have a violent physical reaction, have no problem allowing strangers to force-feed a B.S.-intolerant child.

Christians, Moslems, and Buddhists killing one another for their faiths, and even generally? No, it’s life in the "hereafter" that they‘re after; that’s what counts: immortal life, which is an oxymoron devaluing life.Those like me, who swallowed the poison which disagreed with our natures, have vomited it up. We see its destructive effects on others, on both those who can and cannot handle it. Good people are being made sick, and remain sick, and they don't understand why. And most of those suffering are being told to increase their dosages!

Even the "nons" are affected, many describing themselves as, "spiritual, not religious," which is buying into some hidden life force radiating in and controlling nature, superior to natural laws. Once again, what are the sacrifices to be made to achieve communion with the superior life forces? This spiritual-not-religious sure sounds like religion in different garments. No, l think those "nons” don't realize just how they are influenced by religions and their downgrading of reality that looks us straight in the eyes, whether we are accepting of it or not.

Interestingly, religions have little use for reality; they create their own, which makes for a rather gloomy assessment of human life in the here and now as compared to the "glorious" future existence they promulgate. Indeed, when religions speak of the "sanctity of life," they are referring to the conception of life, which is why they are anti-abortion, "pro-life," even anti-contraception. They do not appear to give a damn what happens to life after birth. Otherwise how to explain support for the death penalty, and Christians, Moslems, and Buddhists killing one another for their faiths, and even generally? No, it’s life in the "hereafter" that they‘re after; that’s what counts: immortal life, which is an oxymoron devaluing life.

Religions emphasize the "sanctity of life" and "your immortal soul" in regard to "life" before birth and "life" after death. Notice something? There isn’t what you would describe as human life before birth, meaning consciousness, decision-making, awareness of surroundings, or caring about any of those things. And death is a return to a previous state of non-being . The fear of a return to non-being drives religions, which promise an "eternal happiness to an eternal soul," if you merely believe in them. They cannot deliver, but they do offer the poison of hope that cheapens life. Even a little dose can be toxic to your mental health.


Popular posts from this blog

Are You an Atheist Success Story?

By Avangelism Project ~ F acts don’t spread. Stories do. It’s how (good) marketing works, it’s how elections (unfortunately) are won and lost, and it’s how (all) religion spreads. Proselytization isn’t accomplished with better arguments. It’s accomplished with better stories and it’s time we atheists catch up. It’s not like atheists don’t love a good story. Head over to the atheist reddit and take a look if you don’t believe me. We’re all over stories painting religion in a bad light. Nothing wrong with that, but we ignore the value of a story or a testimonial when we’re dealing with Christians. We can’t be so proud to argue the semantics of whether atheism is a belief or deconversion is actually proselytization. When we become more interested in defining our terms than in affecting people, we’ve relegated ourselves to irrelevance preferring to be smug in our minority, but semantically correct, nonbelief. Results Determine Reality The thing is when we opt to bury our

So Just How Dumb Were Jesus’ Disciples? The Resurrection, Part VII.

By Robert Conner ~ T he first mention of Jesus’ resurrection comes from a letter written by Paul of Tarsus. Paul appears to have had no interest whatsoever in the “historical” Jesus: “even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, we know him so no longer.” ( 2 Corinthians 5:16 ) Paul’s surviving letters never once mention any of Jesus’ many exorcisms and healings, the raising of Lazarus, or Jesus’ virgin birth, and barely allude to Jesus’ teaching. For Paul, Jesus only gets interesting after he’s dead, but even here Paul’s attention to detail is sketchy at best. For instance, Paul says Jesus “was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures” ( 1 Corinthians 15:4 ), but there are no scriptures that foretell the Jewish Messiah would at long last appear only to die at the hands of Gentiles, much less that the Messiah would then be raised from the dead after three days. After his miraculous conversion on the road to Damascus—an event Paul never mentions in his lette


By David Andrew Dugle ~   S ettle down now children, here's the story from the Book of David called The Parable of the Bent Cross. In the land Southeast of Eden –  Eden, Minnesota that is – between two rivers called the Big Miami and the Little Miami, in the name of Saint Gertrude there was once built a church. Here next to it was also built a fine parochial school. The congregation thrived and after a multitude of years, a new, bigger church was erected, well made with clean straight lines and a high steeple topped with a tall, thin cross of gold. The faithful felt proud, but now very low was their money. Their Sunday offerings and school fees did not suffice. Anon, they decided to raise money in an unclean way. One fine summer day the faithful erected tents in the chariot lot between the two buildings. In the tents they set up all manner of games – ring toss, bingo, little mechanical racing horses and roulette wheels – then all who lived in the land between the two rivers we

Christian TV presenter reads out Star Wars plot as story of salvation

An email prankster tricked the host of a Christian TV show into reading out the plots of The Fresh Prince of Bel Air and Star Wars in the belief they were stories of personal salvation. The unsuspecting host read out most of the opening rap to The Fresh Prince, a 1990s US sitcom starring Will Smith , apparently unaware that it was not a genuine testimony of faith. The prankster had slightly adapted the lyrics but the references to a misspent youth playing basketball in West Philadelphia would have been instantly familiar to most viewers. The lines read out by the DJ included: "One day a couple of guys who were up to no good starting making trouble in my living area. I ended up getting into a fight, which terrified my mother." The presenter on Genesis TV , a British Christian channel, eventually realised that he was being pranked and cut the story short – only to move on to another spoof email based on the plot of the Star Wars films. It began: &quo

Why I left the Canadian Reformed Church

By Chuck Eelhart ~ I was born into a believing family. The denomination is called Canadian Reformed Church . It is a Dutch Calvinistic Christian Church. My parents were Dutch immigrants to Canada in 1951. They had come from two slightly differing factions of the same Reformed faith in the Netherlands . Arriving unmarried in Canada they joined the slightly more conservative of the factions. It was a small group at first. Being far from Holland and strangers in a new country these young families found a strong bonding point in their church. Deutsch: Heidelberger Katechismus, Druck 1563 (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) I was born in 1955 the third of eventually 9 children. We lived in a small southern Ontario farming community of Fergus. Being young conservative and industrious the community of immigrants prospered. While they did mix and work in the community almost all of the social bonding was within the church group. Being of the first generation born here we had a foot in two

Morality is not a Good Argument for Christianity

By austinrohm ~ I wrote this article as I was deconverting in my own head: I never talked with anyone about it, but it was a letter I wrote as if I was writing to all the Christians in my life who constantly brought up how morality was the best argument for Christianity. No Christian has read this so far, but it is written from the point of view of a frustrated closeted atheist whose only outlet was organizing his thoughts on the keyboard. A common phrase used with non-Christians is: “Well without God, there isn’t a foundation of morality. If God is not real, then you could go around killing and raping.” There are a few things which must be addressed. 1. Show me objective morality. Define it and show me an example. Different Christians have different moral standards depending on how they interpret the Bible. Often times, they will just find what they believe, then go back into scripture and find a way to validate it. Conversely, many feel a particular action is not