Skip to main content

If Truth Doesn't Matter Anymoref

By Carl S ~

Perhaps you've heard of this case: A woman lost a custody battle for her two children. She killed her ex in revenge. Hers was not an special case. Spouses have been murdered so that their mates will, in their belief, be able to live with their lovers and/or children, happily ever after. In every case, the murderers followed their hearts, not their heads and minds. In virtually every case, they were caught and sentenced to prison. So, they lost the lover, the children, and the family. (In the first example, over custody, the mother would
have had at least, visitation rights.) In the pursuit of having it all, they lost it all. The truth is, if they had gone through legal processes, they would have ended up with something rather than nothing. They went with their emotions, their guts, instead.

Any human being understands what's happened with these perpetrators. Except for those psychopaths who kill because they feel entitled to fulfill their desires, they've killed out of passion. We all fall in and out of love, unthinkingly, often irrationally, and usually, wholeheartedly. A common response from questioning a believer on impossible things is, “I know in my heart it's true.” But “knowing in my heart” and saying that to others who “understand” because they also “know in their hearts,” doesn't tell us anything about whether it's true or not. It's saying that the person feels that it's so, therefore it is. If you ask believers to write down clearly what they “know,” they can't express it
intelligently. And if they can't express it clearly, they can't think it clearly, either. (Try it yourself. Writing forces you to read over what you say. And oh what tangled webs we and apologetics weave, when we our biases allow ourselves to be deceived. But I digress.)

In polite society, why do we accept that people who, without evidence of truth or even thinking things through, should remain unchallenged because their sincerity means they own truths? Maybe those truths are “real” to them, because they're emotionally driven by personal fears or paranoia, even supported by the social emotions of others with the very same fears? Is so, they are “realities” to the believer. Would we go into the insane asylum and assume the “truths” therein should not be confronted just because everyone inside agrees with them? Why give beliefs equal respect with actual facts and truths? This is a huge mistake. And it can be a dangerous one when truth is distorted to support emotions.

Why do we accept that people who, without evidence of truth or even thinking things through, should remain unchallenged because their sincerity means they own truths?Take a deep breath. Emotions can and do lie to us. So often what “seems” to us to be true, (such as, “but they seemed to be so happy,” or, “I can't believe he did that; he always seemed so positive...”) turns out not to be, and vice versa. We hear those words a lot, and they should tell us something. If our emotions didn't lie to us, the words, “I'm sorry” wouldn't be used so often. We wouldn't regret emotional morasses we jump into. A major problem with religions is, “Faith means never having to say you're wrong.” The emotional draw of wanting to believe in a happily forever afterlife is so powerful that even some non-religionists will believe in it. Describing that afterlife brings up all the pleasantries of life on earth imaginable. Believing there's a great big loving father and his angels watching over humanity pulls at the heart-strings of those who prefer to ignore the evidence: no such being exists, given the evidence to the contrary. People go to mosques, churches, temples, synagogues and shrines, for the emotional support and mutual pleasures. No gods appear or are heard from.

You say, “Morally speaking, does any of this matter? It doesn't hurt anyone, does it?” Think again. Dispassionately looking at faith means paying close attention to passion, passion driven to the exclusion of reality. It's so passionate that it's created its own “real” world overwhelming our universe. Imagine the joy those pilots felt when crashing planes into the Twin Towers, or the “fait accompli” feeling of a gunman mowing down the lives of “baby killers” at an abortion clinic!

Consider the constant erosion of facts, the wars on evidence that keep increasing, in order for the biased emotions of the most sincere Christian
believer to prevail over rationality in societies. Those comfortable emotions of faith, unanswerable to reason, to evidence, have always justified destroying the rights of others. They still do. We're experiencing the effects now.

When truth doesn't matter anymore, what does? If only emotionally driven biases count, where does that lead to? There will be no “order” but that enforced without evidence, without investigation and discussion, without dissension, without the freedom to disagree, or respect for reason. Isn't this scenario familiar? Are we headed to yet another Dark Ages? And there goes the end to democracy. How do you feel about that, now?


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

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


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

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