By Carl S ~
On CNN, a weatherman reported on the floods and tornadoes devastating the southern and western U.S. At one point, he wasn't listening to himself, because he said, “God willing, the dam will hold.” What if he says later on, “God forbid, the dam doesn't hold?” Notice this: “God” was not willing to deal with, nor forbid, all the tornadoes or floods we were already seeing on screen. (Well, at least we didn't have to be subjected to survivors thanking the same non-intervening “God.”)
We understand survival. Everything on Earth adapts every part of itself to survive. Life itself is dependent on struggles between ongoing predators and prey. Cells within organisms program themselves to work with other cells in order to survive; they destroy other organisms for the same goal.
There is fatalism built into the survival system, because, despite successes, eventually all organisms die. Those who believe a “creator” established this system ought to ponder Its motivation. They should ask themselves if this “creator” is the Ultimate Sadist, watching so many of the desperate and hopeless struggling to survive in vain. Why else does It allow millions of humans to delude themselves into believing they are exemptions to Its system? Why else would It encourage this delusion, to ruin or stand in the way of enjoying even one minute of life?
Cancer cells do all in their power to survive and procreate. Autoimmunity diseases cause normal cells to attack the bodies they are programmed to protect. Mosquitoes carry diseases responsible for more deaths than all wars combined. If left unchecked, they propagate. Do we ignore them or do we, rather, protect ourselves from them, and even destroy them? We won't defend ourselves unless we recognize the threat. This applies to organized religions.
Leaders are expected to lie and deceive, if necessary, in order for their countries to survive. Don't leaders of religions do the same for the faith? Just stare at the substance, and not the elegant plumage of religions. “Their “spiritual” is camouflage. Aren't the motives driving organized religions material ones: Money, power, and control of individuals?
Governments and institutions are usually excused from judgement when they lie and their intentions are camouflaged; they are expected to survive and prosper. They feel their ends justify the means. The Catholic Church is a prime example of this. It's no surprise when it lashes out to “defend” itself. And the “good old days” of serfs and handmaids are behind the agendas of organized religions. There's another danger in religious “defense:” Good, well-meaning, faith-intoxicated members of religions pass their infections on to your children, out of your presence. With good intentions, of course. Weather reporters aren't the only ones promoting “God” with a lack of thinking.
May I be so bold as to say that we who “lack” faith can be compared with those “lacking” autoimmune diseases or cancer cells, “lacking” a vulnerability to a type of madness and/or superstitious thinking? Can our “lack” be compared to lacking blond hair and blue eyes in Nazi-Aryan society? Is a man without a hairy chest “lacking” masculinity? I once knew a woman who was flat-chested (she showed me), but this uninhibited woman did not feel the “lack” of needing D-cups. She was far from lacking in femininity! And her “lack” of faith only gave her more enthusiasm for life.
Should we permit religions to survive, any more than we permit cancer cells to survive? If cells appear benign at first, shouldn't we be on the lookout lest they begin to do damage? Organized religions have not proven themselves benign. They are by nature predators and parasites feeding off human fears and hopes for an imaginary after-death survival. These religions are known to unexpectedly erupt and metastasize at innocent times and in trusting places. They primarily attack individuals perceived as threats to their existence: clear and free thinkers, unaccepting of their claimed authority to dominate, and those who rebel against being required to lie or pretend. Religions don't have truth, but they do have unmitigated gall, so they get a free pass when they ridicule or damn the consciences of others. Why? Since when is it unacceptable to fight for survival of one's own mind against predators and parasites?
Most religions do all in their power to maintain control. And they do learn some adaptation is needed in order to survive in societies. Survival also involves camouflaging and being deceptive about their misdeeds and evils. As predators, they have many different fangs, talons, strengths and poisons at their disposal. Faiths are organisms.
Organized religions revealed their inherent toxicity and threat to humanity when the “survival and propagation of the faith” acquired its power to deny life to a human being because that human was declared a heretic. Since that time, religious belief has survived and prospered on the “don't make waves” and “just pretend that it's true” premises – and the belief that survival of faith is more important than life itself. Doesn't this sound like something a parasite would tell its host?
We understand survival. Everything on Earth adapts every part of itself to survive. Life itself is dependent on struggles between ongoing predators and prey. Cells within organisms program themselves to work with other cells in order to survive; they destroy other organisms for the same goal.
There is fatalism built into the survival system, because, despite successes, eventually all organisms die. Those who believe a “creator” established this system ought to ponder Its motivation. They should ask themselves if this “creator” is the Ultimate Sadist, watching so many of the desperate and hopeless struggling to survive in vain. Why else does It allow millions of humans to delude themselves into believing they are exemptions to Its system? Why else would It encourage this delusion, to ruin or stand in the way of enjoying even one minute of life?
Cancer cells do all in their power to survive and procreate. Autoimmunity diseases cause normal cells to attack the bodies they are programmed to protect. Mosquitoes carry diseases responsible for more deaths than all wars combined. If left unchecked, they propagate. Do we ignore them or do we, rather, protect ourselves from them, and even destroy them? We won't defend ourselves unless we recognize the threat. This applies to organized religions.
Leaders are expected to lie and deceive, if necessary, in order for their countries to survive. Don't leaders of religions do the same for the faith? Just stare at the substance, and not the elegant plumage of religions. “Their “spiritual” is camouflage. Aren't the motives driving organized religions material ones: Money, power, and control of individuals?
Governments and institutions are usually excused from judgement when they lie and their intentions are camouflaged; they are expected to survive and prosper. They feel their ends justify the means. The Catholic Church is a prime example of this. It's no surprise when it lashes out to “defend” itself. And the “good old days” of serfs and handmaids are behind the agendas of organized religions. There's another danger in religious “defense:” Good, well-meaning, faith-intoxicated members of religions pass their infections on to your children, out of your presence. With good intentions, of course. Weather reporters aren't the only ones promoting “God” with a lack of thinking.
May I be so bold as to say that we who “lack” faith can be compared with those “lacking” autoimmune diseases or cancer cells, “lacking” a vulnerability to a type of madness and/or superstitious thinking? Can our “lack” be compared to lacking blond hair and blue eyes in Nazi-Aryan society? Is a man without a hairy chest “lacking” masculinity? I once knew a woman who was flat-chested (she showed me), but this uninhibited woman did not feel the “lack” of needing D-cups. She was far from lacking in femininity! And her “lack” of faith only gave her more enthusiasm for life.
Should we permit religions to survive, any more than we permit cancer cells to survive? If cells appear benign at first, shouldn't we be on the lookout lest they begin to do damage? Organized religions have not proven themselves benign. They are by nature predators and parasites feeding off human fears and hopes for an imaginary after-death survival. These religions are known to unexpectedly erupt and metastasize at innocent times and in trusting places. They primarily attack individuals perceived as threats to their existence: clear and free thinkers, unaccepting of their claimed authority to dominate, and those who rebel against being required to lie or pretend. Religions don't have truth, but they do have unmitigated gall, so they get a free pass when they ridicule or damn the consciences of others. Why? Since when is it unacceptable to fight for survival of one's own mind against predators and parasites?
Most religions do all in their power to maintain control. And they do learn some adaptation is needed in order to survive in societies. Survival also involves camouflaging and being deceptive about their misdeeds and evils. As predators, they have many different fangs, talons, strengths and poisons at their disposal. Faiths are organisms.
Organized religions revealed their inherent toxicity and threat to humanity when the “survival and propagation of the faith” acquired its power to deny life to a human being because that human was declared a heretic. Since that time, religious belief has survived and prospered on the “don't make waves” and “just pretend that it's true” premises – and the belief that survival of faith is more important than life itself. Doesn't this sound like something a parasite would tell its host?
Comments
Post a Comment