Despite there being no correlation, religious people enjoy arguing that atheism causes communism and is therefore responsible for many deaths.
Of course the above argument is bogus, as is the argument that a robber is driven to hold up a convenience store because he or she doesn't believe in a specific deity.
Sure atheists have committed atrocities, but these butchers didn't claim they murdered based on words from the manual in which all true atheists must believe because no such manual exists.
Some religious people point to their favorite book and say, "See, throwing stones at her face until she stopped moving is exactly what I'm required to do."
According to the faithful, religion is needed to differentiate good from bad just as a history book is required to teach us that George Washington was the first President of the United States.
But religion doesn't incentivize good behavior; it comforts people who enjoy performing abhorrent acts.
Look at the amount of evil that's been perpetrated because individuals, who wish to think of themselves as noble, accept a book that either excuses or encourages despicable behavior. These folks have the audacity to claim that thoughtfully concluding a deity is not responsible for the universe is a gateway crime.
I'm always trying to figure out if the majority of people on this earth are inherently good, or if most simply have a natural desire to believe their actions are just.
Was religion formulated to control the masses, or because people wanted to selfishly harm others and sleep soundly once their oil lamps were extinguished?
In other words, religion could have been an early answer to the, "For making goo-goo eyes at that strong-jawed goat-herder, I wanna bust my wench of a wife upside the head with a large stone, yet am aware such brutality is immoral and get far more shuteye with a guilt free brain," dilemma.
One thing is certain: there's no limit to evil if the evildoer truly believes he is acting in the best interest of humanity.
People strive to achieve great wealth so they can afford to compensate a staff hired for the express purpose of serving their every non-erotic need. Why would a man go to the trouble of building a fortune when all that's required is accepting a certain religious work that plainly states the woman he wed is nothing more than a glorified employee who must grant his every wish, regardless of where it measures on the perversion scale?
Instinct, not belief in words drafted by ancient men, lets us know what's good and what's bad. When guilt consumed monsters desire to perform an act they're cognizant is cruel, they pick up a book that tells them, "It's okay - have at her. Trust whoever wrote this when they stated, 'they're called wifely 'duties' for a reason.'"
When people find themselves saying, "I know you could interpret my holy book in a way that makes the work appear evil, but I inexplicably choose to believe it promotes peace," it's time they contemplate following writings that leave no room for interpretation, or better yet, apply common sense to every situation. Religious works have directly led to unimaginable cruelty, yet moral devotees actively tout such writings with hope their fellow followers interpret them, "the good way."
Why not just promote words that unequivocally instruct everyone to refrain from harming their fellow man!?
It's such a simple concept, yet only 20% of my fellow countrypersons are with me!
No comments:
Post a Comment