Religion is a path to Hell on Earth

Thank you for publishing my article and for paying me accordingly, DB Skeptic. Just wanted to leave a note to say that you’ve not seen the last of me yet. ;-)

About the article, I think a lot of people have already wrote about how frustrated they feel about religion everywhere on the internet. So, in the future, I plan to write more educational stuffs that people of religion can digest without feeling insulted.

Will be sending you another article to you by today or latest tomorrow.

Talk to you later,
Nick
Critical Critique

Hey Nick, I enjoyed the argument presented in the video. That was pretty much the same one I used in college at the Christian University I attended. I argued that if those whom I love so much are going to hell what is the point of me going to heaven? Then I went a step further to say that if God really would hand out eternal punishment to a 14 year old girl who aborted her baby and then died of heroin overdose, then please let me go to hell in her place, because if you ask me, she had just lived through 14 years of hell on earth, and after such suffering deserves an eternity of bliss more than anyone. However, I am not a philosopher. And I must admit, the video along with my argument is more of an appeal to emotion than to any sort of sound argument. I also think the rest of the argument provided, namely the chart, is itself a clear example of the very scapegoatism that we blame on religious folks that commit the horrific acts that we humans are capable of. The idea that humans would not have any problems presented in the chart if religion were out of the equation is simply naive and ignorant. If religion is simply a human creation gone amok, then the results of this creation rest squarely on humans as well, rather than the institutions. I’m not saying that religious institutions are not guilty, but they are certainly not to the root of the problem. I think your overall argument is really based on an overly narrow understanding of religion, and is more than anything else a response to evangelical Christianity, and a misinformed one at that.

PS. None of the questions or arguments you presented here have touched on the question of god. I would love to read more of you you think about that.

-Aaron

Nick, I did not mean to imply that you are not educated or well studied, and I sincerely apologize if it sounded that way. I simply meant to say that an extreme claim such as: Religion directly causes soil erosion and all the evils in between, is ignorant and naive. Point being, the argument is naive, not you. I would venture to say that the reasoning used in that chart is akin to blaming all the world’s ills on one group, hence the scapegoating I mentioned. Whenever this has occurred in history it has not ended well. At least it triggers a warning in my brain as it hearkens back to such examples as antisemitism throughout Europe in the last few thousand years, specifically, the 1930′s and 40′s. Let’s be realistic, religion has a part in every culture, both negative and positive aspects come from it, just like many other aspects of society. The real issue is not one of God or spirituality, but rather a defense, often necessary, put up by a new and growing number of proclaimed atheists in the developed western world. The world is uncomfortable with the idea of someone not believing in God. In return this minority fires back that they have the only truth and anyone who believes otherwise is a fool, at least that is what I gather from Richard Dawkins. I think the best argument one can make on either side is similar to how you summed it up… it depends on one’s personality. Blaise Pascal said that it is just as absurd to believe in God as it is not to. I came to that same conclusion on my own before reading that. And from that point, whatever I decide to believe is based on a combination of my subjective interpretation of reality, assumed facts, and those around me.

Richard Dawkins’ god parody of the Spaghetti Monster that you refer to is a developed form of Bertrand Russell’s Teapot analogy. Neither one of them really gets to the root of the question of God. There is a longing for understanding and truth among humanity. Strip away the dogma and tradition that surround each religion and most of the time you will find the basic questions of life and meaning. Science can answer some of them, but not all. God is really “defined”, for lack of a better word, as the essence of the unknown. The big bang theory, and I am no creationist by any means, is simply the “Sunday school answer” among scientists and atheists. In other words it sounds just as ridiculous to me as my 7th grade Sunday school teacher telling me that God created the world in seven days. If one is to explain a beginning of an entire universe they must at the very least admit to the fact that their explanation will sound silly and mythical and maybe borderline mad, whether based on science or religion. That is the fun of being human. We tell stories.

Lastly, governments are historically notorious for starting wars, which probably cause the same flow of problems as presented in the chart. Other than a few anarchists I do not hear the cry for complete eradication of government.

PS. I thought it was funny that the chart ends with “Species extinction and overwhelming human suffering.” Unless one actually believes in hell then suffering would most likely be over once the species is extinct.

Yes, there are many consequences of religious beliefs. But so too are there many rewards. Upholding ethics is, for example, a direct benefit. So too is the hope religion provides the faithful who might otherwise fall prey to depression.

The main point is to remain positive in a largely negative world. That’s not easy to do. Religion fortifies that sense by sustaining a purpose for people they wouldn’t have from any other source.

“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious, then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our Science can reveal it.”

~ Albert Einstein 1954, from Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press

Religion and spirituality is a matter of preference based on emotion-driven thinking, not evidence to an absolute truth. My opinion is that such beliefs causes more harm than good in the long run…

“It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere… Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man’s ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.”

~ Albert Einstein, “Religion and Science” New York Times Magazine, 9 November 1930

Albert Einstein quotes were brought in for reasons to protect its original meanings. However, like every other quote, scripture verses, text excerpts etc., people can interpret it in any way they want to support their case. So, quoting Einstein by either party and putting words in his mouth, not knowing what the man really meant when he said these things, including the fact that we can no longer ask him about it, is not going to help solve the problems religion brings into this world.

Moreover, it doesn’t really matter what this man or that man said. What REALLY matters is whether people can think and weight for themselves the good and bad religion has brought to this world. There’s a long history and plenty of evidence for it. Do the research for yourself. There’s no need to listen to others, and that includes me.

While many still see religion as a good thing, I can only see it as a cunningly designed manipulative system in order to control people by offering fantastic promises and creating delusional experiences which then damages an individuals mental growth and physical wellbeing, and when exposed long enough, even to the point of no return.

Yes, like religion, some people will continue smoking even after they are made aware of the dangerous consequences. After all, it makes them feel good. This is also may be the last thing someone would want before he or she is sentenced to death in jail. Another smoker offers it to him/her and this makes them both fly into la-la land.

Some don’t care if people keep smoking and live their lives in their la-la land while making others secondary smokers in the process. But some of us do care. We can’t force people to change if they don’t want to, but we can make all relevant information available for them to make a choice. By doing so, some will indeed quit smoking, and some will probably not.

Either way, some will continue providing information to support it while others to reject it. That is the way of the world. We must still do what we think is right, but not through faith-based living and emotion-driven thinking, rather through evidence-based inquiry and critical thinking.

Yes, Aaron. When something is done differently from the norm, it may seem odd but not necessarily wrong. Faith based living and emotion-driven thinking is accepting something without evidence or proof of a claim. I’m talking about people in general and how they accept religion, superstition and other strange beliefs based on that. This not the same with how people present their work. Work or presentation and the video in this article may have emotions of passion but what I’m talking about is to infom people to not to believe something with it. I’m not telling people to cease their emotion completely. I’m advising people to use critical thinking and evidence-based inquiry before accepting any type of claim.

I don’t think I’ve made faulty assumptions, I’m seeing this happen and so is the rest of the world. The war in religious differences has already begun in the hearts of most people before the physical one happens. It’s like a ticking time bomb waiting to explode. It’s just a matter of time. The countless examples of religious difference resulting in dialogs, and a willingness to work together and learn from others is a struggle within the religious institution to keep the time bomb stable from exploding. That’s all. There WILL come a point when it WILL still blow up in your face! It’s inevitable unless people can tell each other that my religion and your religion is one and the same. It is also the one and same God but just with different laws for race or nation. Well, obviously that’s not happen and it would be a clear lie to suddenly to say that, and there will definitely be another war for saying that. LOL! ;-D

People are good because they are good. Religion didn’t make them good. They will be good anyway without religion. That’s their natural choice to be good. They only compliment a particular religion for their goodness and their nature to abide to it.

I’m not a Richard Dawkins disciple. I have my own thoughts and he has his. Science keeps it real, religion provides an opium to escape the real.

Most people think they already have the answer or a conclusion to something because that’s how their minds were trained to think in the brainwash process during their early childhood by their parents who were brainwashed by their parents who again were brainwashed by their parents and so on. But this is not the right approach to conclude a certain truth. You can’t start with an answer or a conclusion, and work backwards to find facts and evidence to support it. By doing so, you put yourself in a deluded position in the sense that you’ll only be interested in evidence, if there were any, that confirms to what you already absorbed into your believe system. So, you start picking and choosing what supports your absorbed believes while rejecting the rest. If something supports your absorbed believes, you’ll be quick to accept it even though if might be possibly wrong or misinformed or misinterpreted. And if something doesn’t support your existing absorbed believes, you probably reject it out of hand.

Deist believe in a God but reject dogmas received through so-called revelations which is actually nothing but psychological delusion or even made up claims for personal agenda. Deist would not go for war if someone said that they are wrong to believe in a God. Deism is not a religion but rather a philosophical point of view, just like Atheism, Agnosticism etc. is. There are no weird laws, rules and regulation that get you killed, chopped or stoned. There’s nothing sensitive to it and nothing to get offended by it enough to start a war. Deism is a personal view that there is a God. Theism is a personal view that there is a God too. The only problem with theism and other form of religious believe is, it conforms to some strange claims of some individual who said “God told me so, and you should follow it!” or “I saw this and that happen, it’s true and you must believe it!” Endless so-called revelations and stories are used to get new recruits because people believe and response to such things.

Below is an excerpt from the “Age of Reason”. This is the writings of a Deist, Thomas Paine.

“EVERY national church or religion has established itself by pretending some special mission from God, communicated to certain individuals. The Jews have their Moses; the Christians their Jesus Christ, their apostles and saints; and the Turks their Muhammad; as if the way to God was not open to every man alike.

Each of those churches shows certain books, which they call revelation, or the Word of God. The Jews say that their Word of God was given by God to Moses face to face; the Christians say, that their Word of God came by divine inspiration; and the Turks say, that their Word of God (the Quran) was brought by an angel from heaven. Each of those churches accuses the other of unbelief; and, for my own part, I disbelieve them all.

As it is necessary to affix right ideas to words, I will, before I proceed further into the subject, offer some observations on the word ‘revelation.’ Revelation when applied to religion, means something communicated immediately from God to man.

No one will deny or dispute the power of the Almighty to make such a communication if he pleases. But admitting, for the sake of a case, that something has been revealed to a certain person, and not revealed to any other person, it is revelation to that person only. When he tells it to a second person, a second to a third, a third to a fourth, and so on, it ceases to be a revelation to all those persons. It is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and, consequently, they are not obliged to believe it.

It is a contradiction in terms and ideas to call anything a revelation that comes to us at second hand, either verbally or in writing. Revelation is necessarily limited to the first communication. After this, it is only an account of something which that person says was a revelation made to him; and though he may find himself obliged to believe it, it cannot be incumbent on me to believe it in the same manner, for it was not a revelation made to me, and I have only his word for it that it was made to him.

When Moses told the children of Israel that he received the two tables of the commandments from the hand of God, they were not obliged to believe him, because they had no other authority for it than his telling them so; and I have no other authority for it than some historian telling me so, the commandments carrying no internal evidence of divinity with them. They contain some good moral precepts such as any man qualified to be a lawgiver or a legislator could produce himself, without having recourse to supernatural intervention. [NOTE: It is, however, necessary to except the declamation which says that God 'visits the sins of the fathers upon the children'. This is contrary to every principle of moral justice.--Author.]

When I am told that the Quran was written in Heaven, and brought to Muhammad by an angel, the account comes to near the same kind of hearsay evidence and second hand authority as the former. I did not see the angel myself, and therefore I have a right not to believe it.

When also I am told that a woman, called the Virgin Mary, said, or gave out, that she was with child without any cohabitation with a man, and that her betrothed husband, Joseph, said that an angel told him so, I have a right to believe them or not: such a circumstance required a much stronger evidence than their bare word for it: but we have not even this; for neither Joseph nor Mary wrote any such matter themselves. It is only reported by others that they said so. It is hearsay upon hearsay, and I do not chose to rest my belief upon such evidence.

It is, however, not difficult to account for the credit that was given to the story of Jesus Christ being the Son of God. He was born when the heathen mythology had still some fashion and repute in the world, and that mythology had prepared the people for the belief of such a story. Almost all the extraordinary men that lived under the heathen mythology were reputed to be the sons of some of their gods. It was not a new thing at that time to believe a man to have been celestially begotten; the intercourse of gods with women was then a matter of familiar opinion. Their Jupiter, according to their accounts, had cohabited with hundreds; the story therefore had nothing in it either new, wonderful, or obscene; it was conformable to the opinions that then prevailed among the people called Gentiles, or mythologists, and it was those people only that believed it. The Jews, who had kept strictly to the belief of one God, and no more, and who had always rejected the heathen mythology, never credited the story.

It is curious to observe how the theory of what is called the Christian Church, sprung out of the tail of the heathen mythology. A direct incorporation took place in the first instance, by making the reputed founder to be celestially begotten. The trinity of gods that then followed was no other than a reduction of the former plurality, which was about twenty or thirty thousand. The statue of Mary succeeded the statue of Diana of Ephesus. The deification of heroes changed into the canonization of saints. The Mythologists had gods for everything; the Christian Mythologists had saints for everything. The church became as crowded with the one, as the pantheon had been with the other; and Rome was the place of both. The Christian theory is little else than the idolatry of the ancient mythologists, accommodated to the purposes of power and revenue; and it yet remains to reason and philosophy to abolish the amphibious fraud…

I’ve been working on a second edition of this article. The feedbacks and comments given in this post and from others has made it possible for me to re-write the second addition. I hope it has evolved to be a better edition than this one… You can read it here at this link:

http://www.criticalcritique.com/2008/03/religion-is-path-to-hell-on-earth_20.html

Thanks,
Nick
CC

Please view the article update at the link provided above, right before your comment.

Thanks,
Nick

Like it was said before, please view the article update at the link provided above, four comments above. I hope other new readers will read the update too before commenting so mindlessly like what I’ve seen so far.

Thanks,
Nick

In response to John: I agree with you that Nick’s argument, concerning the chart at least, is flawed. The main problem with Nick’s chart is that it/he insists that religion is the root cause of the problems mentioned, however I maintain that religion is basically a result of human tendencies, and it is these tendencies, with or without religion, that lead to many of these problems. If you removed religion, these human tendencies still remain. We must understand our development, evolution, psychology, instincts for survival, and just the basic reason we do things to really improve our situation. To say religion causes the problems without asking why we have religion in the first place really solves nothing.

However, the assertions you presented in your argument are at best, problematic as well.

1. You say you are “sick and tired of seeing the same simplistic assumptions being made by supposedly enlightened, neutral observers.” :

Nick does not claim to be an enlightened, neutral observer. In fact, by the very title he puts his views and opinions right out in the open and is very clear about his objective. He very quickly claims to be an enlightened biased observer.

2. You say “It’s very fashionable to blame everything on religion these days…” :

Statistically, however, this is not true. Some 80 – 85 percent of the world’s population claims some sort of religious affiliation. And over 50 percent of the world’s population is of the Judeo-Christian / Muslim belief in an omnipotent, omniscient, personal and loving God. Given this information, it can hardly be said that it is “fashionable to blame everything on religion these days.” Nick is actually taking a pretty bold and brave stance and if you noticed has no support in the comments that surround his article. This at least deserves some respect. He sees a problem with religion and he is voicing it, though admittedly with a slight penchant for the melodramatic.

3. You say “Of course, people do kill in the name of religion: when people are committed to a group which they see as opposed to another group, often they will be prepared to go to all sorts of lengths for it. In parts of the world people will kill in the name of their local football team, in spite of the fact that a football team does not itself have anything to do with violence. See where I’m going with this?” :

There’s a significant difference between the occasional sports related killing compared to that of the all too well known religiously charged wars, genocides, ethnic cleansings, and whatnot. Football produces the occasional drunk fight between opposing fans at times leading to a fatality. Football, however does not have sacred texts chronicling instances of God commanding “his people” to kill an opposing group of people who inhabit a land which he has decided to hand over to his elect group. Furthermore, religion, unlike football, in nearly all circumstances is started by some sort of personal and divine revelation which is only known to the one person having the revelation and requires, in essence, blind faith by the adherents of that religion… you can see the danger in this which is what I think Nick is talking about in his chart. Football is tangible, it requires no faith, which coincidentally is responsible for far fewer deaths than religion as well. The deaths in football as I mentioned are generally caused by occasional drunken brawls, while religion has on many occasions encouraged its followers to seek out those of other religions to harm or kill them and has been used to legitimize and fuel wars.

4. You say “People will of course bring up things like the Spanish Inquisition. It’s interesting to note that far more people were murdered “in the name of Reason” during the French revolution, or in the name of state atheism in the Soviet Union. :

First of all I don’t know that we can really dig up the numbers and statistics to really back this claim. Religion has had a much longer life span the the Soviet Union and given the total death toll caused by ALL religions it may be more than that of the Soviet Union. Also, to use the argument that while the Spanish Inquisition was bad, but that the French Revolution and Soviet Union were worse is not exactly an argument in favor of the good and advantageous aspects of religion. It’s like saying, using the Soviet Union again… “People will of course bring up things like Nazi concentration camps. It’s interesting to note that far more people were murdered in the name of state atheism in the Soviet Union.” Please forgive the use of such a potent and disgusting example but what I am trying to show is that just because the death and suffering toll under one circumstance is higher than the other does not make the one with less death and suffering morally good or acceptable.

5. You say “Another point I’d like to make is that you don’t have to be gullible or stupid to be religious. The story of the Bible, the Koran etc is plausible, if you allow that certain things about the universe cannot be observed or confirmed – hardly illogical.” :

I am not very familiar with the Koran, however, the Bible from what I know is comprised of many stories and many of which are not plausible at all given the things about the universe that we can and do observe and which are confirmed. In fact, many of my fellow Christians hold that faith is belief in the implausible or impossible, which is admittedly quite illogical. However, I agree with you that you don’t have to be gullible or stupid to be religious, but this of course requires the need to define the term “religious”, which is a task we can leave for another time.

6. You say “Religion is basically comprised of a)moral laws and b)traditions. The moral laws are useful to society, the traditions may be non-nonsensical but are harmless.” :

Religion is primarily comprised of personal/individual revelation, then as it becomes more accepted and established it focuses more on the practical issues of moral laws and traditions. Furthermore, if you actually read the sacred texts of many religions you will find many moral laws and traditions that are conveniently ignored by its followers due to their inapplicability in today’s society. For example, in Exodus, the second book of the Bible God revealed to Moses, and only Moses, that anyone found breaking the Sabbath should be put to death. And to follow up this command to make the point more potent, there is even an example of a man who simply collected firewood on the Sabbath who was subsequently stoned to death. Luckily, despite being one of God’s strict commands, we continue to disobey this order. But this is far from harmless. Also, many people in the Southern United States used the Bible, both old and new testaments to justify slavery. Also, most religions continue to hold on to teachings about how women should be treated which is in most cases sub-human and usually like some sort of farm animal to be used simply for the utilitarian purposes of the patriarch. Also, there are issues of sexuality, most notably, the traditions handed down that cause fear and hatred toward homosexuality. Also, there are countless instances of groups or sects interpreting prophecies to mean that Jesus is coming back and so they sell all possessions and wait for the second coming. This very idea of the second coming has caused many people to have no cares for pressing global and environmental issues due to their fatalistic paradigm that the earth and this life do not matter because Jesus is coming back by (insert date of many false predictions though the current popular one is December 2012). There are religions that tell people they need to have many children for God, which after a certain point is horrible for the health of the woman and also puts an impossible strain on the earth. There are religions with traditions and rules about medicine and so called faith healing. A child with, say for example Diabetes, is only prayed for but is given no medical attention and dies. This is certainly harmful to that child who did not choose the religion of his or her parents but nevertheless faced the consequences of the traditions and rules.
In short, some traditions are harmless but some are quite harmful. The issue is up for debate and worth discussion. Thank you Nick for bringing these issues up, I have appreciated your thoughts and input and enjoyed sparring back and forth with you though it has been awhile since I have been able to.

“If we are to understand another’s belief, then we must also understand the deficiencies and inadequacies of our own.”
The Varieties of Scientific Experience
-Carl Sagan

Indeed, it was the belive in God that we all moved on from that.

Matt, can you please explain this in more detail? I’ve very interested in how that’s possible.

“You all must remember todays scientist are tomorrows fools. Back in the day, I was told that the world was flat, by the “smartist people on earth.”

When something can be backed up and proven with strong evidence, science allows change if an error is indeed made. This is the process of learning, growth and progress. Religion does not offer such things. It remains forever uncivilized and backwards while doing nothing but encouranging its victims to live in fantasy dreams…

“It has been “fantasies and dreams” that the foundation of all science has relied on. It was a dream to fly. It was a fantasy to go to the moon. Clearly, religion does nothing for you. But to dream and to fantasies is to learn,build, and grow. Can I get an Amen!’

Our (as in human) fantasies and dreams gave science a goal, something to reach for. The process to actually make those dreams real are firmly rooted in reality. Wishing as hard as we could that we would magically lift up off the ground didn’t get us anywhere. Observing that if you create a surface in a certain way air will flow faster over the top of the it than the bottom which will then result in an upward force did far more to get us in the air than a fantasy or a dream ever did.

I’ll give you a nema : )

“It has been “fantasies and dreams” that the foundation of all science has relied on. It was a dream to fly. It was a fantasy to go to the moon. Clearly, religion does nothing for you. But to dream and to fantasies is to learn,build, and grow. Can I get an Amen!” ~ matt the coolist

I did not say “fantasy and dreams”. I said “fantasy dreams”. There is a difference between this two.

Anyways, Science encourages people to fantasies and dream of things that can be achieved within the natural world backed up with facts and evidence. Religion encourages people to fantasies and dream of things that it thinks it can be achieved outside of the natural world backed up with nothing but faith and beliefs.

“Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up must come down, down, down. Amen! If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it.” ~ Dan Barker , ex-Christian preacher and musician for 17 years

And thank you Rob for that well said explanation…

Well we all have opions do we not? So I guess we are all Ignorant. Hippocrates included.

“outside of the natural world”, Must mean there is an “inside the natural world”. So if you like to join do so on your own accord, not mine.

All of this still points to my two orginal points A.Todays scientist are tomorrows fools. B.Man did not create flight but discover the tools to make flight possible.

Are you the one? Your last statement is why science is lost. Science goes back to get the same results. To “get” thing right I quess.

Matt, what do you think the purpose of science is? Is scientific advance important? Why/why not?

You didn’t answer my question at all Matt. I asked is scientific advance important?

If a higher being is proven to exist, should all scientific research stop? If a higher being is proven then we should probably just put all of our effort in trying to contact it and trying to get it to solve our problems, or at least give us the solutions to our problems.

You seem very certain of your belief in a higher being, so that is why I ask. And if you still feel scientific advance is important, why?

Is knowledge nothing more than “experiencing” truth? If the human mind is very highy prone to delution what seperates your mind from the same delusion.

I think it’s great that people study and advance the human race through science. It’s a noble persuit. Certainly, science is important. And figuring ways to keep people warm in the winter and cool in the summer is great as well.

My problem with science is found in the aragonites of it’s people. What we know today will look foolish to people in the next 100 years. ( my world in flat example). Or the science of “building a ship that will never sink-Titanic-.”

Further, I have notice a lot of people using quotes from others to try and prove thier point. Hippocrates, Suesan B. Anothy ect. Certaily Hippocrates was a great man. Certainly, he had his own opions about things. So his quote though cute, is inane in practice. And to suggest that offering an opion puts you in the class of ignorance is in it’s self ingnorant.

It is nice that you guys are trying.

That was very well said and expressed, Aaron. Thank you.