mouthporn.net
#anti religion – @religion-is-a-mental-illness on Tumblr

Religion is a Mental Illness

@religion-is-a-mental-illness / religion-is-a-mental-illness.tumblr.com

Tribeless. Problematic. Triggering. Faith is a cognitive sickness.
Avatar

Humans already have rules, both legal and social, that detail our obligations to one another and society. But since these rules can be derived from first principles, they don’t require any god or any religion, and therefore provide no extra-societal power or control.

Enter “sin.” The most unforgivable of which is not believing or submitting to this nonsense in the first place. If you don’t recognize their self-declared authority, then they can’t control you, and that’s just unacceptable. Which is why non-believers are to be shunned or killed, lest they undermine the scam.

You’ve probably encountered someone who says something like “we all sin, we all do bad things.” Every time I’ve heard that has been them attempting to justifying their god and its rules, but particularly while rationalizing the fact their superstition says that their god tortures people for eternity. As if this is all that needs to be said about eternal torture.

"Sin” and “bad things” - that is, morally wrong - are two completely separate categories that they’re trying to make synonymous. Selling you the Bailey disguised as a Motte.

Slavery was not - and still is not - a sin, according to Abrahamic scriptures. Eating lobster, picking up sticks on the Sabbath, and having premarital sex were (and still are, unless Jesus was a failure), the last two punishable with death. Drinking alcohol and having a musical ringtone are haram, but throwing acid in your daughter’s face is not. Here are several lists of things that are sins or haram:

In the lists above, ignore the rules that are already codified in law and existing social obligation, that you’ll find all around the world because humans have successfully figured out what’s important to facilitate co-existence. Like murder and theft. When you’re killing and stealing from each other, social cohesion evaporates, and the tribe quickly dies out. So, duh. These are rules that are merely retelling and not revelation, that humans have understood for thousands of years. These rules provide no new information and are only there for the illusion of moral authority, an air of legitimacy, even as the religions themselves outright prescribe killing. Their inclusion lets them pretend “sin” is the same as “bad” and that religion is the basis for morality in the first place.

Next, notice the rules that make it a “sin” not to proselytize. This partly means preying on the vulnerable, partly means annoying people so that you value the safety of the congregation and away from the heathens, and partly about performative acts to deepen commitment.

The remainder, originating solely by religious doctrine, are completely self-serving. When they’re not demanding the promotion of religious dogma to others, they’re either control-freak rules about pointless minutae (e.g. foods, which hand to wipe with) based on superstitions as juvenile as “step on a crack,” or they’re destroying self-esteem by making it a “sin” to not hate yourself, to be ashamed for how your body (that “god” designed) works - e.g. masturbation, sexual attraction. Or declaring certain emotions or reactions un-glorifying to “god” and therefore worthy of shame.

It’s probably quite common to be interrupted while masturbating, or to be a little regretful for reacting emotionally in the heat of the moment, and to wish you’d kept a level head. It might be embarrassing, you might have regret, but it doesn’t make you a bad person. Yet these are amplified as “sins” to foster shame over non-issues and offer you the solution to that shame.

That is, they de-humanize humans, reviling humans for being human. Demanding people to be “perfect” in a way that is arbitrary and doesn’t even make sense. Especially if the “god” is responsible for our existence and nature in the first place.

And then the real scam, condemning them when they, inevitably, are not perfect, and offering the “fix”. That is, they create the imaginary problem, and then offer the imaginary solution.

“Sin” is new, invented ways for you to feel like you’re not good enough, for the religions to agree and really drive it home that you simply aren’t, and then, conveniently, offer the solution to the problem they created or fostered in the first place.

Source: twitter.com
Avatar

Went through the atheism # and saw some hurt Christians crying that atheists should 'respect their Christian followers and their right to believe' ?? Why do we have to 'respect' them? Why do they have the right to believe but we don't have the right to NOT believe? I'm so tired of this

Avatar

Well, we really should respect people’s right to believe, as that’s a value of a Modern-era, Liberal society: freedom of thought, freedom of expression, individual liberty, privacy, self-determination, etc.

Putting aside religious superstitious bull-crap, freedom of thought, expression and belief is important to human progress. Galileo and Giordano Bruno suffered under the pre-Modern notions of independent, heterodox thoughts being blasphemous, dangerous and to be eradicated. But they were both right, and this mentality retarded our understanding of our world.

There are plenty of others throughout history who have made a positive impact through a new idea that they were free to express. People have to be free to have ideas and be able to express them so that we can evaluate them, find the good, useful ones and adopt them. And that necessarily means living with the leftovers. You can’t take the good without putting up with the bad. Or even just the expired and vestigal.

(Ironically, a post-Modern society looks a lot like pre-Modern society, with a need to control language and discourses, and abject terror of freedom of speech and deviation from orthodoxy, at the threat of social execution... but that’s another conversation.)

Of course we have a right to NOT believe. And that’s certainly the argument you should be having with any of them. The rules should apply universally. If you can’t express yourself, they don’t get to express their Xtianity.

[Insert list of bible verses instructing Xtians to be kind to non-believers, other verses telling them turn the other cheek to (imaginary) “persecution” -- but I can’t be bothered right now.]

What we’re not obliged to do is respect the beliefs themselves. We can evaluate them based on their merits, the reasons why people claim them to be true, find them stupid, irrational, absurd and reality-defying, and explain why.

We can push those beliefs to the extreme edges of our society, by articulating why they’re unreasonable, why they fail, and demonstrating better alternatives (e.g. education, humanism). As is gradually happening with the decline of religion in secular societies, fortifying the secular separation that grants them the right to have their beliefs in the first place. Separation of church and state is as important to religious freedom as it is to freedom from religion. The secularism that grants them the right to have their religion and practice it without undue influence also protects you (and society). This goes both ways.

I don’t believe what you believe, and I don’t have to. I defend your right to hold, express and live by your own belief system, but you have no right to impose any of it on me.

Someone has the right to believe that one race is superior to another, that gremlins live in their shoes, or that Battlefield Earth is the best movie ever made. Flat Earthers can think whatever stupid conspiracy shit they like about the nature of our planet, but they don’t get to have it taught in school or have all our car navigation systems fucked up to use their model of Earth. You know, if they actually had one, since they don’t.

That right stops at the boundary of their individual personage. They have no right to conscript the collaboration of others or society as a whole, to have it written into law, to act to the detriment of others based on those beliefs, or expect them to be validated and supported by those who don’t share them. What our law is intended to do is manage behavior, to standards that are fair to everyone - or as fair as possible.

We should be willing, if it’s safe to do so, to push back on religious beliefs - or indeed those of any other ideology - having a default expectation of unearned respect. And get them accustomed to this kind of pushback.

You are using an unsupported browser and things might not work as intended. Please make sure you're using the latest version of Chrome, Firefox, Safari, or Edge.
mouthporn.net