Yesterday I listed 3 emotional criticisms which led to me having left the catholic church and today I tell you 3 more cognitive reasons against religions.
4.) The errors of old books
The main and most obvious error lies actually in those texts which are taken as the absolute word of god.
If they are taken at face value for contanining the absolute word of god, then why did god leave humankind in ignorance until then? Were all humans before the book appeared not worthy of receiving god’s word?
Logic dictates that a believer in one of those religious texts has to dismiss all previous books as erroneous, which then renders the question why only their book is the right one, which then inevitably leads to an elitist attitude – something which usually is contraindicated.
A display of the ignorance of elitism is the fact that people usually stick to the religion they were born into – they should reconsider if they aren’t willing to convert to another faith, why should others convert to theirs?
When arguing with any orthodox religious fanatics the main argument which ever comes again is:
“but in my childhood-(fairy-)tale (which is the only truth) is written…”
It simply does not make any sense for me why people would be so stupid and stubborn to still believe in some book which is full of errors, inconsistencies. only because they were dogmatised with it as a child.
The Jewish Torah and parts of the old testament of the Christian bible are identical.
Both have a protagonist who in countless examples did set up traps to sin for human kind, only to kill millions of them for failing god’s temptations later, whilst it’s antagonist, Satan, however did not kill anyone.
This list of bible errors shows that it definitely can’t be understood literally, but should be viewed in a spiritual context. The same goes for the Quran and most other religious texts.
It took me a while to realise what is going on there:
Religion is actually an issue of our inner child. We were conditioned to fear, love and cherish a certain authority and our inner child holds on to the first concept because we fear that without the continuation of cherishing it we would loose our own innocence. So religious people continue hammering their own conditioning into the next ones in order to ensure the survival of their own innocence.
The flaw in this logic is that the brotherly love which is preached is violated by trying to force others to adhere to religious people’s own conditioning, merely to ensure its authorisation to what believers belief to be their innocence.
Tthe irony, however, is that innocence can not be preserved in a glass-jar but has to be reclaimed on a daily basis through ones sincerity and moral integrity.
5.) an unhealthy encrustation twisting good values into polluted ones
Since the total dedication to an ancient book (whether it is the Torah, the Quoran, the Bible, or talks from spiritual masters of any direction) are a “frozen in time” approach, they contain many obsolete teachings which were great advice at the time, but in our times are now not only obsolete, but also sometimes even counterproductive. Just to pick out three:
- The old Testament or Torah approach for “an eye for an eye’ was meant to limit violence to an adequate level (meaning not to kill without a reason),
but in times where justice is blurred by complexity of justice, political behind-the-scenes-strategies and weapons of mass-destruction, such a philosophy is used to turn the public opinion into a mere justification for violence which drives the spiral of violience higher and higher.
- The rule for Jews and Muslims not to eat pork was a good protection agains the Trichinosis , which was not known 2000 years ago, but in times of fridges and scientific food-control, is outdated.
- The advice of the Bible to “be fruitful and multiply” when the world population was only 150-300 million humans small, was great advice to ensure the tribal survial, but in our times of overpopulation, it strongly should be reconsidered whether bringing more humans onto this planet of whom most due to their low-consciousness-behaviour destroy it. Reality meanwhile made a full circle and the only ones who should multiply are the species us humans did endanger.
6.) The circular reasoning prohibiting a versatility
I once was invited to watch a very long video in which someone “proofed” that god would exist. The big flaw of that house of cards was that it all started by the assumption that god would exist and then brainwashed people into such a complexity that the producers certainly hoped for the viewer to have lost their own initial train of thought by the end of it.
In the same way there usually is no way to argue scientifically with creationists, because the entire discussion is founded on the belief they were indoctrinated by their only book and therewith has to take place on their turf, meaning within their mental construct.
Whenever you find so called “proofs” for miracles or god on the web, enjoy them, but be clear that there a real proof is not a spectacular confirmation of the posters desire for reality to be to their liking.
I don’t say that god doesn’t exist; but merely define the divine as an all pervading force, something which cannot be imposed on others, but has to be explored over decades within oneself.
If you really want to know how it was with the creation, just watch this video here: