This is the conclusion to yesterday’s post. If you missed the first part, go back and read it! This is definitely something that is worth your time to read.

Did none of the translators have an agenda that might cause them to falsify a bit on interpretation?  It would always be “For our own good,” of course.  “The ends justify the means” has been used very often in human affairs.  Consider the King James version of the bible.  Because the translators were being paid by King James, could it be that they were careful not to include anything that would offend his majesty?  For example, nothing in the bible addresses the “Divine right of Kings” either pro or con.  Could it be that something was conveniently omitted in this regard?

The facts are that there is not one bit of evidence to support religion and creationism while there are millions of pieces of evidence to support science and evolution.  Similarly, there is no evidence to support a protective, loving god and plenty of evidence to support a random, chaotic universe albeit with some clearly defined laws such as gravity, conservation of energy, and causality.  Even these, as Steven Hawking postulates, may only be local phenomena.

Take the issue of prayer, would an omniscient, omnipotent being cared if we prayed to it or notice the posture we adopted?  That would be is if one of us expected an amoeba to worship us and flex its cell in a certain manner as it did.  Such demands would be unworthy of the deity we are supposed to believe in as ruling our lives.

Another basic tenant of religion is to instill guilt in people for any conduct not specifically approved by that particular creed.  The first area all religions and other repressive organizations attempt to control is sexual conduct.  Perhaps this is because the religionists know that if they control when, where, and how people are permitted sex, controlling the rest is easy.  Sex is the most natural and necessary of human functions and to restrict it is to ensure false guilt and great anguish in people.  One might as well say that breathing is wrong and should be rigidly controlled and permitted only under certain circumstances.

Perhaps a basic part of human nature is a need to feel superior to others.  If so, imposing artificial standards of conduct and then condemning anyone who fails to meet those standards would appeal to many people.  Does religion play well upon this tendency?  It would certainly appear to do so.  It teaches forgiveness and tolerance but practices these virtues only rarely and then only to those whom agree with the other principles of that religion.  The same people that condemn others are very often guilty of the same or worse “sins” themselves.  To quote Robert A. Heinlein, “The only real sin is hurting someone else unnecessarily.  Everything else is invented nonsense.”

If we examine the past and current practices of major religions, we can see that tolerance and acceptance are only given lip service but not practiced.  Take the words of Franklin Graham, son of Billy Graham. “Islam is an evil and very wicked religion.”  Not much tolerance or “Christian” love there, is there?  On the other side of the same coin, it is Islamic Mullahs that refer to the United States as “the great Satan” and urge followers to commit suicide bombings.  Neither religion contains much in terms of deeds to inspire people to be better human beings.  Israel, of all nations, should understand the need for a homeland and self-rule for people.  Yet, it has consistently denied the Palestinians the right to the same.  This is toward a people that share much in terms of race and religious background with them; no matter how much both deny it.

In Northern Ireland, Catholics and Protestants have been killing each other for many years even though they are both supposedly “Christian” and obviously are all Irish.  All of this is in the name of “God” as in “God Bless America” or “Got Mit Uns” (the German motto in WW I) and “Allah Akbar,” the universal Islamic credo.  So we are looking at conflicts where both sides are firmly convinced that “God” is supporting their cause and so will smite the infidels.

Having said all that, it is likely there are natural forces in the universe that we do not understand.  The writer, Richard Bach, once wrote an essay that stated the ancient Egyptians could fly.  They had bamboo, paper, linen, and all the components needed to build gliders.  The Nile Valley has good thermals and reliable winds so they could have had gliders that traveled hundreds of miles in their day.  But we know they didn’t because they were ignorant of the laws of aerodynamics even though those laws were as true then as they are now.  They didn’t know, so they didn’t go.

Could it be that there are other natural laws and forces of which we are now ignorant?  Experience in the martial arts has shown me that there are energies in the human body that are not well understood but work all the same.   We have all heard feats like little old ladies suddenly lifting a burning car off of a trapped child.  Physically, this should be impossible, the tendons and muscles of a human should not be able to do this.  But it still happens.  How?  Choose your own interpretation.  I believe it is chi, piranha, psychic energy, or “the force”.  Whatever you call it, some unknown but tangible effect of humans under stress.  Not magic, as the Egyptians would have regarded flight.  Someday, we might understand this as well as we know the laws of aerodynamics.

Today I have a guest post from James Smith. Recently he has been quite active in the comments on another post. His responses frequently featured smart rhetorics and great arguments. The post will be split up over two days as it is quite long, but well worth a read. If you like this, check his blog out.

Reading history, it is apparent that organized religion exists to make it easy for a small group of people to control a larger group.  Organized religion has been responsible for more human suffering, both physical and mental, and death than plagues, natural disasters, and wars. (many of which were about religion)

Consider that most religionists will not allow dissent or debate on their core issues.  If someone does dare disagree, they are invariably shouted down and condemned as “Godless Heathen”, “infidels”, “pagans”, shunned, or even killed.  Is this the command of a loving, protective god or the whim of an immature, vengeful deity?  “For I am a jealous god.”  “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.”  But isn’t there only supposed to be one god?

When your position will not allow argument or debate, the problem is not with the debate but with the position.  If you cannot defend your beliefs with facts, you should examine your beliefs and not mindlessly spout what you have been told.  A basic truth in life is that “Beliefs, no matter how sincerely held, do not alter facts.”

Religion does not encourage free speech or thought.  People thinking for themselves and discussing their thinking would be the destruction of organized religion.  Obviously, this cannot be permitted so they have priests, shaman, and clerics to tell us what to think and believe.  To quote H. L. Menken, “I believe that no discovery of fact, however trivial, can be wholly useless to the race, and that no trumpeting of falsehood, however virtuous in intent, can be anything but vicious.”

Even so, people will ignore the most obvious of facts to cling to their illusions.  Think about all the people who still smoke in spite of the often-repeated facts that they are killing themselves and others.  What about drug users?  People still start on drugs even when they have seen horrible examples of famous, wealthy people destroying themselves and even dying from drug use.  Most people believe and do what they want no matter what facts and evidence against it may be.  This one human characteristic can account for the existence of organized religion more than any other.  There is also the human tendency to want to believe there is something that will enable them to overcome their condition without any real effort on their part.  “God will save us if we only pray hard enough.”

Think about this.  If you knew of someone that was aware of a great evil being performed and that person could stop it with no danger or real effort to himself, yet does nothing.  Would you consider him to be as bad as those performing the evil acts?  More than likely, you would.  Yet, that is exactly what all deities do: nothing in the face of great evil and suffering.  Still, we are supposed to consider them to be loving, protective gods.  In human behavior, we call this being “an accessory after the fact” and you can go to prison for it in many countries.

The Christian/Jewish/Islamic tradition is of an omnipotent father figure taking care of each of us.  There is no evidence of this at all.  They all say you must “have faith.”  Does that mean believing in something we know can’t be true?  Then they say they have the torah/bible/koran.  These all were written by men, usually decades or centuries after the time they portray and have been translated many times from many languages.  Are no errors ever made?  Most languages use idioms and allegories that change over time.  Totally understanding these in a language not one’s own and that may no longer be spoken is not possible.  To attempt it is to invite errors of major proportions.  A good example is the English phrase, “putting on the dog” meaning to ostentatiously overdo something.  It is not universally used, even in English.  As a phrase, it makes no sense at all.  A translator, believing it to be the word of God, might assume we are to wear live dogs as part of a religious ceremony.  Admittedly, that makes as much sense as wearing gold robes and miters to “Glorify God.”  Ask yourself, “Would an omnipotent deity need or even desire any glorification from us?”  If there were a god, it appears that rather than being an omniscient, protective being we are seeing a juvenile, vindictive, cruel despot.