Discussion the “heinous crimes of all organized religion” 1 of 6

ath 4.jpg

On occasion I am contacted my Atheists, et al., who think that I am an Atheist merely based on reading my website’s title: True Free Thinker. When all segments are posted, you will be able to find them all here.

In this case someone I will simply call “Anon” wrote the following to me:

On occasion I am contacted my Atheists, et al., who think that I am an Atheist merely based on reading my website’s title: True Free Thinker. When all segments are posted, you will be able to find them all here.

In this case someone I will simply call “Anon” wrote the following to me:

Something I’ve noticed on just about every blog regarding the Bible is that historical events are left out. The discussion is restricted to a book that theologians admit nobody really knows the names of the authors. A book whose stories are easily 4 or 5 person hearsay. Does your blog address the heinous crimes of all organized religion? If so, which article(s) address them?
I’m not talking about the terrible crimes committed by Israel in the Old Testament, or the crime of lying to protect the faith that is promoted in the New Testament. I’m talking about the crimes against humanity that are a direct result of organized religion.

I look forward to your reply.

We will see that he will end up getting into both the OT and NT but for now, I, Ken Ammi, replied thusly:

Good day,
I hope to find you well.

Something to the likes of this one may be what you have in mind:
https://truefreethinker.com/articles/atheist-wars-vs-religious-wars

That article is about how “religious wars” account for less than 7% of an estimate 10,000 of wars.

Anon replied:

Thanks for the reply but…

The article isn’t really what I was asking. I’m wondering though if I have your agenda correct because the name of your website implies a freedom, or disconnect, from organized political and religious thinking yet the impression I get is you are pro-organized religion and pro-government.

Is that correct? If so, if hired as a speaker, what would you say to a group of people whose family lives were ruined because of the prejudice and bigotry of organized religion, or, do you believe organized religion to be void of all the isms such as sexism, racism, etc.

I look forward to your reply.

My reply:

Appreciate the follow-up, friend.

Well, I suppose that if hired as a speaker I would point out, up front, the utter importance of defining terms before jumping into discussions.

Thus, I would note that “organized religion” seems no better than disorganized religion. Yet, more importantly, that referring to “religion” is painting with a generic broom and so more specificity would be required. This is so since even if we manage to define “organized religion,” we would then have to distinguish one particular one from another.

For example, some “religions” that have exhibited sexism, racism, etc. did so in keeping with their principle and some did so in violation of their principles.

Also, since you read the article you saw that it is a verifiable historical fact that all organized and disorganized religions combined are responsible for less than 7% of 10,000 years’ worth of war (and that one particular organized religion, Islam, was involved in half of those even though it is a relatively new one) and that Atheist set the serial and mass murdering world’s record in mere decades even though they had much, much, much less time to pile up a body-count.

So “to a group of people whose family lives were ruined because of the prejudice and bigotry of organized religion” I would first express my broken heart.

I would also explain that given the verifiable historical fact, rejecting organized or disorganized religion is no guarantee of safety from ruined family lives, prejudice, bigotry, or anything else.

We could then discuss the specifics of which organized religion did what to whom and thus, whether they violated their principles or not.

And, of course, I would note that if, say, one rejects organized religion—meaning rejecting theism (with “theism” also being generic)—and opts for, say, Atheism, then again one would be opting for a worldview very much largely responsible for ruined family lives, prejudice, bigotry, serial mass murder, etc. and one would not even have God to blame anymore.

Yet, the key would be that if one opts for that, opts for rejecting God, then one would be all but forced to conclude that we humans are temporarily and accidentally existing apes or ape relatives who invented sets of rules (morals) to live by and in order to control people. On that view, all that ruined family lives, prejudice, bigotry, serial mass murder, etc. would really mean is that some apes/ape relatives subjectively interpret accidental bio-chemical neural reactions within their haphazardly evolved brains to the conclusion that ruined family lives, prejudice, bigotry, serial mass murder, etc. is not pleasant and therefore subjectively “wrong.”

But then again, on the view that the universe, the milky way galaxy, the solar system, the Earth, life, our brains are all results of unplanned, undersigned, unguided, accidents then some apes/ape relatives survive a few more years than others and that is about all.

Furthermore, if we are concluding that ruined family lives, prejudice, bigotry, serial mass murder, etc. is wrong only because some apes/ape relatives de jour in some parts of the world decided that they are wrong, then other apes/ape relatives can hold to different opinions and/or change their minds and it becomes a battle of the wills—survival of the fittest (for whatever accidental reason, or rather lack thereof, life seeks to survive).

Moreover, we could discuss how on such a view, the apes/ape relative who perpetrated the ruined family lives, prejudice, bigotry, serial mass murder, etc. did what they did, enjoyed it, benefited from it, and literally got away with it since there is not only no absolute manner whereby to condemn them but also no transcendent judgment.

In fact, some very well-known Atheists have stated that rape played a beneficial role in human evolution. Thus, Atheism turns what we may subjectively decide to call wrong, in terms of pain and suffering, into good.

And so pain and suffering are some of the very best reasons for rejecting Atheism since it destroys any way to condemn pain and suffering beyond subjective emotive personal preferences, makes pain and suffering beneficial for those who perpetrate it and ensures that they got away with it even whilst calling pain and suffering good.

Better to opt for an “organized religion” that possesses principles which condemn ruined family lives, prejudice, bigotry, serial mass murder, etc. (all given certain qualifications) on absolute terms, at least claims transcendent judgment, at least claims the ability to redeem it all, etc.

We will pick up with Anon’s reply in the next segment.

For some related info, see my books (on which I am offering a money saving deal):
Pop-Atheist Bible Expositors featuring Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Dan Barker and Neil deGrasse Tyson.
Reasons for Being an Atheist: A Comprehensive Guide
From Zeitgeist to Poltergeist: A Consideration of Richard Dawkins’ Polemics Regarding Christianity, Atheism, Communism, Nazism and Evolution
The Wild and Wacky World of Atheist Bus Ads and Billboard

ath 4.jpg

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.