Heed them.

May 16, 2011

What's Secularism?

It’s often said that religious teachings revolutionized many societies in a positive humanitarian manner. In certain cases they did. Wherein the individual is directly deferred from loyalty to a king, to loyalty to a god, at the very least he has been deffered from  loyalty to a king. Most beliefs in royalty have since been absolved, but loyalty to a god, still puts humanitarian interests second to religious ones.

Religionists have simply replaced their previous KING with a universal one, and find similar complacency in it. They divert personal responsibility to determinism, believing that King/God will take care of any and every person if they have loyalty in him.

So as the religionist of a developed nation swings in his hammock of belief, and the desperate religionist of a hellish nation hides under a blanket of belief, the outraged humanitarian atheists hair is turning white with effort to not only address humanitarian crises but un-convert the religious. He sees with clear vision the evils of religionism- The evils are not in the texts, in the practices, or even the imaginary presence of  a god. The evils are in the mental condition of the religious believer.

A reglionist is  less likely to do the best he can for humanity. This is proven logically and pragmatically in statistics. Even if his religious text teaches the most humanitarian lessons, the believer is still likely to assume that god(being in control of everything), will make sure those ideals are upheld- rather than he the individual. He himself may follow those humanitarian ideals, as if they were directions on baking a cake, rather than because of his own conscience. And he will not require those humanitarian ideals be upheld by others; for god will  punish them for their evil deeds.

On the surface he is loyal to god, but in effect he is only loyal to himself. He feels that the affairs of anyone he doesn’t deal with personally is not his responsibility. What could be less humanitarian than that? In the case of attempts by religionists to improve the human condition, those attempts are always second to attempts to convert the non-believers.

Now let’s get to brass tacks. Atheists in all nations commit far less violent crime than their god-fearing counterparts. Atheists doctors have been found to do more to treat the patients, and if they must, forego their own payment, than religious ones. The reasoning is simple- atheists believe that humanitarianism rests on them and other peoples input alone, whereas religionists feel it is mostly out of their hands.

For every humanitarian crime that may have been prevented by following the teachings of a religion, there is at least a ten-fold multiplicity of crimes which are committed by individuals who believe that god works through them, everything is meant to happen, and through the grace of their loving god they will be forgiven for every evil deed. The atheist has no such safety net. If he hurts a person, he can never be cosmically forgiven.

He is forever guilty. That’s one hell of a deterrent.


  1. I was reminded of this quote for some reason:

    "Just think, if a public proclamation were suddenly made, announcing the repeal of all criminal laws; I fancy neither you nor I would have the courage to go home from here under protection of religious motives. If, in the same way, all religions were declared untrue, we could, under the protection of the laws alone, go on living as before..."--Schopenhauer.

  2. >In the case of attempts by religionists to improve the human condition, those attempts are always second to attempts to convert the non-believers.

    I heard, on Philosophy Bites this morning :
    and there was a mention of how, in some religious understandings, loving your neighbor for your neighbor's sake is wrong, but loving your neighbor for God's sake is right. I now think this is the opposite of authenticity.