Okay we all have to live together and we need informed choice to do that.  Get rid of lies and make a world where all have the courage and confidence to face even horrid truths.

The super-superstitions that need weeding out are,




EVIL: Debunk the bogeyman of evil and you consequently debunk God as a moral example. You refute prayer as an important or good thing. 

Let us look at evil.

Evil is a word for that which is considered to be intolerable for it is bad and if unchecked will do more harm.

Evil for many means anything that does not respect the human person and which is lacking in compassion and is unfair.

Evil for atheists does not need moralistic concerns but merely opposition to suffering.  This redefines evil.  Religion argues that this is too flimsy.  It says that just because an experience is horrible does not mean it is unfair or immoral.

Religion says evil is not a power but rather good in the wrong place and time and that evil is parasitic on good.  This is contrived to get it to fit the doctrine that God made all and all is good for God is good.

If evil is that then it is very deceptive.  It will hide among good things.  If it cannot be diagnosed accurately it cannot be handled.  Getting it out only sends it down another avenue to reemerge in time.

Religion then contradicts itself by saying that evil needs to be assessed right otherwise you are being evilly judgemental.

Then there is necessary evil like attacking an unborn child to save the mother.  But if we have an evil side it has to come out some way.  So you cannot really know if the reason somebody helps the woman is an evil one or necessary.  They could use a tragic situation to satisfy some malevolence.  You cannot see their motive. 

If evil has to emerge then you could think you are doing an unnecessary evil such as kicking a dog and be wrong.  If evil has to come out then it is a necessary evil.

There is no way at all to tell necessary evil from wanton evil.  None.  People hate evil but they want to see it at the same time for they fear it.

And if there are a thousand people and one has to die, you are going to choose the person who does evil whether willingly or not.  So don't pretend the evil in a person has nothing to do with how you value them.  "Love the sinner and hate the sin" is out.  God is out too for he claims he is the perfect keeper of that rule.  If evil needs eradicating, that means destroying the person regardless of whether they are willingly evil or not for they are dangerous.  And religious doctrine says evil always carries seeds and will grow and as it lurks you only see largely what it will let you see and the reality is much worse.

The failure of the doctrine of evil to agree with itself shows that the idea of a good God who is against evil is incoherent.

HELPFUL HIGHER POWER: We will simply discuss the widespread allegiance to a higher power whether than means a God or a pantheon of deities or just some kind of force.

Higher power here means one or more of the following,

That which can take control of a bad situation and heal it in a way only something bigger than us and smarter can.

That which can help us rise above our own abilities.

That which is always with us as a friend even if it is not doing anything right now

That which is the reason why there is a universe when there might not be anything.

It is not true that belief in higher power is good for everybody.

Is it good for anybody? It needs to be true. Otherwise you end up implicating, blaming the person who is trying to change and who cannot find any help from a higher power or the mere belief in one.

And you accuse the dying person who feels abandoned by all including the higher power of being blind. As the higher power is bigger than any errors the person can make you will have to say this blindness is wilful and they are doing it to themselves.  Faith adds to their suffering.

The higher power is no help when it comes to questions like, "Why should I be fair?  What grounds justice and therefore morality?"  There are only two possible answers, "Right and wrong are true whether there is a God or not", and, "There is no right or wrong unless God commands it so it would be good to boil pups to death if he said so".  The third answer says that good is God's nature so there is no higher moral standard than him and he cannot invent morality by mere commands.  It rejects the previous two.  But it is a cheat for then there is no reply to, "By what standard then do we know if God is good by nature?  Is it a higher standard than his nature or does he simply say his nature is good and that is enough?"  So we are back to where were started.  Right and wrong may be hard to account for if there is no God but they are overthrown altogether if there is one.

Religion says that unless there is a good God you have no real reason to be good.  You have no excuse either.   That threatens you to adopt a religious morality and contradicts the doctrine that true genuine devotion is never pressured like that.

Fact is that all moral codes claim to do the least possible damage.  In fact, one event leads to another as in a domino effect so you cannot really assess that at all.  What people do is look at a small part of a huge picture.  You never know if you made things worse in the long long long run by saving a drowning baby.  While people will tell you that you cannot know it all but have to make do with working towards the nearest benefits instead of trying to assess what is centuries away, the idea of a divine being giving the same command to save babies to me and to you is ridiculous.  He does have access to all the information.

Nobody mentions that everybody has a harmful uncaring streak so our attitude is, "Okay I cannot think about the wellbeing of babies in 4000 AD but stuff them."

MIRACLES: People report miracles such as Jesus rising from the dead and the Qur'an being without errors and coming from Allah as his written word.

What happens is something occurs as expected and suddenly there is a reversal.  For example, Jesus dies and then he is back.  That is all the alleged witness to a miracle will see.  They have not the slightest right to presume exactly what the miracle was but they do.  They chant, "God raised Jesus from the dead."  But why not, "Some power put him into a miracle coma and he came out of it.  He was not dead"?  Or, "Some power has cloned him so it is not him"?  Or, "The visions are miraculous illusions or hallucinations"?  One guess is as good as another.  Anyone saying exactly what the miracle was is only surmising.  For that reason, religion saying, "But there is evidence that makes it probable that Jesus rose," is IRRELEVANT!  It is a crafty distraction.  Even if in principle science could agree that a miracle probably happened, it does not follow that it can use this principle. 

The religious claim, "If outsiders had affidavits and records of cross-examination of the witnesses to the miracles of Jesus they still would not believe" is nasty and unfair.  Who cares if they believe or not as along as they admit there is evidence?  All reasonable people agree that hearsay is no good and only good evidence counts and we should let it teach us.  Evidence should guide you to what to believe and nothing else.  The claim shows that any alleged evidence is really about window-dressing and they don't respect evidence and truth at all.  They want their own version of truth to be the truth.

In fact even miracle believers will not cherish and promote good testimony to any miracle they don't want to believe in.  UFO witnesses who excel the evidence of the New Testament for the resurrection in making their claims will not be heeded.  The believers lie that they respect human testimony so much that they believe those who say Jesus rose. 

The sceptic simply holds that "Evidence is what matters with regard to reports of supernatural or paranormal or outlandish wonders.  Even good testimony is inferior to that and the religionists need to be honest that they think that too."

Lourdes etc
Free Books