Tradition and culture is fine individually. As long as it harms no one other than yourself, go ahead.
However, when it is forced upon others, that is when it becomes a problem. This is most commonly seen in the form of indoctrination.
Indoctrination is the forcing of a religion, tradition, or culture on an innocent child. In today's society, this should be unacceptable. But, it happens regularly. A child is labelled as a 'Catholic child' or a 'Muslim child'. These phrases should cause outrage, as Dawkins rightfully points out. Why would you force something - something that will usually shape the way someone lives - on a child unable to think properly for itself? This is where indoctrination becomes harmful.
A child does not have the ability to decide for themselves whether a particular religion, tradition, or culture is sensible, right, or moral. What should be happening is this: parents should raise their children to think for themselves, to accept scientific evidence as right, and to discard views proved wrong by said evidence, even if these views happen to be justified by previous outdated scientific evidence.
Unfortunately, parents are bringing up their children to blindly believe in a faith which is unproven, and even has evidence disproving it. These children are left vulnerable for the rest of their lives. They are taught that blind faith is a virtue.
Some parents, surely the worst kind, even send their offspring to schools that teach false science. Schools that tell children that the earth is less that 10,000 years old. The amount of evidence against this is overwhelming. These schools are even funded by the British government!
Surely, children brought up to believe in something that has been disproven by significant amounts of reliable scientific evidence are not the way of the future, but rather, a step towards the past. These false teachings are only marginally better than teaching children that the world is flat.
A common argument for the indoctrination of children is as follows:
"This religion and it's holy book teaches us morals, and the difference between right and wrong."
This is usually said by Christians, the holy book being the Bible. In order to fully rebunk this argument, I shall direct you towards Richard Dawkins' masterpiece "The God Delusion". But, I shall also attempt my best here.
Those of you who have actually read the bible will know that there is as many, if not more, parts in it which would be seen as unacceptable today. Now, in relation to the moral Zeitgeist, which I shall not even try to delve into here, the 'morals' found in 'the good book' may have been acceptable at the time(s) of writing. Now, however, they are frightfully out of date.
Also, religion is not our source of morals. The 'moral lessons' found in the bible are mixed with many pitifully wrong and sick lessons. In order to choose right from wrong, as many theologists say they do, you need a basis to. . . base them on. A moral basis. You cannot try to say that religious people have an external source of morals that atheists simply do not have. Even if they did, the morals would originate from there, not the bible.
Without religion, we surely would still have our morals. Some religious apologists try to say that the existence of a god is our reasoning behind good and bad. So, according to these people, without a god, the world would be in chaos. How deluded these people are. If a god did exist, surely he would not accept people who are good simply because they are being watched. The most convincing argument against these people are atheists. Their very existence argues against that theory. Atheists do not believe in a god, and yet, the majority are still good people. They still have a very good sense of right and wrong.
Dawkins makes these points and many more. For fuller, better reasoning, read his books, The God Delusion in particular. Also, google him. Find his website. Tis very good.
So, I've gone from culture and tradition in family and society to an argument against religion. I couldn't help it. But, religion is probably the biggest source of culture and tradition in the world. And, as I have tried to point out, if only briefly, as there are many more arguments, religion is not necessary, and certainly not a good thing. Especially when indoctrinated at a young age.
So, it is my strong view that you are entitled to have your own culture, tradition, and religion. As long as your actions due to them do not harm others, and especially, I cannot emphasise this enough, as long as you DO NOT force these views on others, ESPECIALLY young children, even if they are your own. Let them think for themselves. Don't subject them to your views.
They are human too.
They have a right to make their own decisions.
Full of whatever. Be it song lyrics I've written, stories, or even poetry, it'll be here. Along with anything else I may decide to post, be it fictional or otherwise.
Showing posts with label Anti-religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Anti-religion. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Friday, April 16, 2010
On Christians and Exorcism.
Christians never cease to disgust me. If I use the term 'Christians' wrongly here, either complain/correct me, and I'll most probably ignore you, or get over it. Either way, get over it.
Anyway, back to the disgusting Christians. How do they manage to torture and kill people of their own faith without punishment? By blaming it on another religion, of course. I am, naturally, referring to exorcisms.
Here is what a Christian 'exorcism' seems to be to me:
- A believer is afflicted with a mental illness, is high, or both.
- People around them, and the believer themselves, jump to the conclusion of being possessed by a 'demon'. Of course, blame a rival religion. What have we ever done to them, except expose them for who they are?
- A priest is called in to perform the exorcism.
- The priest then proceeds to torture the 'possessed' with their own beliefs. The believer, being so believing, or mental, same thing really, often responds with spiritual, mental, and physical pain and hurt. I often wonder how much of this is subconscious acting, simply to fulfil the beliefs so deeply ingrained in their brainwashed/gullible minds.
- If the 'exorcism' is 'successful', the ex-possessed is now 'free of evil/Satan/demons/reason', and owes their life to their church. Their belief is now bolstered.
- Unsuccessful exorcisms end in murder.
How fucked up is that? Or is it just me? I wonder sometimes.
Now, go, read Dawkins. Think for yourselves.
Laugh at the silly Christians. Mock them!
Mock them, I tell you!
~Ashm
Anyway, back to the disgusting Christians. How do they manage to torture and kill people of their own faith without punishment? By blaming it on another religion, of course. I am, naturally, referring to exorcisms.
Here is what a Christian 'exorcism' seems to be to me:
- A believer is afflicted with a mental illness, is high, or both.
- People around them, and the believer themselves, jump to the conclusion of being possessed by a 'demon'. Of course, blame a rival religion. What have we ever done to them, except expose them for who they are?
- A priest is called in to perform the exorcism.
- The priest then proceeds to torture the 'possessed' with their own beliefs. The believer, being so believing, or mental, same thing really, often responds with spiritual, mental, and physical pain and hurt. I often wonder how much of this is subconscious acting, simply to fulfil the beliefs so deeply ingrained in their brainwashed/gullible minds.
- If the 'exorcism' is 'successful', the ex-possessed is now 'free of evil/Satan/demons/reason', and owes their life to their church. Their belief is now bolstered.
- Unsuccessful exorcisms end in murder.
How fucked up is that? Or is it just me? I wonder sometimes.
Now, go, read Dawkins. Think for yourselves.
Laugh at the silly Christians. Mock them!
Mock them, I tell you!
~Ashm
Labels:
Anti-religion,
Christianity,
Exorcism,
Rant,
Richard Dawkins
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)