HOME   People do good because they are human, not because they are religious! 

Do not give God any credit for the good they do, they did it!


Many say that religion is good and that those who claim to be religionists and do evil in its name have nothing in reality to do with the religion.


All reasonable people know there is such a thing as corporate blame.  If religion is to be blamed as a whole for what some of its members do then it is down to the fact that every organisation can expect that those who it considers its own will sometimes do bad.  And additional ways it can be blamed are if it has no real power to help people to become good or has empathy for evil, sympathy for evil or just commands evil.  None of the blame justifies punishing the whole religion for having some terrorists in its number but it does justify challenging and reprimanding the religion.


What if religion is good? Does that mean that if it goes violent it does not necessarily lead to violence? The scary thing is it can lead to violence WITHOUT necessarily leading to it.  And what is even scarier some hypocrites define religion as good so they refuse to admit that and thus they smear their own hands with the blood spilled because of religion.

Peace is more than just the absence of war. Most people involved in war do not fight.  Thus it is stupid to argue that because a religious entity or nation is not at war that it is good and practicing a religion of peace.  It is stupid to argue that a religion that has a problem with child sex abuse is not harmful to children.  What are the members of the religion doing about abuse? The vast majority do nothing active at all.  To argue that some not all are bad or child abusers is to turn the plight of others into a numbers game. It does not matter if it is one or a million. It is about the suffering.  You know that is going to happen when you set up your religion so your religion and you are responsible.

The founder of a religion may have a definition of religion and what it is for. Even if the whole religion ends up with a different purpose from his that is still not what it is for. Only the founder can determine what the religion is and what it is for. You may have a purpose for his religion but it remains yours not the religion's.  A religion with a bad purpose is bad.   A bad religion is bad no matter how many good people are in it.  It is the purpose makes it bad.  The members degrade themselves if they refuse to do the bad things for they make themselves hypocrites.  And goodness is defiled when you let yourself be part of a bad religion.   To defile goodness is actually worse than to just be bad.


Christianity indeed is just Christianity.  Islam indeed is just Islam. A moderate is just a hypocrite. Every ideology has "supporters" who water it down and lie about it.  Truth is narrow so a religion that claims to be the truth has to be necessarily narrow.


Some sycophants make out that religion is by definition and ontologically and in essence good and only good.  They are simply using a definition of religion that refuses to take the problem of bad religion as a problem.  And it is an insult to the founding fathers who made the Constitution of the United States neutral regarding religion for they had seen the grave hate and division and bloodshed caused by warring Christian faiths.  Anybody can play the just good game - maybe Hitler was not a politician for politics is about what is best for the people?  They are opening the door to such evil drivel.


Today the whole world is in danger from religious terrorists who blow themselves up to take innocent lives with them.  The argument that "they are radicalized to violence first and then use religion to justify it" is totally insulting. First, why does the suicide bomber for Islam always need a religious justification? Surely if he were radicalized to be violent he would not always want or need a religion justification. And second the Bible and Koran do command slaughter in the name of God. They admit religion has a dark side.  And third why is the religious justification the main one?  It is obvious that when man creates religion he can create ones that are intended to justify some evil.


If deplorable tyrants like Herod think there is a power in religion that ensures evil will be conquered by good and for good and that good will even defeat their schemes then why do they build temples and promote the religion? Why do they attend worship and sometimes lead religion as a prophet or priest or church official as if they have no fear that it will wean them away from their sin? Because they are right. They know there is no force in it that without you knowing it draws you to conversion that little bit day by day.

Those who do a lot of good often feel it is okay to do one dreadfully evil act. Do not see them as behaving out of character. They did something terrible which indicates not that they are having a blip but that they were doing good so as to get their conscience to let them do the terrible deed. The evil deed is evidence that evil is in them and did not just appear.  To see evil as a blip leads to being too soft on it and underestimating how it can be a deadly slow burner.

Nobody can change anybody else. The person with the best chance of getting a person to change by themselves is a God. Religion likes praise for preaching peace and love and justice but preaching is nothing and has nothing to do with members doing good or doing bad. Thus a religion when it claims to be good and that bad members do not represent it then it is saying it has a special power, perhaps natural or perhaps supernatural, to draw people into goodness or at least make them better than the norm. If that claim proves to be false the religion is to be condemned.


If bad people are representative of the religion they are more representative than the good why?  Because a good religion should do a good job of ensuring nobody goes too far.  And if a religion is represented by the good it has to be represented by the bad AS WELL.  You cannot take responsibility for good without risking taking responsibility for bad as well.  The two go together.


A religion would say the bad do not represent it or reflect on it.  Any crafty organisation can say the same so we do not buy it. Saying it proves that the religion is indeed represented by the bad


Religious people attend worship and are not subject to abuse and ostracism there. If they were they would soon decide their religion is bad and quit it. However when the religion condones its religious terrorists attacking innocents of other religions that is not bad enough for them to consider quitting the religion!  How selfish!


A poisonous barrell can have some good apples in it. The good apples have NOTHING to do with making the barrell less bad or okay.  They have even less to do with making the barrell good.  Prejudiced people do not want to see their religion and sometimes the religion of others as a bad barrell.  That is why when one complains about a bad religion they start pointing to the good people in it.


Religious believers when they learn that some of their number would warmonger for they are religiously prejudiced against another nation or group  if they had the political power to do so or become religious terrorists point to themselves and others as the good ones.  They are suggesting that no matter how much harm the bad ones do the good ones are so special that the harm hardly counts.  That needs to be seen for what it is: callous arrogant priggishness. 


The religion gives the bad ones a weak punishment or forgiveness which is just a way of being okay with what they have done while pretending to be opposed to it.  Giving somebody a weak punishment is a form of condoning.  And telling somebody God has forgiven them when it is up to God to communicate that even if he does not amounts to trying to get them forgiveness and not caring if it is real or not is also a form of condoning. Forgiveness to believers is the supreme good work and supreme message meaning that their goodness is really largely goodishness and hypocrisy.


Those who argue that religion can be used for violence usually deny that religion is for being used that way.  Then why do they say used and not abused?   Religion is dangerous even if not positively bad if it can be used for violence.


To say religion is only good is risky at best.  If religion can be used for violence then to attract people it needs people to think it is about goodness not violence. 


We cannot define religion as goodness for what if it is not?  Is it not better to blame the faith and the scriptures when religious people do terrible things?  It is an evidence question not a theory question.  Theorising that religion is good without letting the evidence decide is just lazy and just not caring enough about the problem and shows bias in favour of religion.


Evil and hate and violence that are fed by religion can be tempered by our natural instincts of tolerance and love of happiness but this has nothing to do with the religion being good.  It in fact confirms that it is bad.  It confirms that you are in no position to feel superior to the co-religionist who is a religious monster. To praise the religion is to insult tolerance and the crave for happiness which temper it.


Why do people lie that religion is goodness and inherently good?


Why lie?
The reason two-faced people lie that religion never harms is that they don't really care, are religious themselves or simply fear a religious backlash.


Cultural values and beliefs are so strong that they can turn you against good persons.  Their power is frightening.  Also, when people think culture will be soft on their evil they are more likely to engage in it.


Religious people know that if society begins to take action against religion if it is dangerous that they would end up in the firing line - sometimes literally.


The lie is promoted by politicians who fear the bother that will ensue if they recognise a religion's teachings and practices as harmful or risky.


The lie suggests that if by religion you mean a specific one that it alone is truly good and the others are inferior if not evil.  The lie suggests that if you mean all religions or the ones you know of then you are totally deluding yourself.  A faith that sacrifices animals cannot be equal to one that does not at least in that matter.


The lie leads to people who see that religion has problems and dangers of being called bigots.


So those who say that religion is pure goodness and that it is man not religion that there is a problem with need a reality check.  Let us extract what they mean.


Translation: "Religion is good but it can be used for evil or as a cover for evil. Therefore when religion is bad it is being abused and is not really bad. You cannot use clean fresh air to poison somebody."
This blames people not religion and refuses to care if religion is the problem. And some religions are more adaptable as a cover for evil than others. You should not be in a religion that becomes a cover to a greater extent than another religion does. The true colours of the good tree are known by its fruits.
If a religion is intrinsically good then the bad member is a lone wolf. But lone wolves do not really exist in the sense that none of us are totally individualistic. It is demonising the lone wolf to make religion smell of flowers.
If a religion is man-made and pretends to be from God how could it possibly be all-good? It is based on error and error is an evil and creates evil and risks evil.  If it wrongly thinks it is from God then that is error enough - it does not need any more errors.
The religion is good or okay for not all the members are bad thing pretends that religion is justified for it is intrinsically good and it tries to blame the bad ones as if it has nothing to do with them. It is based on lies.
Anyway a religion being good means little if it is the enemy of the best. People like to be good but they don't want to be very good.


Translation: "The evil or wickedness is not an indication or a symptom of a problem with the religion but with human nature."
They refuse to check or see if religion is the problem. They insult human nature by blaming it instead of examining the role of religion and faith. If you have to insult to be religious then that is proof that religion is bad or risky. It is a bad risk. Even the Bible God did not blame human nature but false religion when religious prostitution and idolatry was rife.


If human nature is the problem then if humanity makes religions then the religions will have the problem too.  To say a religion is not to blame and human nature is is to assume the religion really is from God.  If that is wrong then you are denying that it is a man-made religion and thus that it is as liable to doing harm as much as anything man-made is. 


If you don't know if the religion is man-made or not then it is still irresponsible to say humanity is to blame not it.  Religion is based on such irresponsibility and we do not need you enabling it.


Favourite religious vice


If religion is so good then why does each religion have its favourite vice or as some would call it, sin? Violence is the favourite sin of Islam (or Muslims) and bitching the favourite sin of Catholicism. Total disregard for the environment  is the favourite sin of Calvinism.  Avarice is the favourite sin of Mormonism. Discrimination against caste the favourite sin of Hinduism. Being a waste of space is the favourite sin of Buddhism.  Lying is the favourite sin of Scientology.


But religion has high moral standards!

Morality if necessary would be a necessary evil for it decrees that people who disobey must be made to obey or be punished. Religious morality cannot make a religion good but can only make it a necessary evil at best. It would follow that only one religion could be that necessary evil for only one religion can be all true or the most accurate.
Religious people do more “wrong” than just social wrong. To do what you think is wrong shows you intend to do wrong and that is bad even if it is not wrong. The atheist or non-religious person does not have this problem. The problem is a complete disproof of the notion that religion is not all bad and therefore okay. It is not okay. It is all bad in outlook and its core outlook even if in practice it is not too worrying.
Scientists and atheists who have serious disagreements among themselves about belief and knowledge do not persecute each other. Religious people have always set out to destroy people of a different religion to theirs. What is it about faith in God and the supernatural that leads to atrocity? Isn't religion about being good? In fact, the higher the moral demands a religion makes the more likely it is to turn bigot and persecutor. Big demands lead to people giving up trying or a backlash against the religion may arise. The religion does not like to tolerate any of that.
And worse, it invents moral rules - consider how it is a sin for a Catholic priest to invent a form of Mass that differs from the Missal even if the people hate the Missal. To invent moral rules is to make gibberish of your moral code. It is immoral to invent morals.
Religion is full of arbitrary doctrines and morals. Religion makes it a duty to believe that stuff. But people forget that arbitrary rules are intrinsically unfair and seek to harm the person that disobeys them perhaps by disapproving of them or punishing them in so additional way. A religion can seem good and act good but be latently evil. It can be passive aggressive when it stands by unhealthy and dangerous teachings and refuses to change them. People are quick to judge a religion with "moral" rules as good just because it has rules. It is not that simple.


Every religious organisation has people in it and “in” it who are better than the faith it preaches. The goodness of the people is natural. Thus it is wrong to say that good people show a religion to be okay as a religion. The goodness is irrelevant. But then how can you say that a religion is bad if its people are bad? If you cannot call a religion good can you call it bad? Or is it just beyond good and evil (which is like saying it is neither good or evil or both)?  The answer is that it has to be something.  The default is it depends and is about different shades of grey.  A religion with more bad people in it than good is too grey.  You cannot just call it good!  At best it is both bad and good and at worst it is bad!!

Some religions produce more bad people than you would expect. The religions will say they do not produce them but they just appear.   But they do not just appear.  People are formed by what they experience and are involved in and that includes religion. 


A religion has to involve human action. Without that there is no religion so it is essential. Thus religion cannot claim to be good for nothing is really that good that comes from humankind which is imperfect and inclined to hurt people. It can only claim to be trying but trying means it has to take responsibility for the wrongs done by its members for it identifies with them.

If religion claims to be good then it is being unrealistic for true good is not attainable. If your religion claims to be good and you realise that it is not attainable that will give you a terrible attitude towards dissenters from the religion and those who have never been part of it. The claim to be good is the reason why religion is so divisive and arrogant and sectarian.


Tries to oppose and undermine truth


To create a mental disconnect between a person and her place in the world is also to create an emotional disconnect. To oppose truth willfully or unwilfully is to give evil people permission to harm. Why not if truth does not matter? If you condemn them you will make them worse for they will see you as hypocritical and unfair. The condemning makes you worse not better. A faith that causes evil to flourish is actually better than one that does not but which allows evil to flourish. When your faith allows the evil of others to flourish, it is worse than one that lets the evil in you flourish.
We are keen to pay no heed when members of our religion do evil as long as it is not us doing the evil. That is why Catholics stay in the Catholic Church despite its role in protecting and encouraging child abuse by priests. We tend to categorise people as good or evil instead of admitting that instead of being good or evil, those people are countless shades of gray. Some are darker than others.
Even if atheism and secularism sometimes lead to evil, we need them. We do not need religion so we cannot say, "Evil will happen anyway, so religion should be supported even if it leads to some evil or even if some of its members are bad."
Faith in the supernatural is giving tacit approval to doctrines and practices and religions that protect those who do harm in the name of faith and God and religion. You may keep your hands clean but your heart is far from clean.
People who make a supernatural claim and who tell you to make excuses if it seems to be false are trying to stop you from seeing that it is false if it is indeed false. They do not inspire trust.


Religion manipulately wants to be labelled as good


Religion defines itself in a way to make itself look good. But a definition is only words and means nothing – it is the evidence that must define what something is. If a playschool advertised itself as perfectly and only good we would roar with laughter. But a religion can get away with it for it claims to be dealing with powers we do not understand that can avert human evil and destructiveness.  It hides its dark dealings under the cloak of mystery.

A rock proves by its appearance and absence of personality that it is not a human being. See the point? It is not up to religion to define itself as good or indeed up to anybody. We must look at the evidence and proofs and follow those. They do the defining in a manner of speaking.


Messing with the definition of religion could be dangerous


Those who redefine religion as goodness are just being stupid and it is insane to imagine one faith is as good and realistic as another.  Messing around with the definition of religion may have people deciding what is good and calling something religious if it agrees with that. That is why some ignoramuses say that it is unchristian of Christians to stop gay marriage. They define gay marriage as good and equate good and religious. Something you agree with morally is not turned into something religious just because you agree with it.


If Islam is a religion based around grave violations of human rights then to say it is not a religion is to claim the right to persecute it and deny it is religious persecution.  Messing around with the definition opens the door to the likes of Donald Trump who say that Islam is not a religion but a political ideology with some religious trappings. Get the right definition instead of hurting human rights by equating religion with good or defining religion in a way that suits your own political objectives. If Islam is not a religion then why not say Catholicism is not a religion but just something else wearing a religious face?


The moral is you can define religion as whatever fits your idea of human rights and invite persecution against a particular religion by saying it is not a religion for it wants women chained to the sink and abortion rights banned.  And saying it is only partly a religion is just as bad.  The religion will not be bestowed the rights you give a religion if you define it is a half-religion or quasi-religion or psuedo-religion.


When a religion picks on its own


People of a religion killing their own has nothing to do with proving the religion is okay or good.  The argument that Christians who kill Christians are thereby proving they are not being Christian is rubbish.  The hint that Christianity is too good to hurt people is insulting.  And it is nonsense to say a religion is proven good even if it persecutes its own but is bad if it persecutes others.  And the argument is central if you wish to make out that religion is always good.  It is always top of the list for commentators.


The common advice that if a bully picks on you you must try to see that it is all about the bully and is nothing in you is toxic.  Why?  Because the victim knows though she or he did not cause the bullying there is something about her or him as person that the bully reacts badly to.  Religion sorts of exemplifies such advice when it seeks to blame the individual members of the religion and not the faith system. By faith system I mean the body of doctrine and religious practice and religious morality not the people. It is evil to blame the person to exonerate the faith.  Moreover, religion does not ask that anybody accept that the faith is good and beautiful regardless of whether they believe or not.  No religion hates the thought.  To ask people to accept that religious faith and a religion is wonderful is trying to persuade them.  If it were really that great it would not need the asking.


Unrealistic to say religion is good


People tend to be okay with a dangerous religion if the members disobey it or claim it can or will be reformed. But it is obvious is that we should pay no heed to lovely and peaceful interpretations for every bad entity has stupid or dishonest people who devise them. They are their interpretations and not the religion’s. The fact is that every religion knows that no member wants to obey it fully or will obey it fully. Knowing that means it has to take responsibility as a religion for the consequences.

If human beings are not all good then how can they assess that religion is all good and so good that the bad done does not count or reflect on the religion?  And especially when they say it about a religion they are not and have never been part of?  Saying that you know the religion is good proves that you know it is not.  It needs you to lie for it.  To ignore the evil it does makes you evil.  To say the good compensates for the evil makes you evil.  To be called good it has to get you to lie to yourself that you are in a position to assess for you are so good and thus see the good.  It rings hollow when they want even the likes of murderers to agree with you! 


A man-made religion by default is a subtle perhaps unknowing cause of moral corruption of the members or some of them. One member being corrupted is too many. But what about the good ones?  The problem is with being in a corrupt and corrupting entity nobody really knows for sure if they can or should trust you.


Religion defining itself as only good defies the evidence and the stark contradictions between the religions. 


Nothing is really good but grey.


The definition is manipulative.


It would say it is good for it is too crafty to admit the truth and lose people.


It implies it has a monopoly on good which is an insult to non-religious entities that do great work.


The religious message of love and kindness is to blame for any harm done when not enough members care or listen for the message is not so much about what people need but about the authority - religion says it speaks for God with his authority - who commands them.


Religion is not good in itself for it cannot be.


The moral person finds it hard to be moral when society manages to invest morality with religious superstition.  Religion does not damage just its own - the wrongs done by religion affect outsiders too.  The best way to passively aggressively get people to self-destruct or wreck their lives is to make it look like morality goes along with inanities  such as baptism forgiving sins and men becoming Gods or the writings of men being declared to be also the writings of God.


Religion is not really good when it does a Pontius Pilate and just washes its hands of any guilt for the terrible and irresponsible things it does.  To say a religion is all good no matter how bad its members behave or how many do is just delusional.  It is enabling the problem of religion.  And nobody can say, "Banning members of a religion such as Islam from your country because of the risk of non-integration or terrorism only makes more people in the religion tend to be violent and makes them hate you more" if religion is really that pure and good.  It is admitting there is a danger.


Real respect for a religion does not mean defending it because of its good works for that is showing you want the good works not the religion.  And you don't want to suggest the believers who do good are doing so only because this religion gives them magical power to.  That is patronising.