’

If God exists, why does he behave like a narcissistic absentee landlord with a flair for blood rituals and dietary restrictions? The Abrahamic deity, revered across continents, seems less like a cosmic architect and more like a Bronze Age tribal chieftain with anger management issues. Yet billions genuflect before him daily. Religious faith is often praised as a virtue. But what other domain celebrates belief without evidence? Would you board a plane built by someone who “just felt” the wings would hold? Would you trust a surgeon who prays instead of sterilizing instruments? Richard Dawkins famously called faith “a process of non-thinking.” Yet society elevates it above reason, as if ignorance were a badge of honour. Why is faith exempt from the scrutiny we apply to every other claim? Religion thrives not because it is true, but because it is comforting. It offers immortality, cosmic justice, and a celestial surveillance system that rewards obedience. Freud called religion “a universal obsessional neurosis.” Is it any wonder that belief correlates strongly with existential insecurity? Consider: If you were guaranteed eternal life through science, would you still need God? Or is belief merely a coping mechanism dressed in sacred robes? The Bible commands love, yet sanctions genocide (see Deuteronomy 20:16). It preaches humility yet demands worship. It forbids murder yet glorifies divine slaughter. If morality comes from God, why does it resemble the ethics of a medieval warlord? Sam Harris argues that morality predates religion and is better served by reason and empathy than by scripture. So why do we outsource ethics to ancient texts? Enter the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Church of the SubGenius, and the Invisible Pink Unicorn parody religions that expose the absurdity of faith by mimicking its structure. Ethan Quillen’s “The Satirical Sacred” explores how these mock faiths challenge religious privilege and reveal the arbitrary nature of belief. Ask yourself: If a belief system is indistinguishable from parody, should it be taken seriously? Religion is not benign. It fuels sectarian violence, suppresses scientific progress, and enforces archaic social norms. From the Crusades to anti-vaccine movements, faith has often been a force of regression. Shouldn’t beliefs be judged by their consequences? Religion persists not because it is rational, but because it is ritualized, institutionalized, and incentivized. It is a cultural fossil revered, untouchable, and absurd. The atheist does not merely reject God; he rejects the intellectual laziness that sustains Him. Do you believe because it is true, or because you were told to? And if the answer is the latter, what else might you be wrong about?’

  • Peacepath@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    18 hours ago

    So I have no reason to believe. In fact, I should not believe, because I could only believe in something I understand ; and if I can only misunderstand it, I would better reject the faith.

    • weps@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 hours ago

      yes, the things that are beyond your world will never be available as knowledge to you. If you can only believe up untill your own limit that’s an OK faith.

      We can go a little beyond our limit even. Niels Bohr was wrong about electrons but I think we got it right even though we’ve never seen one. Quarks and gluons behave the way we thought they would.

      I’d love to know where our limit is in 100 years. And how wrong our current understanding is.

      • Peacepath@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 hours ago

        I can’t imagine an “ok faith”. If you understand that you do not know something, isn’t it better to go for “I don’t know” rather “but I believe”?

        Also, religions are old and have spent a lot of humans ressources and efforts without being able to prove their point. Quantum physics progress so much faster!

        We should not have faith in the explainations of a given group of physician. You may accept what makes consensus among groups. Electrons existance, nature and laws make some kind of consensus. No god does. Also, science keep ways for demonstrating electron false, and incentives to do so (the one able to contest the existence of electron with strong arguments would be seen as a great physician). Religions don’t accept to be contested, but build defenses toward logic and reason when it is not aligned with their beliefs.

        Should quantum physic be a pure scam, it would be possible to demonstrate it. Should a religion be a pure scam, it could not be proven. Yet one at least is false! Polytheists and monotheists religions can’t be all true at the same time. Usually, a religion is not imposed by its truth but by the weapons or the will of the king.

        • weps@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 hours ago

          I don’t agree.

          The Talmud for example is thousands of pages of century long academic debates with logic and reasoning.

          That’s part of their religion too.

          Opinions of minorities are welcome and debates often include counter arguments for your arguments to have value.

          • Peacepath@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 hours ago

            It is a perfect example of a religion that would never ask to the roman to crucify someone who say things that go against their faith.

            Yet if you push it up to the point you would compare archeological datas with Moses story, and dare find doubts Moses even existed, I am not sure they are really receptive and open to an evidences based discussion.