Religion: It's all about Preferences
I'll admit, i prefer to be atheist. A) Because, overwhelmingly, it seems to be the only likely idea, and B) because i like to be honest with myself, and the world i see.
If religious people understood that their beliefs are Preferences, and not divine missions from one of the thousands of gods out there that for some reason they think is real when all the others aren't, a lot of strife will be avoided.
If people realize their own beliefs, and the beliefs of others, are all just preferences (instead of projecting onto things that can NOT be chosen, things you can't honestly just change your mind about, as being "preferences" - aka homosexuality), ideas that you Prefer to cling to, not something born into you (we are all born atheist, after all) along with eliminating the rule in each of them that states "our spiritual preference, out of thousands, is the only true spiritual preference. All others, given the exact same circumstantial 'evidence' as ours, and sounding just as ridiculous as ours are wrong, because we say so, and we don't need to explain ourselves because we have faith (ie, we don't prefer to think about things, but demand bizarre things to be true if we feel like it, without needing to have any valid way of backing up our truth-claims)" will seriously work towards ending religious warring - the biggest cause of death in the entirety of human history - outnumbering the top 3 fatal illnesses combined.
But no, too many religions are built upon that one "holy" rule - which in one fell swoop should indicate corruption of that religion - where belief is more important than the spiritual connection to the universe, more important than the love and welfare of other people (especially those who don't share the same preference, or opinion) and animals, even to the point of restricting potentially life-saving research just because it doesn't jive with their superstitions, as well as restricting people who love each other from choosing a life-bond because again, it doesn't jive with their superstitions.
Their PREFERENCE to believe in superstitions.
If they prefer to believe in society-retarding superstitions, those that encourage bigotry and discrimination based on superstition, let them - as long as they don't demand everyone else believe in them, and as long as they don't act on them - because discrimination without valid cause is bad for EVERYONE. (I will not discriminate against a homosexual, because they are just looking for love - their parts may not have evolved to work together, but there are so many genetic differences, it would be ridiculous to discriminate if they aren't hurting anyone - but i WILL viciously discriminate against child-molesters because, even though maybe they were born with a different attraction like homosexuals have been, they ARE hurting people).
But then there are some that think it's their duty to spread these cancerous superstitions, and don't accept the idea that people may prefer not to adhere to them, and so they make up some bullshit to justify their brand of discrimination, such as their preferred devils supposedly making people do things to turn away from their preferred god. You start believing in that shit, you can just about justify anything - and that's a scary thought, and though it may start out as a mental illness within a certain person, it is always backed up by some passage in one of the many horrifying holy books!
And yet Atheists are the ones least trusted in north america ... I mean come on!
Ever notice how many lies and deception are used by religious people trying to argue their case (forging prophetic documents after the fact, encouraging ignorance to unbiased, factual, scientific study, claiming faith in something that they've never seen - hey, you know, faith is a form of lying, if you think about it), while atheists go out of their way to use absolute honesty and facts to argue theirs, also honestly stating when they don't know something?
Of course i can't deny some rogue atheists who may try to falsify information - but the difference is that atheists don't HAVE to, since religion is its own worst enemy.
Anything that requires your mind to do loops and acrobatics to avoid a fact, or dance around it, twisting words around it to make you ignore it, in order to believe the thing is just not worth the effort to think about.
Things that are out there, and can be studied and tested and don't require colourful language to hide the flaws in the argument are much more worth our time thinking about!
In fact, scientific study demands full, honest disclosure of any flaws in the argument so that they can be scrutinized and analyzed and changed or removed if all the tests prove it wrong - at least the scientific study that doesn't rely on capitalism to survive, like "beauty" products and "diet" products. But what money to evolutionary scientists make? Maybe a couple dozen out of hundreds or thousands of them have written a book here and there - but that's hardly an agenda-driven pursuit.
What amount of fully disclosed flawed arguments do religious people willingly give out to be challenged, changed or removed when proven wrong?
"Believe in our preferred spiritual opinion, or go to our preferred version of hell. Our word is flawless, (even though that word comes from a book that contradicts itself on every message it has an opinion on - but we don't ever admit that!)"
That's it? That's all they'll give us?
Atheists can read word-for-word bible passages to religious people more often and more thoroughly than the vice versa. We will give them the straightforward bigoted, sexist, homophobic, slavery-encouraging, mind-policing bible passages that showcase how much of a brutal, evil tyrant their god really is, and they'll STILL say atheists haven't read the bible.
An obvious clue to the fact that those particular religious people haven't read it.
Or if they have, they ignore the parts they don't like - so why bother have a bible if they ignore all the parts they don't like, the parts that don't justify their agendas (many christians will say the old testament is obsolete, jesus changed all the rules, but will still pull out the Adam and Eve story, as well as the infamous Leviticus 20:13 - condemning homosexuality and ordering homosexuals to be put to death - to push their bigoted agendas by using features specifically from the "obsolete" Old Testament)?
Again, it comes down to preferences. They prefer the happy, peaceful loving verses when they want to swell their flock, but use the discriminatory, or superstitious verses when they want to hinder human relationships they don't prefer, or scientific research they prefer to be superstitious about.
Prefer your own gods or rules - just understand they are YOUR PREFERENCES, and no one else is required to have them!
My preference is toward atheism, as it's the only option that makes any sense. I don't have to stretch my verbal or mental acrobatics to justify anything about it. I don't have to ignore facts, or evidence, i don't have to ignore the natural processes of the observable universe to come to my decision.
How many religious people can say that?
When a religion comes around that is completely open to scrutiny, actively encourages debate, doesn't rely on inventing ideas in people's heads as answers to big questions - "You never knew the answers to any of my questions, did you? You made up all the answers to my unimportant existence." Pantera, "25 Years" - doesn't rely on falsifying evidence (the shroud of Turin dates to the 15th or 16th century, not the first, and christian historians admit the christian tampering of one of the four "eyewitness" accounts of jesus [big number for a world-changing messiah]), or discrediting respectable, overwhelmingly factual and accurate scientific facts and theories with ridiculous, impossible, or overwhelmingly unlikely speculations (ie, the devil putting dinosaur bones in the earth to test our faith in the bible's 6000 year old earth story - anyone who doesn't laugh at the ridiculousness of that idea should be turned immediately in the direction of the nearest mental assylum - it's the epitome of pulling something out of your ass, next to the whole "god gave us free will" and "mysterious ways" silliness), if the religion doesn't rely on any of the above, then i might take preferential interest in it, beyond just my general interest in mythology.
But since none of the religions of this world have ever delivered on any of those terms (well, some of the pagan ones may not have relied on deception as much), i will still prefer atheism.
Anything that relies on lies to further its influence, and demands unquestioning faith needs to be questioned and have its historical record brought to light as soon as possible.
What would you really prefer?
If religious people understood that their beliefs are Preferences, and not divine missions from one of the thousands of gods out there that for some reason they think is real when all the others aren't, a lot of strife will be avoided.
If people realize their own beliefs, and the beliefs of others, are all just preferences (instead of projecting onto things that can NOT be chosen, things you can't honestly just change your mind about, as being "preferences" - aka homosexuality), ideas that you Prefer to cling to, not something born into you (we are all born atheist, after all) along with eliminating the rule in each of them that states "our spiritual preference, out of thousands, is the only true spiritual preference. All others, given the exact same circumstantial 'evidence' as ours, and sounding just as ridiculous as ours are wrong, because we say so, and we don't need to explain ourselves because we have faith (ie, we don't prefer to think about things, but demand bizarre things to be true if we feel like it, without needing to have any valid way of backing up our truth-claims)" will seriously work towards ending religious warring - the biggest cause of death in the entirety of human history - outnumbering the top 3 fatal illnesses combined.
But no, too many religions are built upon that one "holy" rule - which in one fell swoop should indicate corruption of that religion - where belief is more important than the spiritual connection to the universe, more important than the love and welfare of other people (especially those who don't share the same preference, or opinion) and animals, even to the point of restricting potentially life-saving research just because it doesn't jive with their superstitions, as well as restricting people who love each other from choosing a life-bond because again, it doesn't jive with their superstitions.
Their PREFERENCE to believe in superstitions.
If they prefer to believe in society-retarding superstitions, those that encourage bigotry and discrimination based on superstition, let them - as long as they don't demand everyone else believe in them, and as long as they don't act on them - because discrimination without valid cause is bad for EVERYONE. (I will not discriminate against a homosexual, because they are just looking for love - their parts may not have evolved to work together, but there are so many genetic differences, it would be ridiculous to discriminate if they aren't hurting anyone - but i WILL viciously discriminate against child-molesters because, even though maybe they were born with a different attraction like homosexuals have been, they ARE hurting people).
But then there are some that think it's their duty to spread these cancerous superstitions, and don't accept the idea that people may prefer not to adhere to them, and so they make up some bullshit to justify their brand of discrimination, such as their preferred devils supposedly making people do things to turn away from their preferred god. You start believing in that shit, you can just about justify anything - and that's a scary thought, and though it may start out as a mental illness within a certain person, it is always backed up by some passage in one of the many horrifying holy books!
And yet Atheists are the ones least trusted in north america ... I mean come on!
Ever notice how many lies and deception are used by religious people trying to argue their case (forging prophetic documents after the fact, encouraging ignorance to unbiased, factual, scientific study, claiming faith in something that they've never seen - hey, you know, faith is a form of lying, if you think about it), while atheists go out of their way to use absolute honesty and facts to argue theirs, also honestly stating when they don't know something?
Of course i can't deny some rogue atheists who may try to falsify information - but the difference is that atheists don't HAVE to, since religion is its own worst enemy.
Anything that requires your mind to do loops and acrobatics to avoid a fact, or dance around it, twisting words around it to make you ignore it, in order to believe the thing is just not worth the effort to think about.
Things that are out there, and can be studied and tested and don't require colourful language to hide the flaws in the argument are much more worth our time thinking about!
In fact, scientific study demands full, honest disclosure of any flaws in the argument so that they can be scrutinized and analyzed and changed or removed if all the tests prove it wrong - at least the scientific study that doesn't rely on capitalism to survive, like "beauty" products and "diet" products. But what money to evolutionary scientists make? Maybe a couple dozen out of hundreds or thousands of them have written a book here and there - but that's hardly an agenda-driven pursuit.
What amount of fully disclosed flawed arguments do religious people willingly give out to be challenged, changed or removed when proven wrong?
"Believe in our preferred spiritual opinion, or go to our preferred version of hell. Our word is flawless, (even though that word comes from a book that contradicts itself on every message it has an opinion on - but we don't ever admit that!)"
That's it? That's all they'll give us?
Atheists can read word-for-word bible passages to religious people more often and more thoroughly than the vice versa. We will give them the straightforward bigoted, sexist, homophobic, slavery-encouraging, mind-policing bible passages that showcase how much of a brutal, evil tyrant their god really is, and they'll STILL say atheists haven't read the bible.
An obvious clue to the fact that those particular religious people haven't read it.
Or if they have, they ignore the parts they don't like - so why bother have a bible if they ignore all the parts they don't like, the parts that don't justify their agendas (many christians will say the old testament is obsolete, jesus changed all the rules, but will still pull out the Adam and Eve story, as well as the infamous Leviticus 20:13 - condemning homosexuality and ordering homosexuals to be put to death - to push their bigoted agendas by using features specifically from the "obsolete" Old Testament)?
Again, it comes down to preferences. They prefer the happy, peaceful loving verses when they want to swell their flock, but use the discriminatory, or superstitious verses when they want to hinder human relationships they don't prefer, or scientific research they prefer to be superstitious about.
Prefer your own gods or rules - just understand they are YOUR PREFERENCES, and no one else is required to have them!
My preference is toward atheism, as it's the only option that makes any sense. I don't have to stretch my verbal or mental acrobatics to justify anything about it. I don't have to ignore facts, or evidence, i don't have to ignore the natural processes of the observable universe to come to my decision.
How many religious people can say that?
When a religion comes around that is completely open to scrutiny, actively encourages debate, doesn't rely on inventing ideas in people's heads as answers to big questions - "You never knew the answers to any of my questions, did you? You made up all the answers to my unimportant existence." Pantera, "25 Years" - doesn't rely on falsifying evidence (the shroud of Turin dates to the 15th or 16th century, not the first, and christian historians admit the christian tampering of one of the four "eyewitness" accounts of jesus [big number for a world-changing messiah]), or discrediting respectable, overwhelmingly factual and accurate scientific facts and theories with ridiculous, impossible, or overwhelmingly unlikely speculations (ie, the devil putting dinosaur bones in the earth to test our faith in the bible's 6000 year old earth story - anyone who doesn't laugh at the ridiculousness of that idea should be turned immediately in the direction of the nearest mental assylum - it's the epitome of pulling something out of your ass, next to the whole "god gave us free will" and "mysterious ways" silliness), if the religion doesn't rely on any of the above, then i might take preferential interest in it, beyond just my general interest in mythology.
But since none of the religions of this world have ever delivered on any of those terms (well, some of the pagan ones may not have relied on deception as much), i will still prefer atheism.
Anything that relies on lies to further its influence, and demands unquestioning faith needs to be questioned and have its historical record brought to light as soon as possible.
What would you really prefer?