You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘evil’ tag.
Get the full story at the CBC.
The amazingly cogent world of religion strikes once again with timeless wisdom, His Popiness said: 
“You can’t resolve it [the problem of AIDS] with the distribution of condoms.”
The Unctuous High Holy Pope of Vapidity then added:
“On the contrary, it increases the problem.”
It would seem to me, the lowly heathen that I am, that condom use is a good thing. It is a inexpensive way to curtail the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. The UNAIDS and the World Health Organization (obvious bastions of Satan) that said, “The male latex condom is the single, most efficient, available technology to reduce the sexual transmission of HIV [the virus that causes AIDS].”
Hmmm…. a religious edict, basking in the filthy crud of relgious dogmatism, is causing grevious harm to millions of people. Not particularly surprising, (given the religious track record) but disheartening all the same. The “god is love” bunch really have their work cut out for them in this instance.
Religion is a dangerous delusional pursuit; why people continue to propigate such an abberation, given all the evidence, boggles the mind.
There is a prevailing view within the “progressive” community that religious tolerance (RT) is a virtue necessary for a just, egalitarian society. This is preposterous. Not only does RT have horrific implications, it is an “ideal” that I seriously doubt is actually held by its proponents. To begin with, lets take a look at what its advocates would like you to think RT means. RT means people are allowed to have whatever faith they want without fear of prosecution, persecution, or any other undesirable ‘ution’ and thus, RT would result in less hate crimes, violence, and a whole bunch of other nasty stuff we would rather be without.
The very first thing I’d like to point out is that all that nasty stuff that RT proponents say they’re trying to reduce can be dealt with much more efficiently. Instead of saying, “You’re not allowed to lynch someone or burn down their house just because they hold to a faith that differs from yours,” it would be much better to simply say, “You’re not allowed to lynch someone or burn down their house at all, for any reason”. The former of these maxims can be interpreted to mean that there are some circumstances which would allow one to lynch another, its just that differences in faith isn’t one of them. The second, however, makes things pretty clear. So this first short bit is just to show that basic protection laws make the common perception of RT irrelevant; if not a markedly inferior approach and a step in the wrong direction. That is just examining the possible benefits of RT. Let us analyze the completely ignored and adverse ramifications of RT.
RT would be a restriction on society, but not on individuals. This is very different from other egalitarian movements and why RT is dangerous. For example, tolerance of alternative sexual orientations is a two way street. Simply speaking, straight people are OK with gay people and gay people are OK with straight people. If it was only a one way street, then the ideal of the freedom to be with the consenting adult of your choice, regardless of their physiology, would be undermined.
RT, however, can only be one way. The community must accommodate the beliefs of the individual, but not the other way around. If one is allowed to adhere to any faith one wants to (as RT says one is) then if someones faith does not include RT, then that feature must be allowed and respected as well. Because RT is presented as a freedom of beliefs/values, and RT is itself a belief/value, proponents of RT cannot enforce RT on anyone without going back on the basic principles of RT.
So lets look at three people, each with very different faiths…
This post has to do with god and how the concept is framed by the concept of evil. Epicurus stated the problem elegantly with this argument.
- If a perfectly good god exists, then there is no evil in the world.
- There is evil in the world.
- Therefore, a perfectly good god does not exist.
Another conclusion that can be drawn from this is that god is either impotent or uncaring as this video from FFreethinker so brilliantly points out – its called God’s Divine Plan.
I wanted to mention the case of Joseph and Elisabeth Fritzl. This is the case in the media of the Austrian Father who held his daughter as a prisoner/sex slave for 24 years until she finally escaped.
Many religions claim there is a god watching over us, listening to us, and answering our prayers. My question is this, where the frack
was god for Elisabeth Fritzl? What greater good could come of someone being incestuously assaulted for 24 years? The god people worship stood back, with arms crossed, for almost a quarter century and did absolutely NOTHING.
Why would you hold such a being as holy? How perfectly monstrous. We can talk of his inaction when it comes to rape, genocide, murder etc. Why would a being that supposedly cares for us allow evil of this sort to exist.
The answer is that he is fictitious, a man made construct, built to keep the gullible in line. Endorse this delusion at your own peril.
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…