There can be no liberty without religion


In this post, the author starts by contradicting himself by saying natural law requires religion, biblical religion. You may want to know why this is a contradiction

Natural law is a philosophy of law that is determined by nature, and so is universal. Classically, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze human nature — both social and personal — and deduce binding rules of moral behavior from it.

I am aware the Catholic will say

the natural law is the rule of conduct which is prescribed to us by the Creator in the constitution of the nature with which He has endowed us.

and I contend that such a law, if it involves the supernatural, cannot in all fairness be called natural.

I haven’t received the memo yet, but it appears the secret is out. Atheists are trying to eliminate Jews and Christians.

This author tells us

There is really only one struggle in this world, but it manifests itself in many different ways.  That struggle is between those who believe in and worship the One True God, the God of the Bible, and everyone else.

and I will tell you, if there is any struggle, it is between the reasonable and the unreasonable and in this group we have the superstitious, the denialists and jihadis, and Indiana Governor, Mr. Pence. Very few, if any worship the god of the bible. No one stones their neighbour for working on a Sunday, many have tattoos, wear clothes of mixed fabric and so on.

Nietzsche writing about morals in Genealogy of Morals, argues and correctly so, that christian morality is a slave morality, a morality of the weak. It encourages it’s believers to be meek down here to be in a position to inherit wealth in the hereafter. It’s aim is to shift the balance of power in the hereafter to the poor, the stupid and the uneducated.

I don’t shy away from the charge of being amoral. I am willing to be shown how good/ bad are not matters of judgement and only that they make sense in society. That without people living in groups, the word morality makes no sense.

It is true,

the Humanists recognized that those who believe in God are a powerful force of opposition, specifically those who believe in the Bible.

but not in the way this author thinks, far from it, but they are the greatest opposition to advancement in human development and expansion of human rights everywhere. The humanist desire is to have a better world for all, the christian believes the world is transient and is busy making a world in the nether world at the expense of decency and goodness here, where it matters the most.

When this author writes

Is this starting to explain what you see happening in our society today yet — especially in politics? It explains why Humanists have no concern for human life: because they see no value in any life but their own.

I can say without fear of contradiction that he is lying. There are only a handful of atheists in government positions. Many atheists I know are opposed to war, to capital punishment. The christian prays as he goes to war that his god grants him victory. Bush believed he was doing god’s will when he attacked Saddam. So no, you got it wrong. The humanist is concerned with life, human life especially, but extends the same dignity to all sentient creatures.

I think the believer living in America must know very little. The world is vast. People have varied religions and some have none and they live well.

I am not American, but I believe all the progress that has been made there and elsewhere in terms of human advancement has been done inspite of the religion.

And further, were it not for the humanists, such as Joseph Lewis, Ingersoll, Mencken, Mark Twain, the American evangelist would still be scaring his congregation with hell fire. It is the humanist who pointed out the absurdity in believing in a loving god who has a BBQ on the side for people who question its existence.

I think the belief that it is up to us to make the world a better place for us and others achieves more positive results than telling people they will roast forever plus 1 in hell for not believing silly things. We have grown up. We can’t continue to believe the superstitions of our ignorant ancestors. I believe that any one who today believes that the bible is true and that is the word of a god is uneducated, stupid and unreasonable. The age has come where we have to see it for what it is, a book by ignorant men, mainly, for ignorant men written for political and theological ends but always by ignorant and unsophisticated men.

Advertisements

About makagutu

As Onyango Makagutu I am Kenyan, as far as I am a man, I am a citizen of the world

98 thoughts on “There can be no liberty without religion

  1. archaeopteryx1 says:

    What part of “natural” in “natural law” did he not understand?

    Like

  2. tildeb says:

    I read that nonsense post and considered replying to all the errors paragraph by paragraph and then realized it would be nothing but a waste of my time. Such people care nothing about what is true, nor have any desire to understand. All they want to do is impose their beliefs on reality and then pretend that the model they have created is evidence for justifying their beliefs. The reason such people do this I think is to offer a sign of their piety rather than what it is: religiously inspired credulity leading to a gullibility that crosses the border into lunacy. Hey, if the tin foil hat fits…

    Like

  3. violetwisp says:

    Good job! 🙂

    Like

  4. Awesome post, brother! Extremely well written. Ain’t nothin’ like gettin’ pissed off at an idiot like this guy to bring out the best in ya, eh? Oh, you mentioned this: “I think the believer living in America must know very little.” The believer living in America is an ignorant ass who deliberately chooses to remain in ignorance and is defiant of anyone who points this out to him. It is, after all, a person’s god-given right to be ignorant in America. What’s worse, is that Americans believe all opinions are of equal merit and all voices have an equal right to be involved in government. Thus, evolution is reduced to an equal standing with Ken Ham’s creationist bullshit because, in America, all voices are equal. It is a sign of a culture’s demise when idiots are granted equal voice with those who have reason and do not claim to have infallible knowledge about the world because they read a bronze-age book full of violent fairy tales.

    Like

    • makagutu says:

      Thanks bro. I didn’t want to offend my friends in the US of A.
      Ken Ham believes all he needs to know is in Genesis.

      Like

    • SteveInCO says:

      Well not all Christians here are that ignorant. Fortunately, or nothing positive would ever have happened here. But even the non-idjits worry me, because they are accepting contradictory premises, and don’t realize it. They compartmentalize, “what my religion said over here, and what my reason says, over there.” That won’t last forever. Fortunately it lasts longer than their lifetime in most cases. But if it doesn’t, and they start to struggle with the inconsistency, they will likely default to “the bible must be true” (since everyone professes that their faith is important to them, even if they put it aside 90% of the time) and will be subject to persuasion by any man of religion who sounds like he knows what he’s talking about. (One thing the creationist “intelligentsia” is good at, is sounding authoritative as they spew their lies.)

      Like

      • “Well not all Christians here are that ignorant.” True that. I was raised Catholic and spent K-12th grade in Catholic school. One thing I got from it was the ability to think, question, and reason. Of course, that lead me, eventually, away from religion and the Church, but never did I experience the mind-numbing stupidity that takes place in the fundie churches of the U.S. Bible belt. Scary, that is. Don’t know how anyone breaks out of it if they’ve been indoctrinated into it since birth.

        Like

  5. ejwinner says:

    What is it about religious belief that makes at least some believers paranoid? ‘I believe in god, therefore atheists are out to get me!’ Strange self-centeredness! Or is it, ‘if not everybody believes as I do, I could be wrong! So everyone – believe as I do!’ – which exposes an interesting lack of faith.

    I think much proselytizing isn’t an effort to converts and ‘save souls,’ as it is a desperate yelp of fear.

    Good response, makagutu.

    Like

  6. Noel, a superb post. I read this guys post. He became quite transparent when he linked Ephesians 6. Not only is he a fear monger, but he believes in slavery as noted in Ephesians 6 — and he wants to talk to us about morality? I hear it preached all the time. The church is a hospital for sick people. He is a classic case.

    Like

  7. shelldigger says:

    Mak, I love the way you take a hammer, and proceed to hit the nail squarely on the head. You might have made a great carpenter with that talent. Ironic eh?

    Like

  8. Veracious Poet says:

    I agree completely with your opening statement on natural law. I was telling some dude on lucascritique, who I believe is a theocracist, that natural laws precede the invention of religions.

    Even animals sometimes observe natural laws – you don’t bother them, they don’t bother you. I believe it helps us as a group minimize conflicts of interests.

    No society, no matter how primitive, has ever existed without moral laws/customs as regards inheritance, marriage, trade etc.

    So to say the Judeo-Christian God is the only source of all morals is like saying before Moses there were no moral laws in other parts of the world.

    And I didn’t understand why he was attacking humanists. Weren’t all the terrible wars ever fought in this world by religious fundamentalists? In the Bible, didn’t a Jewish prophet slay and burn the prophets of Baal?

    The concept of cooperative humanism abhorres all that and sometime to come I shall explain on my blog what exactly I mean by Cooperative Humanism.

    Like

    • makagutu says:

      Here we agree totally. No war has been fought because we were reasonable.
      How is your Sunday? Have you come from church 😛

      Like

      • Veracious Poet says:

        Hahaha….I didn’t go to church because I lost my palm fronds. You know how important it is. I also believe reading the bible was enough, thus, I will withhold the preacher’s salary indefinitely.

        Like

        • makagutu says:

          I know. I was there once. I stopped contributing to the preacher’s salary before I left the faith.

          Like

          • Veracious Poet says:

            I hear some preachers in neighbouring Nigeria have private jets. Whereas most of the congregants travel by foot. Very sad indeed.

            But let’s not lose faith in humanity.

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            Preachers here, well those bright ones, live in mansions and drive big cars and their congregation walks to church. It’s a good type of work, and requires little or no training

            Like

          • Veracious Poet says:

            Here, they are more secretive and subtle and occasionally donate peanuts to the needy. I won’t be surprised to know they have private jets and mansions registered in other names. Religious leadership is very much like political leadership on this continent.

            But I think the vast majority who prefer to have their life scripted for them, to only sit back and enjoy; it may be a convienient arrangement. We, humanists, cannot stand aside and fold our arms, but we can also only liberate those who want to be liberated from false religion.

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            I wouldn’t be surprised to find some of the pastors here own private jets.
            People need to be educated, the economy need to work, healthcare and so on, then and only then could people become less reliant on gods and start to actually do something

            Like

  9. fojap says:

    Now that I’ve read that book on why people believe crazy things, I am seeing the habit of manufacturing stories all over the place. Before I even got to the post itself, I was already on my guard because of the name of his blog and the subtitle. “The Road to Concord: The Road to Reclaiming Our Individual Rights and Liberty,” is if they have been lost. As you know, I am pretty happy about being from the U.S. myself, and the English side of my family goes back to Jamestown and I have ancestors that fought in the Revolution. It is one thing to feel that one is a beneficiary of efforts of people who have gone before us, yet this person has turned the symbols of the Revolution into fetishes. As someone who enjoys things like going to Boston and following the Freedom Trail, visiting Plymouth Plantation and things like that, this guy is frankly embarrassing.

    After reading that post, I don’t even feel comfortable using commonplace terms like “the Founders” because it is now sounding a little too worshipful to me. But in any case, the Founders were fallible human beings who didn’t all agree. It is worth studying what they believed, just as it is worth studying what the people who came before them believed, or the people who came after. What is this strange notion that they were superhuman or divinely inspired? That their work cannot be improved upon?

    This man has told himself a story, a story to which he has a strong, emotional attachment. Facts cannot change the mind of someone like that. I don’t know what can. But do know that his version of American History is nor more accurate than his version of Humanism.

    Like

    • makagutu says:

      I think every time someone refers to the Founders, they mean by that term they were infallible people not open to error. And honestly, it can’t get crazy than that.
      I think he is sticking to his story. I see he has linked my post to a second post he has written decrying my use of logic.

      Like

  10. I’m up to the eyeballs in this crap and can’t be arsed to read another blog full of it. However, I suggest your title is wrong. There can be no liberty with religion. 🙂

    Like

    • makagutu says:

      My title is a sign that sometimes am lazy. That was his title, just decided to use it to show he is crazy.
      He added an addendum warning his readers not to read my post that I don’t understand the laws of logic

      Like

      • Really? What an asshole. “I’m so confident of my argument, I ask you not to read any refutations of it because you might then not agree with all I say.” Idjit.

        Like

        • makagutu says:

          Yes, here it is

          ADDENDUM:

          There is a ping-back in the comment section of this post. It will take you to something written by another blog where the author attempts to refute this post. While I would in no way suggest you avoid this other bloggers argument, I would strongly advise you be very careful before accepting it. Whoever this blogger demonstrates a very flawed understanding of the rules governing logic. They start by asserting that I contradict myself in this post, but I cannot find the contradiction. What I do find, however, is that this other blogger has predicated his/her entire argument on a false assumption: in this case, the assumption that the only thing that exists is the material world. As it can be demonstrated that there is more in the universe that we can perceive than just matter, this assumption is false. That makes it a fallacy, and since everything else this other blogger assert is based on this false assumption, it makes their entire argument fallacious, as well. It also means they have failed in their attempt to refute my argument. So, if you happen to read the other post, please keep this in mind.

          Like

      • SteveInCO says:

        Actually (and to be fair) he *actually* pointedly did NOT say you shouldn’t read it. But he goes on to say “but don’t accept it.”

        ” While I would in no way suggest you avoid this other bloggers argument, I would strongly advise you be very careful before accepting it.”

        Like

    • tildeb says:

      Liberty and religious adherence is an oxymoron. It seems self-evident – to me, at least – that one chooses either liberty or religion. The two really are incompatible in principle.

      Liked by 1 person

      • makagutu says:

        It is not so obvious if the person writing is religious

        Like

        • tildeb says:

          Well, it is obvious even if re-labeled, which is why learning about apologetics is almost a mandatory handmaiden… sort of like the koran and the haddith.

          Like

          • makagutu says:

            For the life of me, I can’t wrap my head around why someone would want to study apologetics

            Like

          • You don’t “study” apologetics. You make them up and spew them out as you go along. That’s a lot easier than any real studying one might do on a real subject of importance.

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            How does the lesson begin. Ladies and gentlemen what we are about to study is crock but you must study it because it will be your breadline…

            Like

          • tildeb says:

            Well, one needs reasons for believing in the unbelievable, so the idea of community by sharing religious beliefs is bolstered when one has an external enemy. That’s us, the non believers, and we are regularly attacked and vilified by even the most benign of believers whose silence and tacit approval of this vilification shows up when they all too often stay silent or go along with such pejorative labels as the term ‘militant’ to accompany the term ‘atheist’… all the while pretending that because they have friends who are atheists but who don’t publicly criticize religion, they don’t really participate in this vilification. I have yet to encounter a believer, for example, who takes another believer to task for using the term ‘militant’, for example, to describe an atheist who dare criticize religion or its pernicious effects. This is the kind of approval that is endemic.

            But this isn’t enough to providing reasons to believe the unbelievable. Atheists have the disreputable effrontery to introduce skepticism and scholarship, both highly reasonable and thus influential. This is a problem that vilification doesn’t address.

            So there is a need to mitigate this skepticism and scholarship. That’s apologetics and I read over and over again how the introduction of this ‘defense’ is absolutely essential to educating young believers how to withstand this ‘attack’ and remain part of the believing community. I’ve encountered even young children spout apologetic arguments to the approval of their believing caregivers… as if out of the mouths of babes comes The Truth (TM) so non believers should pay heed to the error of their ways.

            That these counter arguments are easily discredited doesn’t really play a part unless and until the believer enters adulthood and has both the intellectual integrity and intellectual honesty to question these unbelievable beliefs and really take a look at the apologetics on merit. But many people don’t even get to this point because just the appearance of being reasonable in their unbelievable beliefs is enough to sustain them in their continued belief. That’s why you read the same arguments in letters-to-the-editor week in and week out rehashing discredited apologetics as if they were reasonable responses to criticisms. Because they are the same year after year, decade after decade, we know they must be consistently taught to people as if powerfully reasonable. Apologetics have to be taught non stop to accomplish this effect, and so that’s why I say it is the essential handmaiden to religious belief today. It’s not that people want to study apologetcis; it’s that apologetics has to be taught for the beliefs to gain the veneer, the facsimile, of reasonableness.

            Like

          • SteveInCO says:

            “You don’t “study” apologetics. You make them up and spew them out as you go along. That’s a lot easier than any real studying one might do on a real subject of importance.”

            Actually one can, at a bible college or seminary. You study the apologetics that other people made up and spewed out. You may, if you are lucky, even get to analyze them and toss out the weak(er) ones.

            On the other hand, Dan Barker (former preacher who is now co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, reports that he was not exposed to apologetics in any formal sense in his training, though he does mention it as though it were considered a subject matter like, say, biology is. He assumed (at the time) that was because it was too obvious to need explaining.

            Mak: One studies apologetics so he can use the arguments learned to help convert the unconverted. A lot of Christians don’t know how to talk to an atheist; they’ll start off arguing from the bible, not realizing the atheist doesn’t accept the bible as infallible. (This is a good thing.) They actually need special training in arguments that don’t rely on the bible; they have to try to follow the following tack (if you have the stomach for it, Josh McDowell does it in short, accessible form in “evidence that demands a verdict”): First convince the atheist that in fact, god exists. Then try to demonstrate that the only plausible explanation for that “remarkable” book called the bible is that it was inspired by god. THEN, you can preach what’s in the bible, having established its credibility. Of course none of it is solid, but that’s the procedure they will attempt to follow.

            OR one studies apologetics in order to refute them in a “know thy enemy” sort of way.

            Would I personally care to delve deep into that sort of thing? Not really. I’d rather study “unapologetics,” the topic of how best to persuade people it’s wrong.

            Like

          • “Actually one can, at a bible college or seminary.” I don’t consider such endeavors, “study” any more than if I studied to become Dr. Strange, Master of the Mystic Arts. Studying bullshit doesn’t turn it into gold, no matter how hard one stares at it. 🙂

            Like

          • Best answer to christian apologetics is the one true holy book, The Koran. From the Koran: 9:34: “O you who believe! Verily, there are many of the Jewish rabbis and the Christian monks who devour the wealth of mankind in falsehood, and hinder men from the Way of Allâh. And those who hoard up gold and silver, and spend it not in the Way of Allâh — announce unto them a painful torment.”
            Well over a billion Muslims deeply believe in the Koran. It negates christian apologetics and the christian bible. Why is the bible “correct” and the Koran “wrong”? Both can not be true (in regards to the NT, at least). They contradict each other. It’s like adding -1 to +1; you get a big, fat 0. Apologetic arguments are like masturbating with a rusty Brillo pad. It may perhaps be masochistic fun for the wanker, but it sure as hell isn’t fun for others to see and hear. $Amen$ 🙂

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            I like this, I really do.
            Let the Christians settle the matter with Muslims as we sit aside and watch

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            What are the qualifications required to enroll for a doctorate at a bible college? I know if I tried to enroll at my alma mater, it will take me a long time to get there but I need to be called Dr. Makagutu soon

            Like

          • SteveInCO says:

            I made no claim that there was any truth value to apologetics, just pointed out that it’s possible to spend time learning about them (‘studying”), in the same manner one might study a philosophical school one disagrees with. You might claim that you can’t by definition “study” something that is total bullshit, but then, you yourself used the word that way repeatedly.

            Anyhow, it’s a wrangle over semantics.

            Like

          • One must never repeatedly repeat things that are repetitious. To do so is to invite repetitiveness, redundancy, word salad tossing, and the repeated use of redundant words. Thus, one runs the ridiculous risk of tossing around redundant and repetitive words when one repeats oneself too often repeatedly. I repeatedly apologize, in an apologetic way, for repeatedly repeating that the redundant and repetitive study of apologizing over the repetitive use of the redundant word “bullshit”, in regards to the repetitive use of repeatedly studying apologetics, is redundantly ridiculous and a repetitive redundant waste of one’s corneas, vocal cords, rectal muscles, and, though I run the risk of repeating myself, grey matter. To repeatedly, and redundantly refer to christian apologetics as “bullshit”, is, in reality, a redundant and viciously repetitive insult to real bullshit, as, and again, I hope I’m not being repetitive, no “shit” not even “bullshit” can ever have the repetitive, redundant stench that christian apologetics has. I can always repeat this if you feel redundancy would help. There is no God but Allah, and Repetitive Redundancy is His “Bullshit” Prophet. $Amen$, $Hallelujah$m and, just to be redundant, $Amen$

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            Hahaha! Jeff, tongue twisters is a game you can play. My head is spinning after reading this

            Like

          • Could you repeat that? I didn’t get it the first time. 🙂

            Like

          • SteveInCO says:

            “One must never repeatedly repeat things that are repetitious.

            ….

            , just to be redundant, $Amen$”

            Well, shit.

            To answer Makagutu’s question, Bible colleges generally take the place of a regular four year college, so you get in with a high school diploma. There are indeed graduate levels. You can even get a “doctor of divinity.” (Yeesh.) And there are also fundamentalist ones, and more mainline ones. Bart Ehrman, whom I mentioned in another thread here, started at a fundamentalist school and did his graduate work at a more “liberal” school.

            I don’t know how much of the curriculum is indeed apologetics. The one anecdote I heard I already mentioned, was from Dan Barker and at his college there was virtually none.

            I’d go batshit crazy spending four years studying the bible–or actually studying the thin slice of the bible they probably look at, just as they only preach tiny pieces of it. When my brother deconverted, he commented on how narrow the Christian conception of the universe is; their whole world is confined to the implications of one 800,000 word volume and they don’t even look at all of that.

            But to them it’s the Book of All Knowledge so I imagine they find it fascinating. I’d certainly feel that way about a real book of all knowledge.

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            Thanks Steve. I wouldn’t spend 4 years at that either

            Like

          • I feel that way about Penthouse Magazine. 😀

            Like

  11. […] is Natural Law?  I was reading a post written in reply to my argument that there can be no liberty without religion.  The author uses my post to […]

    Like

  12. […] there can be no liberty without religion I contended that the author of the post had contradicted himself when he claimed that there is […]

    Like

We sure would love to hear your comments, compliments and thoughts.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s