—Why Religion Fails

How long should we wait for religions to meet its objectives

Positive changes in religion are slow but happening. This improved faith bolsters an all-time low attendance with a lagging morality resistive to catch up to what decent people already know. They are inching their way towards the ultimate truth—all the while holding the book of books that for centuries has held all the answers to life’s important questions—that never came to conclusion. How long shall we give it to prove it’s efficacy? 2000 more years? 3000? “Just have faith”—then, just have more faith is is approaching eons of prophetic adjustments and obvious ostriching.

Thanks to the Bible, Quran, Bhagavad Gita (and some really nifty commentary) we know how the universe was made, how man was created, how to create a self-serving excuse for a system of morality, what happens when you die, and most importantly, why—why the gods created this artificial world and subjects to worship itself with all vainglorious self-admiration—in his glory, of course.

When starting any endeavor, is it wise to start with the worst possible, violent, ambiguous, contradictory vision statement and SOP? Especially how to treat your slaves and concubines (bonus material). Today we have workers rights posted at every business. Thanks to the Bible and 2000 years of tries, we got a new morality based on the demands of mere people and unions.

Religion fails because it is designed that way. Where it succeeds is convincing you of its own importance then inspires perpetual tail-chasing, thereby stalling equality and true freedom, crippling the minds of men from doing what any three-person committee, or mom and pop could do on their own—only better.

Religion is failing because it is false. It fails because it is based on dreams, spectral evidence, pseudo-facto temporal lobe seizures and superstition. If fails because it is inceptualized by control freaks, dreams, guesses, men of words and power. It is an imagination that no longer can be rationalized as reality.

It is evidenced by vast numbers wanting to break away to try their own versions. Every single person can do it better with their own ideas of right and wrong—and that’s the way it should be.

We alone hold the power. Whatever the initial intentions were, religion is now a self perpetuating fraud. No one knows who’s started it, no one knows how to shut it down. That, is up to us too. And it will happen—bit by bit.

Author: jim-

One minute info blogs breaking the faith trap.

57 thoughts on “—Why Religion Fails”

  1. Of course, religion cannot prove that there is a god. Conversely, one cannot prove a negative. So, the debate will go on indefinitely. The truth, oddly enough, lies somewhere in the middle.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I personally don’t believe the truth is in the middle. I think it lies somewhere outside that paradigm altogether. Like a moderate picking from pieces of of two wrong politics, it’s a mixture of inadequacy.

      Liked by 2 people

  2. Well said Jim. Religion turns things upside-down. Faith is not a virtue to begin with, but Skepticism/free inquiry is. Religion is designed to protect its own self from scrutiny by protecting lies, and without shying away from resorting to intimidation and encouraging violence and double-standards. Religion is the only human domain where you can freely violate sound reason and get away with it. It is a crippling force to learning and development.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Thanks for stopping by. There is not one scripture or doctrine that can stand to scrutiny. My views have shifted (trial run) that, part of the biggest con is we always get two choices in life. Left, or right, Democrat or republican, Islam or Christianity, capitalism or socialism. All bad choices. You might get a third choice that mixes the two. The greatest scam of all may be atheism vs theism. I’m on the fence with this still, but most likely there is another way altogether. The universe is a complex and difficult place to grasp, and if I had to choose, I’d say the universe and this planet are a brute fact and hold the answers we often seek. Not as a god, but the energies that be. 8billion different people with countless neurologies, physiologies, and experiences that totally discount the big box religions one-size-fits-all. What do you think?

      Liked by 1 person

      1. People in high conformity societies (this applies to religious groups) tend to assume that if you’re presented with the same evidence and experiences as them, then you necessarily have to arrive at the same conclusions. We don’t. We’re susceptible to bias and it is very normal to have different convictions and worldviews even when when presented with the same evidence. This simplistic black-and-white perception of the world would automatically disappear the moment ideas are exchanged freely without intimidation and bullying from certain groups that proclaim the “right not to be offended.” Without the freedom to inquire and share ideas with others, bad ideas can stay protected for millenniums.
        Back to your point about simple polarities, atheism is not a belief. It’s rather refusing to believe without evidence. Interestingly, theists themselves do ask for evidence as long as it is not about their unquestionable faith. They live in two different (and irreconcilable) realms–therefore, the cognitive dissonance they fall victim to. We don’t do that. We live in one consistent realm where such dissonance is not possible to happen.
        I know I didn’t address your question heads-on, but I hope I didn’t totally fall of track, too.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. It’s fine. I agree that we don’t live in that world. When I quit believing it was like a switch flip. I actually liked people and had my own thoughts for the first time ever. The things I used to say and think were not mine. It was embarrassing really. I invented a phrase through all that—The key to understanding the mysteries is unbelief. I would’ve never thought that while in the church, but it’s true. Thanks for the great dialogue. This group of WP peeps is the best on the net. I’m very humbled and grateful, (to pirate back a couple of hi-jacked words from my former life)

          Liked by 2 people

  3. It’s not clear to me that religion is essentially a quest for truth or an attempt to explain anything. As often as not, it is simply an extension of politics, a projection of perfectly human authority into the cosmos.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Hi folks, as I suggested before to Jim in another post, my problems with ‘religion’ as a political manifesto of an institution – the church – is that it has turned spiritual value into organisational value based on conformity to policy. I haven’t found a church I’ve wanted to be a part of yet, for this reason.

    The next problem is the concept of ‘God’ that the church has typically offered, which in my opinion has been the best way to turn people away from God. Namely, God as an idol or invisible giant who is peering into the hamster cage as we run on the wheel. This ‘God’ can then force us to suffer through falling off the wheel, or making us get cancer, or letting a serial killer go free. It’s Santa Claus all over again. God as ‘the great mystery from which we and life emerges’ is something different. Even science is committed to God in this sense, because science is oriented towards ‘God’ in its efforts to understand a mystery that is too big for us to get our little heads around. And I don’t mean scientists are all religious or bow to an idol (although many use science as a type of church and religion, with the idol being the individual ego).

    Morality. I think the church got it wrong here too, by trying to sell a fairytale version of spirituality and God. Like Santa Claus we eventually realise it’s not believable because it isn’t grounded in real, everyday life. However, there was never any reason to sell it to us this way because morality is simply an awareness of what is right and wrong as we stand in relation to life and other people. Unfortunately, the notion that we can all enforce individual morality and the world will be fine doesn’t work either, because as we know there are plenty people out there who have an undeveloped sense of morality. That’s why we have rape and murder and paedophilia and animal cruelty and a whole range of immoral, wrong acts going on in the world. The real value of a shared set of morals hasn’t been given to us in regard to their spiritual significance in helping us align ourselves to ‘God’ thereby elevating us to human being status rather than acting like savages and indulging our every whim whether it’s right or wrong. If we do this then we engage in the Aleister Crowley doctrine of ‘do what thou wilt’, which is worship of the ego as idol.

    In the end, I know that it is possible to start with a fresh piece of paper and orient ourselves to God as the Father, not as an idol but as the mystery from which we have emerged. Not in a superstitious way, but in a way that allows us to use our moral awareness in the service of fidelity to Being as a manifestation of God’s creation. By doing so we ‘align ourselves with the infinite’ but not in the Santa Claus sense. In a literal sense. We get our life right because our compass is pointing in line with life rather than against it. This is different to simply being an obedient member of a church political system with a promise of ‘eternal life in heaven’. Eternal life simply means I’m aligning myself with life as eternal flow, rather than indulging what has been characterised as the Satanic or Luciferean path of arrogant opposition to God in service of using the individual Ego as a god.

    In my view, religion – by selling spirituality as a fairy story – has simply driven many good people away from God as I describe it here, and into a form of ego-worship and moral relativism. This, in my view, is why we have the world in such a mess as we have today.

    Like

    1. Awareness of what is right or wrong is not objective it depends who you are , what your background is , there is no absolute morality.
      There are different levels of selfishness just as there are different levels of intelligence , neither religion or science can alter that fact.
      A shared set of morals never lasts for long in human society because individualism always shows up . That individualism is what makes us what we are it created civilisation in all its complexity.
      The best hope for humanity is a shared rule of law drawn up to allow maximum freedom to individuals and at the same time controlling our baser instincts. We have the start of such a system in our western democracies.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Awareness of right and wrong is obviously subjective. But awareness isn’t fixed either.

        Shared morals are supposed to inform the formation of laws within a culture. Indeed they were intended to enforce moral standards. It’s a departure from moral principles that results in laws becoming ineffective or laws that invade every aspect of our lives unnecessarily.

        Such laws are made by individual, (subjective) people, so if you’re arguing that we don’t need morals but we need laws, then who would you have people decide what is right and what is wrong?

        Interpretations of laws also depend to some degree on individual interpretations of laws based on the individual’s awareness and decision-making according to, amongst other things, their moral sense, personal beliefs and interests.

        Laws – unless they are formed by tyrants – must have a moral basis to have any meaning to human beings. To eliminate morals from the equation and say that all we need are rules is to eliminate the human being from the whole matter and the individual’s inescapable relationship with life and the rights and wrongs involved in living with other human beings, the environment, etc.

        Liked by 2 people

  5. You are right it is the grand purpose of most religious thought and belief because we are creatures of justice , but we are also individualistic due to our intelligence and that is where the problem lies. The ant has a marvellous controlled society each performs its own job nothing gets in the way but it lacks intelligence the great killer of conformity. The monastic orders attempt rigid consistency by ruthlessly applying strict rules as do communist societies . In America we have the Amish who separate themselves to a very strict life style to attempt conformity.
    Where ever there is individuality there till always exist subjectiveness it’s part and parcel of intelligence , you know the song ‘ I did it my way ‘ .
    Sam Harris is a very strong individualist and like many on the left of centre he advocates a more controlled society , putting forward his own concepts.
    I agree nature and the cosmos know no justice , it’s a human thing but so is individuality and they partially conflict. It very similar to human society ; we need society yet we want our own space and way as far as possible , it’s a conflict an eternal conflict. In a larger sense life is a conflict — the struggle to exist and the master of that conflict according to Richard Dawkins is the humble gene.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Agreed. Religion will be around for a very long time. For as long as humans exist they will believe in the human spirit. It is the belief in the supernatural realm of resurrected beings, that must be exposed for the scam that it is, and the End of Days scenario that goes with it.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Like Nan said in her post, they went right to instilling fear in her and then pressed you do something about it. Fears you never had before and never considered, now fill collection plates and cripple self reliance and empowerment

        Like

      2. I want to think as long as there is a conman/ woman and a people destitute enough to be convinced there is a god somewhere, there will be religious people

        Like

  6. Another fine post, Jim. I see two different aspects of religion having two different fates: 1) religion as a social institution, and 2) religion as a spiritual ideology. With the exception of Islam (which is a more complex phenomenon), participation in religious institutions is declining worldwide and has been for several decades. Even if our modern civilization survives the 21st century (which looks problematic right now), it’s quite possible that organized religion might not. Conversely, there doesn’t appear to be a concurrent decline in spirituality. Until our scientific understanding reaches a point where it can address the great existential questions which preoccupy our collective human psyche, individual spiritualism seems destined to continue.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. It makes me wonder where we would actually be without the pressures to believe in something, anything. Judaism is now a political religion, and Christianity is a proselytizing religion, while Islam is a politically proselytizing religion. Islam and Christianity have flip flopped, but eventually I could see them following the Judaistic path to maintain relevance. Why? Other than control? I don’t know why someone would want relevance in a broken dogma. But I’m not a power monger neither.

      Liked by 1 person

  7. Here is just ONE testimony or account/track-record (out of multitudes) for a supposedly omniscient, omnipresent, loving compassionate(?) Abrahamic god…

    The chances for surviving Leukemia in 1963 was a mere 4% (four percent!). Prior to the 1960’s it was a child’s death-sentence for all intents and purposes.

    By the year 2011 a child’s chance of survival was up to 94% (ninety-four percent!) due to major advances in medicine and early treatment with rituxmab and fludarabine, along with continued advances in genetic/DNA discoveries.

    Again, from a lousy, shitty 4% to 94% in a matter of 48-years!!!

    (prepare for some heavy sarcasm…)

    Jim, now I am sure all of these remarkable advancements in medicine, genetics, pharmacology, radiation-treatment, science, and sheer brilliance of HUMAN intelligence and ingenious study, testing, and retesting was the direct result of 1) all of those prayers by super-faithed religious followers on their knees, and/or 2) their god’s forethought and knowledge from the very beginning of time. But He just wanted everyone to suffer for thousands upon millions of years and sit by while little children died way too early in life. Right?

    Yes indeed. What an unbelievable account, track-record, testimony this god possesses over all human history. UNbelievable is certainly the operative word. Pfffffffftttttt!

    Liked by 5 people

    1. The drip fed advances in health, morality, all of it, is the epitome of immorality. But, those people were born to a time that was right for them to learn the lessons god had in mind for them. Rrriighhht!

      Liked by 2 people

    2. IDK. Wouldn’t curing diseases our loving Lord created to punish us as a consequence of A&E having eaten that magic fruit constitute an open act of sinful rebellion against his will?

      Liked by 2 people

      1. ‘On the problem of good’ really opposes all of this as each and every advance and lengthening of life only adds to more and prolonged misery. That is the essence of god if there really was one. So, if there is a god and this is his doing? He’s the real god we read in the Bible. Not the one we’ve excused for omnipotence because that’s what the precogs said.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. Funny — isn’t it? You seldom hear Christians say, “Thank God my loved one has been struck with this fatal illness and will soon meet with our Heavenly Maker.” Most head straight to the hospital and seek out medical professionals in hopes of extending their earthly stay.

          Liked by 4 people

            1. Hard on everyone. Off topic, but I was somewhat surprised when a religious relative who’s expressed staunch opposition to all legislation permitting any form of euthanasia suddenly asked me to serve as a witness to her living will a few months ago. I agreed, but pondered what rational she employed to excuse the inherent hypocrisy of pleading for “a death with dignity for me but not for thee.” — or if it even crossed her mind.

              Liked by 2 people

            2. Religious beliefs are not the real you. The things they say and do change a 180 degrees the day they no longer believe. I suppose many operate this way—in the gaps of common sense, regardless of what dogma they spew.

              Like

        1. Oh dear! Now what should I do? Should I continue sending money for food and medical aid to the poverty-stricken or just let them die of hunger and disease as our all-loving Father originally intended? It’s a matter of urgency and the prayer hotline isn’t responding.

          Liked by 3 people

  8. Hey, Jim,
    What is it about the religiously moral who say they believe in a religion-based morality over an individual-based morality, then they go and ignore that morality when it is inconvenient to follow it. And then they pat themselves on the back for being such “decent” people!
    They are not invested in religious morality, so it is really not that meaningful to them. Meanwhile, IMO, those who live by an individual morality are invested in that, so it is meaningful to them. They had to fight long and hard to develop their moral system, if you can even call it that (I don’t!). Speaking now from my own experience, my philosophy works for me exactly because it is mine, and not something handed down to me, or shoved down my throat as a child. I had to think through every facet of that philosophy, and still have to think through new situations when such I am confronted with new situations. My philosophy is not a centuries-old dead moral code, but a living one that responds to real-life situations. I know religion-believers will call me arrogant, self-deceptive, and all kinds of other things, but individual morality or life-systems are not based on trying to be better than others, but on being the best person I know how to be. And if that is arrogance, sobeit.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Until deconversion it is nearly impossible to separate, delineate your indoctrination from who you really are as a person. Everyone should step back and adhere to what they have learned—not what they’ve been told to believe. There is a huge difference. The TBs have not field tested the faith—They only know the words. When they do test, it falls flat every time. That is the importance of the faith trap. Living by faith fills the preachers plate while you spin you wheels in ignorance of a better way.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Until you discover that there is another way, your way. Where is Loy right now, and those like him? This is the conversation they really need to hear, the one that gives you permission to construct your own philosophy of life. You can still believe in god if you want to, but do it on your terms, not someone else’s.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. The days of the plug and play, one size fits all faith needs to go the way if the dodos. Empowering people to operate in their own beliefs within the framework of secular law could be a great period of enlightenment. IMO

          Like

          1. Poor dodos, they sound like they were such endearing creatures. But humanity has no room for endearing, kill or be killed, eat or be eaten. The dodos never had a chance in the human world. We would have been much better off if they had survived, I think. Kind, peaceful, trusting, all those things we know we should be, but aren’t.
            Meanwhile, your statement about empowering people I am all for. But that means thinking for one’self, and humans are inherently against using their minds and brains. Mental laziness seems to be a prerequisite of religious believers of all ilks.

            Liked by 2 people

  9. This reminds me of the old saying – How do you get scientific breakthroughs? Wait until all the old scientists die off.

    Humans have a tendency towards orthodoxy. So for religion to change, all the old religionists have to die off. As far as I can see, they are alive and kicking i.e. the Roman Catholic Church and the sex scandals.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Unfortunately that is not true and I wish it was , but justice cannot be achieved because it depends not on secular power but on circumstances.
      A woman with everything to live for dies in her twenties in an accident ; another is drowned in a tsunami , nature knows nothing of human justice the good are killed along with the evil.
      Altruism and moral codes are not the result of secularism or religion they are the result of evolution and they are subjective .
      Religion promises ultimate justice because God is totally just want honourable most of this comes in the after life.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. You raise some good points Kersten. I agree with you that altruism and moral codes come from the type of evolved species we are. That doesn’t mean there aren’t endpoints to morality. While it might seem subjective now, there may be some morals that are objectively true, we just haven’t reached them. Certainly in a dynamic universe where things are always changing will change circumstances and this may lead us to adjust our morals accordingly, but perhaps that’s because there is a larger moral principle at work which is in our best interest to adhere to. What I mean by this is let’s say stealing is wrong. But if a hungry man steals bread we would have a hard time saying that what he’s doing is wrong. Maybe that’s because a society which allows so much disparity among it’s people is the greater immorality here, and this causes others to act in ways that are also immoral. A more egalitarian society might not have hungry people who need to steal bread. It’s certainly a complex picture, and one that we’ll be working on for a long time to come certainly. I guess I kind of subscribe to Sam Harris’ notion of a moral landscape and that there may be ultimate peaks to reach in terms of morality.

        In terms of justice, I think it depends on what we mean by justice. If we admit that there is no evidence for a divine consciousness then the conclusion to be reached as the the universe is indifferent. This means that there are a host of things where a concept of justice doesn’t simply apply. A woman dying in a tsunami has nothing to do with justice. Where justice does apply is what intentional beings do to each other, to animals, to the planet, etc. I think he concept of justice has important value in a secular society and becomes a more achievable goal. If we are to decide that a God is responsible for it all then the burden of responsibility on us becomes removed and we don’t actually solve problems. We invent reasons why a woman drowned in a tsunami, or a guy got killed by a lightning strike. We start to say things like, “Well that little girl died because God wanted to bring her to heaven” or “that little girl was going to commit a greater sin later in life, so God removed her”. Many people want these things to be true because we are emotional beings and loss hurts, and so we start to apply justice to areas for which justice does not apply. We want order out of the chaos of an indifferent universe. When we let justice leak into areas where it does not apply we see one of the grand purposes for religion. It’s difficult to accept the truth which is that “shit happens” and it doesn’t pick and choose who the shit happens to.

        Liked by 4 people

        1. “Thou shalt not steal” appears in a whole new light when presented the way you did. And considering the writers were most likely the ones with things to steal, the lower classes of society had to believe what was written, for the benefit of the writers themselves…maybe. Happy new year to you and your family. It’s always a genuine pleasure to get your perspective.

          Liked by 2 people

    2. “God has placed each of us on a scale of suffering in this life, and He reserves the right to move us up or down that scale as far as He wants, for as long as He wants.”

      Someone responded this to me in another debate quoting a quadriplegic woman of faith… Is it just me, or does this attitude sound pretty appalling to see as perfectly okay and moral?

      Liked by 2 people

      1. It certainly fits in with the evidence of life and I’m sure those who believe in total predestination will love it. That’s where we are sometimes much more loving and concerned than such a God we do not always revel in suffering. I have found that those who debate the nature of God come up with all sorts of images as the fancy takes them.

        Liked by 2 people

      2. It’s not just you. The statement is necessary though for one who has been tricked into believing, and has to reconcile their predicament— i.e, make unreasonable excuses for god and through faith call it reason.

        Liked by 4 people

  10. Absolutely agree. Seeing is believing and I’ve yet to see evidence of a great Devine God!
    I’ve always had an inkling that religion was devised to keep control of the masses because ‘They’ knew how hysterical people could be! Great article

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Thanks John. Happy new year. The gullible human brain (which can be moderated through education and awareness) was an easy target to manipulate…and even today we see how easily fake news spreads around the globe. Believe nothing without examination, and if it’s not properly evidenced, what’s the reason to believe it at all? Ever?

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: