Home > Critical Thinking, Current Affairs, Dystopia, Musings, Philosophy sans Sophistry, Reason, Secular Religions, Skepticism, Technology, Thoughts on Economics > Willing Believers in Imaginary Entities Deserve Abuse and Destruction

Willing Believers in Imaginary Entities Deserve Abuse and Destruction

I recently came across an article in ‘The Atlantic’ which tried to make an insipid case that people should not get outraged by the actions of morons who justify discrimination against other people based on their own interpretation of literary works of unclear authorship. The writer of that particular article was trying to make the case that many of those who discriminate against other groups are not “bad” people. According to him, they could even be family-minded Mormons, devout Hispanic women or Muslim immigrants.

While that line of reasoning might suffice for some idiots, it has a huge and fatal flaw. As many of you know, the vast majority of people who committed state-sanctioned genocides (including the ‘final solution’ under the Nazis) were also devout, hard-working and family-minded people who just wanted a well-paying job. It just happened to be the case that their jobs centered around systemic mass murder of people who had not personally wronged them.

The same is true of all those “good” Spanish who committed genocide in south and central america. Similarly all those whites who committed direct and indirect genocide in north america and then built their lifestyle on the backs and corpses of black slaves might also have been devout, family-minded people.

My point is that excusing the repeated intentional actions of people because they are “devout”, “hard-working” and “family-minded” displays a level of sophism and spinelessness that only a liberal could attain. This is especially so when those injured or killed by the actions of all those self-righteous people have not previously harmed them in any measurable manner. It is even more so when personal interpretations of books with unclear authorship are the justification for the such behavior and actions.

Here is another way to look at the issue..

How many of you would support the right of a person to discriminate against, or kill, other people based on the voices he heard in his (or her) head? Most religious traditions in existence today can trace their origin to some divine communication conveniently revealed only to the founder of that particular religion. So.. what is the real difference between people who hurt or kill others based on the voices in their heads and those who do so because they are allegedly following the unfaithfully transcribed beliefs of a long-dead person who supposedly heard voices in his head?

And this raises an even more troublesome question.. Why would anybody live their life according to the text of a book that makes clearly unfulfillable promises to its readers? Would you keep on voluntarily giving your time or money to any person or organisation that cannot deliver on even its most basic promises? So why is religion (traditional or secular) or an ideology any different? How many of the true believers in ideologies as diverse as Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Capitalism or Communism have received any of the promised benefits of believing in them?

So why do people believe, and take pride, in advertising their strong belief in such obvious scams?

A couple of previous posts by me, Link 1 and Link 2, I have put forth the idea that belief in religion or ideology is about creating a justification for abusing, scamming, stealing, raping and murdering other people. Perhaps most humans have an insatiable need to hurt and kill other people but do not have the metaphorical balls to do so on their own account. They therefore require the external justification provided by any scrap of paper or the ravings of another person to hurt and kill other people.

Then there is the issue of reducing the chance of reprisal for carrying out such actions.

Cloaking sadistic and murderous desires in the name of religion and ideology allows it be legalized and reduces the chance of reprisal from those hurt by said actions. Killing people publicly labelled as “unbelievers”, “non-muricans”, “terrorists” makes it sound justifiable and “right”. Similarly stealing and abusing people because they are “non-whites”, “have low IQ” etc apparently sounds more reasonable than doing it because you are a piece of shit.

Nor is such solipsistic behavior restricted to whites, as it is trivial to find obvious examples of similar behavior in every group, society and race in the world. You can find desperately poor and sick people who want to hurt and kill others more vulnerable than them in the name of some leader , ideology or religion in every part of the world and at all times in human history.

That is why I do not care if the true believer of any ideology (or follower of any leader) is white, black, brown or blue. Nor do I care about the merits of their ideology, society and culture. Those who deliberately prey on more vulnerable people are extermination-worthy crap. They do not represent any hope, and are incapable of creating, a better future. Left to their own devices they will be never be able to transcend the human condition.

It is for this reason that pondering on the justness of the treatment received by those who discriminate against people who have not demonstrably injured them (be they devout mormons, catholic hispanics or muslims) is a worthless exercise. If anything, the continued existence and prosperity of eunuchoid assholes who require the cover of external ideology to justify their sadistic behavior is an indictment of humans as a species.

What do you think? Comments?

  1. S T
    April 4, 2015 at 6:27 pm

    I’m not sure if transcending the human condition is something we can do. On some level it is always there, a building block in our brain. We can try to ignore it, but it will still be there on some level.

    The way I saw religion for a long time was that it is an excellent structuring tool. You might argue maybe not the most efficient, or maximizing individual liberty, but it is certainly at least decent at what it does: provides a structure which further propagates itself.

    The vast majority of Old Testament stories are structuring stories. How do you structure this tribe vs another, structure the nation, structure the justice system, etc. etc. While some of the things might seem arbitrary, religion is a meme that has survived all the way to this age. While you are right in that it allows for the in tribe to justify abuse on the out tribe (goyim, gentile, infidel) it also allows the in group to more successful than it normally might.

    If you believed a certain deity was behind you all the time, then perhaps it led to you being bolder. Or at the same time if you had insane confidence in your own tribe, it confers an advantage. For example, the manosphere is a big fan of unwavering confidence for a man to increase his sexual prospects (and others!) in life. Might it not confer a similar bonus to a larger group?

    I use for my example reform Jewish people. Many of them do not believe in their Torah literally. Yet surprisingly they still have a place in synagogue, still are considered Jewish, and celebrate the traditions even if they do not fully believe in the God that inspired it. They still absorb some of the prejudices too. In this case, the structure is formed, the in group is formed yet the God element has been minimized.

    Also the human condition or element, is talked about in some religions, for example Christianity. They however ascribe the reasoning to the concept of original sin, rather than holding each person accountable. (Which can lead to half hearted attempts to change).

    But consider not everyone thinks like you or I. That maybe the people who are unreasonable with religion would also be unreasonable without it. In that case, I am for certain structures thrust upon them that would give at least some semblance of morality.

    • P Ray
      April 4, 2015 at 7:08 pm

      In that case, I am for certain structures thrust upon them that would give at least some semblance of morality for men alone

      Fixed that sentence for you, no charge.

      Mainly because I see this type of accountability, only handed towards men, and not towards the women that handed out feathers to get men to sacrifice for 0 returns.

      Imagine how women would shriek, if men only put their lives on the line, on condition of a written, enforceable contract (by their family members if those men failed to return alive) … that guaranteed them sexual favours by that woman OR other members of her family in return.

      Much of society is a scam to get the people on the lower end, to subsidise the people on the higher end.

      On the flip side, (most) people don’t accumulate power to do good things, they do it to abuse others … after all,
      what is power if you can’t get away with misdeeds?

      • joesantus
        April 4, 2015 at 9:56 pm

        Concerning women and “morality”, here’s a related thought I’ve had:
        The typical radfem party line is that orgainized religion is geared to serve “patriarchy”. However, while organized religion has no doubt been used my men to serve men, it has also been used, perhaps as equally, by women to serve women.

        For example, religious tenets forbidding such “sins” as fornication, adultery, and divorce/remarriage serve a woman’s interest by exerting and increasing societal pressures geared toward monopolizing a man and his resources for herself — because, if a man believes premarital sex is “sin”, he’ll commit himself long-term by marriage in order to obtain sex with a woman; if he believes adultery is “sin”, he’ll limit himself to sex within marriage; if he believes divorce/remarriage is “sin”, he’ll stay married even when marriage has manifested itself to not be in his overall best interest. Therefore, women have recognized the advantage to themselves they can effect by adhering to religions and religions’ tenets.

        That women are at least an equal if not often larger proportion of the adherents of organized religions evidences that religion isn’t merely a tool serving men. Women have historically served their own interests through religion as well.

      • S T
        April 5, 2015 at 3:52 am

        We are not only talking about Christianity here. From my understanding the original post was about ideologies in general. Yes even Church girls or Jewish girls or Muslim gals might be prone to more promiscuous behavior, yet there is the trope of “You won’t find your wife in a bar, but instead in a church”. Because it has some truth to it (in some areas it holds more than others).

        The Hasidic girls who live in a Brooklyn neighborhood protected by those who live in the neighborhood so as not to talk to people outside the community. Same with the Muslim girls in Burqa’s who aren’t allowed outside because their parents won’t let them. Or the Christian woman who has been taught what traditional marriage looks like.

        If we accept the many things put forth in the manosphere, such as female hypergamy, then these girls are a few examples of those who have to limit their hypergamy in some shape or form.

        As for accumulating power, well of course that’s true. The people on the lower end are fed hope once a week (sunday for Christians, Friday for Muslims, Saturday for Jewish people). Kind of similar to the poor families I see at the grocery store who spend $30+ on lottery tickets. These types of people would be exploited with or without religion, the difference is religion has the guise of a heavenly authority.

        I’d much rather play an unfair game with the rules pre-established, than an unfair game with no rules at all. I know that (insert religious leader here) is out to get my money, might try to sleep with my wife, etc. But the games they play are obvious and easy to dodge.

      • P Ray
        April 5, 2015 at 8:12 am

        I’d much rather play an unfair game with the rules pre-established, than an unfair game with no rules at all. I know that (insert religious leader here) is out to get my money, might try to sleep with my wife, etc. But the games they play are obvious and easy to dodge.

        People in charge, don’t play by the rules that they want/force others to follow.
        And …
        your wife might want to sleep with him. It’s funny how that works, eh?

      • S T
        April 5, 2015 at 11:41 am

        Well of course that’s natural. But if I don’t believe in the rules I can easily put on a face that I do and reap the benefits without following the rules myself.

        Of course anyone might want to sleep with anyone. My wife like me is a nonbeliever so we don’t have a religious leader. But even if we were, the only thing I would be able to do and should do is minimize the chance she strays and not worry myself about it. And I could wield my own power, for example my “SMV” surpasses a lot of religious leaders. Only thing I can do is minimize the others in the game trying to harm me, and maximize my own benefits. That’s all its ever been and all anyone can do in the game of life.

      • P Ray
        April 6, 2015 at 2:05 pm

        But even if we were, the only thing I would be able to do and should do is minimize the chance she strays and not worry myself about it. And I could wield my own power, for example my “SMV” surpasses a lot of religious leaders. Only thing I can do is minimize the others in the game trying to harm me, and maximize my own benefits. That’s all its ever been and all anyone can do in the game of life.

        True, but I wonder whether you will be able to retaliate with either an affair, or break the whole thing off … without penalties to yourself, if you are the main earner.
        See … women like to marry a rich guy AFTER they’ve mashed genitals with Chad Thundercock.
        That doesn’t mean they stop seeing Chad later though.

        Thanks to redpillcomics.blogspot.com

  2. Atlanta Man
    April 4, 2015 at 7:24 pm

    I agree with everything you wrote.

  3. April 5, 2015 at 4:02 am

    In a zero-sum world with limited resources, you always do somebody harm. Just by existing!

    • hoipolloi
      April 6, 2015 at 8:41 pm

      “you always do somebody harm. Just by existing!” This has to be kept in mind in talking equality, social justice etc. Evolution beckons us to take advantage of our situation. Killing a fellow creature, animal or human is part of it. That is what religion also justifies but also tries to prevent such extreme behavior. That is what much maligned God of Old Testament was saying many times. If you can gauge what the pitiable Israelites were against in Sinai and Palestine after they came out of the urban Egypt, one will have an understanding of what their god was saying. It was a dog eats dog world literally. It is a matter of kill or be killed. Say they encounter a town full of infectious diseased individuals with degenerate practices, you are mandated by evolutionary forces, some times referred to as god to exterminate them as pestilence. It sounds horrendous, but required and it happens across groups of living beings. Why do surgeons cut up people and remove organs on a daily basis?

      I do agree with the main theme of the post by AD, but I thought I add some complexity to it.

  4. Rum
    April 5, 2015 at 7:49 am

    If the voices inside ones head are indeed real and speak of deep truth, then what are you on about?
    See, everyone walks around “hearing” and reacting to the voices, no matter the presence of other humans.
    If the voices are from the intentions of sentient beings they can said to be real.
    If the voices are from the firing of neurons inside our brain-meat, but we react as if they are real ( as if from the intentions of sentient beings) — well that is the definition of psychosis.
    On this Easter day, these are the only two choices: 1. Acknowledge transcendent Spirituality, 2. Acknowledge that psychosis is the only process that sustains your experience of meaning-in-life.

  5. April 6, 2015 at 8:04 am

    [1] The word discrimination is annoying. I have seen dogs and one year olds that discriminate white or black people, depending on what they’re used to. A one-year old who sees a black person for the first time will ogle them fascinated for an hour. It is good to discriminate and crazy to think that people are going to forget the differences they experience. We should ban the word from this discourse.
    [2] You always put you own children and wife first: that is what they expect and that is what you owe them. It may seem unfair to others, but you simply cannot care about everybody equally.
    [3] Treating others unjustly is another matter altogether. Using any kind of legitimation in ideology or religion is inexcusable, and in the past, society was never unanimous in treating blacks as inhuman, etc. There was always controversy and culpability on the part of those who engaged in indifferent, bad or evil behaviour towards other individuals or groups.
    [4] That said, there are degrees and transitional zones in behaviour which make it impossible to make this as black and white as it sounds. The border between favouring the in-group and disadvantaging the out-group cannot be clear cut. Not wanting people in the neighbourhood who will cause your property value to drop is a concern that does’t automatically mean you are against those people, let alone equvalent to shipping them off in box cars for extermination. That applies to anything. Forcing people to use cycling lights at night can be supported to some degree, but raiding the school play for violations by 7 year-olds who normally don’t go out after dark (perfect moment to fill that quota), is not more of a good thing, even if the law considers it to be so. Things are complicated, more complicated than diabolus makes it sound. Of course, there are also many examples where it is simple, like the 40,000 prisoners kept in (often permanent) isolation in the US prison system.

  6. April 6, 2015 at 6:52 pm

    It doesn’t matter if it’s Boko Haram, ISIL, the IDF or the Westboro Baptist Church. Justifying vile and harmful actions with Bronze Age superstitions and fantasies makes one less than human.

    And that is my point!

    • P Ray
      April 7, 2015 at 12:14 am

      Their Bronze Age superstition and fantasies allow them to create a community, giving them legitimacy to commit abuse.
      That’s actually one of the reasons why people have community – to get away with abusing singular others OR defend against abuse.

      Just the same way why a lot of company culture resembles cults or religions:
      they are possible scamming, performing cartel activities or just plain not working,
      they require blind adherents to insulate the leadership from charges of impropriety,
      have lots of little rituals, meetings and “performance art” (the way you dress, speak, think and act)
      create, perpetuate, sustain and infiltrate such deviousness into larger society.

      • Webe
        April 7, 2015 at 1:34 pm

        This is going overboard. People create community to survive. Tribes are the most natural unit of social existence, and without tribes, human beings could not survive. In modern society everybody has been banned from the tribe (the worst punishment they had), but you don’t need a tribe to ensure survival anymore. Still leaves the evolutionary programmed social needs intact, if not satisfied.

        People may misuse community bonds to legitimate abuse, but community itself is not a purpose built vehicle. Bees don’t have hives in order to be drones.

      • P Ray
        April 8, 2015 at 7:07 am

        People may misuse community bonds to legitimate abuse, but community itself is not a purpose built vehicle. Bees don’t have hives in order to be drones.

        Bees have a hive mind. People do not.
        Even thinking money is a substitute for a real connection is wrong, as with the wrong people they’ll just take your money and you are without the reciprocation that it would have gotten, were you dealing with more honest people.

        If you think companies are not cults,
        Try turning up to work dressed in clashing colours and ragged clothes.

      • joesantus
        April 9, 2015 at 7:21 am

        “… People create community to survive…evolutionary programmed social needs….
        People may misuse community bonds to legitimate abuse, but community itself is not a purpose built vehicle….”

        If the human wiring which programs us to connect socially motivates people to create community…and if the purpose of creating community is to support survival…then isn’t community itself in fact a “purpose-built vehicle”?

      • P Ray
        April 9, 2015 at 12:01 pm

        Bonus interesting 1 paragraph wisdom for any worker:
        Your colleagues are never your friends. Ever. They cannot be. At best they’re neutrals and more likely they’re potential or actual enemies. So you treat them as a wise motorist treats every other driver on the road, as potential lunatics who will do you harm if you don’t drive defensively. In 30 years of working for multinational corps and governments I’ve learned: a) NEVER take more than two drinks on a social occasion involving workmates, and go home early before anyone else does b) NEVER discuss details of your personal life in the office c) NEVER impart potentially damaging personal information to colleagues d) Save every email in draft format for at least 10 minutes, ideally an hour, before hitting send e) You bring work home when you have a career, never when you have a job f) Record everything your manager says to you, including, documenting every request for action, starting with a repeat of your understanding of the request.

      • joesantus
        April 9, 2015 at 7:16 pm

        “…So you treat them as a wise motorist treats every other driver on the road, as potential lunatics who will do you harm if you don’t drive defensively…”


        “Defensive Pessimism”, a successful cognitive strategy.

  7. June 27, 2015 at 11:10 am

    Yes, you are right.

    Unfortunately, look what happened recently in South Carolina, USA. And people still want to operate on blind faith.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: