This entry is sure to upset a few people, though it is not my intention to offend anyone.  I simply want to discuss reality as best I can.

I spend a fair amount of time criticizing religion, and writing and arguing for reason and rationality.  I do this for many reasons.  There's no shortage of reasons to oppose religion.  Take your pick.  Dogma of any kind is antithetical to conversation, logic, rational thought, and progress.  Religion has caused a massive amount of senseless violence, death, and misery throughout human history.  It has retarded scientific progress, and continues to do so today.  Religion provides shields and justification for irrational bigotry, intolerance, and hatred.  Religion also gives us jihadism, arguably the greatest threat this generation faces.  Moreover, all of the good things that people get from religion, and all of the good that religion does (and I will concede that there indeed is some good), can be found and had through benign, secular means, if only enough people would get started on such a project.  Rather than spend too much time explaining why I oppose religion and risk letting this essay spiral too much out of control, I will simply point to the works of writers and thinkers such as Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, and Matt Dillahunty for anyone who's interested.  I mention these people on the forums a lot, (probably to a fault) but it's only because I believe so strongly in what they have to say, and I think it's of the utmost importance.

I am an atheist.  I don't believe in any god because there's evidence for one.  But I honestly have no objection to a belief in a god(s), provided that the believer is intellectually honest with themselves and others, admitting that we can't know for sure what there is or isn't, and if there is a god(s), we can't know who or what it is.  In other words, I have no quarrel with the deist.  The deist is one says, "I think the universe must have had a creator, so I believe in something, but it's impossible for us to know what it is."  I can't imagine that that way of thinking would be very harmful.  My problem lies with the theist.  The theist is one who says, "I know there's a god, I know which one it is, I have a personal relationship with God, I know exactly who and what God is, I know His will and His commands, I have the authority to speak on His behalf as His representative, I know what foods you should and shouldn't eat, I know which days you shouldn't work on, I know how and when you should pray, I know exactly how much of your genitals should be cut off, I know who you should sleep with and in what position, and failure to comply with any of these conditions will result in an eternity in a lake of fire."  It shouldn't be an mystery why I'm not keen on this way of thinking.  No one has any right or authority to tell others how to live. 

I don't believe because I don't see any reason to, but I understand why some might arrive at a different conclusion.  The universe is, after all, a mystery.  We know the big bang happened, but we don't know the story of how or why, or what was here before that.  One could lose their mind contemplating such mysteries.  To think about these things can be terrifying, and, in my opinion, a lot of fun.  I can understand why some might feel that it makes no sense without a designer, that there must have been a creator of some type.  The catch though, as it seems to me, is that a god doesn't really get you anywhere.  If your explanation for everything is God, then you can stop wondering where the universe came from, but now you have to start wondering where God came from, how long he was here, what was here before God, or if he was here forever, how is that possible, and so forth.  The mysteries don't end.  You just have different mysteries.  You can't escape mysteries.  This is a fact we have to live with, and it makes some people very uncomfortable, evidently.  But like it or lump it, you're going to be stuck with one mystery or the other for the time being, and as I see it, there's just no reason to throw a god into the mix.  It's an unnecessary variable that needlessly complicates the equation.  That said--that's just my opinion.  Perhaps there is a designer.  I don't know, and I can't know for sure, and that's the point.  I have no objection to generic, elastic deism.  Once again, my problem lies with dogma--with the doctrines that claim to know the truth, seek to enforce it on others, and tell people how to live their lives.  This is pure delusion, as it is impossible to know any of this for sure.

The biggest plothole of orthodox religion, it seems to me, is quite simply the fact that there is more than one.  Why do people believe in their specific religion, their book, and their god?  Why is the Christian a Christian?  Why not a Muslim?  Why does the Christian believe in the Abrahamic god and not Zeus?  Or Odin?  Shiva?  Anubis?  Why your religion, and not another?  You will almost never hear an honest answer to these questions, because the only honest answer, as it seems to me, is essentially an outright admission that all of these religions are human-made, fallible, and nonsense: because they happened to have been born where they were born, and this was the religion taught to them.  That's it.  By and large, that's the reason why anyone is the religion they are: because they were born into that culture, to parents of that religion.  Any feelings, signs, or experiences that they interpret as evidence are seen as evidence of their god.  The Christian will have some feeling of profundity and know it to be evidence of Jesus.  The Muslim will have the same feeling of profundity and see it as evidence of Allah.  How convenient.  Religion obeys geography, and believers will interpret any possible evidence as confirmation of what they already believe.  Confirmation bias continually reinforces each person's belief in their own god, even when the evidence remains consistent across the board.

People are born into a religion, and thus, that is what they believe.  The Christian believes in the Bible and Jesus because they were born to Christian parents.  If they had been born in the Middle East to Muslim parents, then that's what they'd be.  If they'd been born in India, they would be Hindu.  If they had been born in Denmark in the time of the Vikings, they would have worshipped Odin and Thor.  If they had been born in ancient Greece, they would have believed in Zeus, Hades, and Poseidon, ancient Egypt, Anubis and Horas.  Any experience they have that reinforced their belief does so for their specific god--the one they were born with.  If they had been born in any of those other places, the experience would have reinforced the belief in that god.  How do believers reconcile this?  How does this not bother anyone?  I am completely and utterly mystified as to how this simple fact of religion does not cause a complete derailment of the faith, an instant full-stop, causing everyone to say, "Well, wait a minute.  If everyone over there believes something totally different, then how do we know that any of us is right?"  Time and again, you will hear the same answers to this: faith.  They just have faith.  They just know.  Well, all the other religions claim the same thing.  How does this not bother anyone?  What reason is there for anyone to think that they just happened to be lucky enough to be born into the right religion?  People seem to believe that theirs has to be right, simply by dint of the fact that it is their religion, and for no other reason.  The fact is that every religion is equally unlikely, and none of them have unique authority.  From the outside looking in, the Bible and the Qu'ran appear no different than the teachings of ancient Greece, Rome, Egypt, or any other.  Just uncorroborated, unsubstantiated, fantastical stories of gods.  And yet, for completely arbitrary reasons, we are admonished to regard modern religions with utmost respect, while we file the old, dead gods into the graveyard we call mythology.

The idea I'm trying to get across has never been articulated better than this:

Yes, this video is satirical, mocking, and comical, as is this youtuber's style, but the points are completely accurate, and make this problem with religion crystal clear.

There are many believers who will argue that which religion you are doesn't matter, and that they basically all worship the same god, just with different names.  This simply isn't true.  Each holy book tells a completely different story, and they are all incompatible with each other.  Take Islam, for example.  Islam says that Jesus was not the son of God, and that it is blasphemy to say he is.  Worship of Jesus will lead you to hell.  This obviously doesn't square with Christianity.  People who argue that all religions basically worship the same god either haven't actually read the books, or they cherry-pick and interpret the books to fit what they already believe, which is something that came from the people around them, or from themselves, not from the books.  I would argue that such people are more deists than theists, and their elastic interpretations of religions are less harmful.  However, at that point, I would submit that if one is going to cherry pick the holy books, then you've already broken the "rules", so why not jettison the rule book entirely and admit that we do not, and cannot know?

But I digress.  What explanations could there be for this massive discrepancy between religions?  There aren't many possibilities.  Each religion claims that their holy book was written or dictated by the creator of the universe, and that it is his immutable word.  At most, only one book could possibly be true, because they all contradict each other.  Therefore, the possibilities are as follows: 1) God wrote all (or some) of the books, but only one is true.  He gave one group the truth and gave the rest gibberish.  2.) God wrote one book.  He gave the truth to one group, and just ignored the rest.  3.) God wrote none of the books.  Humans wrote all of them, and none are true.  This means that either A.) God is a troll, B.) God is a jerk, or C.) Humans tried to explain existence with extremely limited technology and knowledge, each culture invented a religion and wrote different flawed books.  Which scenario seems more likely?

Many theists will claim that this discrepancy between religions is actually by design, and that it is a test by God.  They claim that God is testing their faith, and that they will be rewarded for keeping faith in their religion despite the disagreement between the others.  To be blunt, I cannot overstate what a hollow, non-sequitur cop-out this claim is.  What motivation could a supposedly perfect being have for deliberately sending us flawed, confused, mixed messages, and then demanding that we believe one of them with no sound reasons or evidence?  What could be gained from this?  Why would a perfect being reward blind faith?  In what possible sense is blind faith a virtue?  Why would God not instead reward us for questioning, for thinking critically, and for using the mental faculties that he supposedly endowed us with?  Why would he not appreciate a commitment to truth, to intellectual honesty, and having the courage and integrity to follow wherever the evidence leads?  The answer is quite simple: because the gods of our holy books are petty, vindictive, vain, and selfish.  Chief among their concerns is that we worship them alone, above all else.  It seems to me that an omniscient, perfect being would be wise enough to more concerned with how people actually treat each other, rather than if we worship him blindly.  Only a selfish being would demand worship.  I submit that a being who demands worship is not worthy of it to begin with.

I can't imagine that I will ever understand how believers are able to wave away this glaring plothole.  It seems that they either haven't given it any thought, and simply take the religion that was thrust upon them without question, or... they actually have evaluated other religions, questioned, thought, and reached a conclusion that theirs must be right, and all others must be wrong.  If the latter, then I don't understand how this conclusion can reached.  What reasoning could there be to think that yours just happens to be right?  Believers must surely be aware that all other believers of all other religions have reached that same conclusion about their own faith.  If all people of all faiths are reaching the conclusion that theirs is right and all others are wrong, then something isn't adding up.  This is clearly a demonstration of confirmation bias in its most elegant form.

I'd like to offer one more elegant summary of this plothole before I move on:

I have heard from people who identify as a particular religion, and yet their views are so malleable, so flexible, that they admit that all religions could be wrong, believe that all could be right in some bizarre way, and believe that all you have to do is be a good person and you'll wind up in heaven.  To these people, I ask why they still identify with their religion?  Many will say that it is for the community aspect, the social bonds and fellowship that it provides.  This is understandable, but these things can be obtained without subscribing to a divisive doctrine, and without believing anything on insufficient evidence.

At this time I would like acknowledge the fact that there are some smaller, independent-type churches that are not dogmatic, and teach a very generic and malleable form of spirituality.  Such churches are usually much more tolerant, open-minded, and don't tend to threaten people with ideas like sin and hell.  These types of churches seem fairly harmless to me.  While I personally don't see the need to bring spirituality into the mix, I also generally don't object to churches like this if they aren't doing any harm.

I have been asked why I write essays like this, and why I fight against religion.  People have called me hypocritical, saying that I claim I want religion to leave people alone, and yet I won't leave religion alone.  Why can't I just let people believe what they want if they're not hurting anyone?  Well, the reason is because I believe that orthodox religion is always harmful, even if it doesn't seem that way.  Even if a particular subscriber keeps their faith private, doesn't push it on others, and doesn't appear to be causing any harm, I argue that they are still causing harm in unforeseen ways simply by being a part of the religion.  They're still supporting an organization that is damaging to the world.  It may encourage others to subscribe or continue subscribing to the religion.  It encourages the perpetuation of superstition.  Even if a particular church or religious denomination seems harmless and loving from the inside, in can still be perpetuating and encouraging a larger world of dogmatism and irrationality.  I'll concede that there may be particular individuals who are so private with their faith that they truly aren't hurting or affecting anyone else, and I'll stipulate that those people aren't directly causing any harm, but I will still fight to change their minds so as to gain a potential ally in the war of ideas.  I will continue to fight against the doctrines because I dream of living in a world where divisive dogma doesn't impede science and progress and cause needless suffering.  I want to stop theocrasy from continually creeping into public policy.  Most of all, I dream of living in a world where people stop fighting and killing each other over flawed, ancient books.

As always, it's impossible to say everything I want to in one essay, and I'm sure I've left things out or made some errors or contradictions that may come back to bite me.  I also realize how touchy this is, and that I've probably angered a few people.  For that, I do apologize.  Sometimes I think it would be better to keep my mouth shut rather than invite the flames and reap the whirlwind.  That's exactly what I did for twenty years, and I still choose to write in this quiet corner of the internet that is more tolerant and open-minded than most.  But I've decided that it's better to speak up, at least somewhere, because my time on this planet is so limited, and I want to do what I can to make the world a better a place.  Thanks for reading.