Respecting religious beliefs

[atheist buddy]

Why is it that in every field of human knowledge, a belief is only respected when it has been established that it's true, but when it comes to religion, we have to respect it even when it's not true?


In the field of history, the belief that the Holocaust never happened is NOT respected. Because that belief is false.

In the field of astronomy, the belief that the moon is made of cheese is NOT respected. Because that belief is false.

So why do the beliefs that Mary was a virgin, or that Jesus came back from the dead, or that Mohammed rode a flying horse, or that Balaal had a talking donkey have to be respected even if they are false?


If I said "Believing the Halocaust didn't happen is as absurd as believing in Peter Pan", nobody would chide me for being disrespectful of a holocaust denier's beliefs.

If I said "Believing the moon is made out of cheese is as absurd as believing in the Tooth Fairy" nobody would chide me for being disresepctful to a moon-made-out-of cheese person's beliefs.

So why do I get scolded for making comparisons between the Talking Donkey and the Gingerbread Man, or the Virgin Birth and the Three Little Piggies?



Is it because people are very emotionally attached to beliefs in talking donkeys and virgin births, and I should be mindful of not hurting their feelings? If that's the case, then what if a holocaust denier is very emotionally attached to his beliefs? Should I refrain from expressing my sincere opinion that his beliefs are absurd, to safeguard his feelings?

Is it because beliefs in talking donkeys and virgin births are held by millions whereas holocaust deniers and people who believe the moon is made of cheese are thankfully very rare? By that token, should I have been respectful of the typical white american's belief about race relations in the 19th century, because those unjustified and inexcusable beliefs were the beliefs of the majority?


Why is there a double standard? Why is belief that Elvis is still alive cause for imediate social ostratization, but belief in the virgin birth respected even by those who don't share that belief?


It seems to me that in all aspects of human discourse, this parameter is used: If a belief is justified, it's respected. If it isn't justified, it is not respected. Why aren't religious claims subject to that same standard?


If I compare the Bible to the Three Little Piggies, the only valid rebuke is that the Bible is a more literarily interesting work of fiction than the Three Little Piggies. Of course, if I compared the Bible to, say, Shakespeare, the inverse would be true, and if anything, I could be accused of insulting Shakespeare.

IF the talking donkey and the virgin birth actually happened, then comparing them to fictional events that didn't happen, is indeed disrespectful. But if the talking donkey and the virgin birth are fictional, how is it disrespectful to compare them to other fictional stories? How is comparing fiction to fiction disrespectful?



Can we agree that there is no universal requirement for respecting somebody's mathematical, scientific, historical, geographical, beliefs if they are unjustified?

Can we agree that while I do have to be respectful to a person who believes 2+2=5, it is perfectly socially acceptable to be disrespectful of the belief itself?

So why can't the same apply to religion? Why is it not ok to say to a Muslim "I respect you as a person, but in my opinion your belief in Mohammed's flying horse is as absurd as a child's belief in Santa's flying reindeer".

[Wordleymaster1]

[Replying to post 1 by atheist buddy]

For a long time, religion has been held in high regard. Religion and those who are a part of it aren't used to being 'second fiddle' to anything else. When they get treated that way the scream and yell. It's about power influence and personal agendas as well as political propaganda when it comes to MOST religions.
That and there's nothing that can be shown to prove a religion to be true AND religion has, a lot of the time, supernatural things that don't appear to be able to happen as a general rule.
Combine all this and you have the perfect storm - unfortunately.

[atheist buddy]

So, please do not act as if unbelievers are being persecuted, while believers are getting away with murder.

Wow. WOW. "Do not act as if unbelievers are being persecuted, while believers are getting away with murder".

It's remarkable how your statement perfectly describes the exact opposite of reality.

Believers are MOST DEFINITELY getting away with murder.

It's estimated by human rights groups that 5000 honor killings happen each year.

Believers are literally getting away with murder. Not figuratively. Literally.

And that's right now.

If you look back at history it's even worse. Inquisition, Stalinism, North Korea, Ireland, Crusades, you name it.


This is a thought experiment I like to propose:
Imagine there is a time/space machine which automatically teleports you to a major city at a random time in the past. Once you get there, you have to go to the center of the city square and yell out "I used to agree with the dogmatic beliefs of the majority, but not anymore. Now I find those beliefs laughable. Going forward, I will discuss by newfound skepticism with your children".

Here is the game: If you survive saying that, you win. If you get incarcerated, beaten, burned at the stake, tortured, beheaded, hanged or disemboweled, you lose.

Would you be ok with your children getting into that time machine and playing that game?


What's my point? Throughout most of the world and most of history, disagreeing with the dogmatic beliefs of the majority (Christianity, Islam, Stalinism, Kim Jung Un veneration, Holiness of Japanese Emperor, holines of Pharaoh, Judaism, Voodoo, Hinduism, ecc) was and still is the most dangerous social behavior a human being could engage in.

If you are a mass murderer who killed people at least once a month for the last 10 years, it's not very reassuring if you tell me "What? I didn't kill anybody in this neighborhood in the last 7 days. I'm a changed man. There's nothing to fear".

Similarly, dogmatic people throughout the world and throughout history have systematically murderered, tortured and persecuted those who didn't believe in their dogma (either because they were skeptics or because they believed a different dogma). Now, very recently and for the first time, in very isolated pockets of civilization such as America and Europe, there is an exception to the rule that has been applied for the last 6000 years throughout the globe. And you expect me relax, and enjoy the fact that I'm not being persecuted right this minute?

Now as far as you saying,

that's not how human biology works

I absolutely agree with you on that statement, without a doubt. But, if there is a God, who created us out of nothing, along with the universe, do you think it would be possible that He is not bound by the laws of the universe?

Sure. IF an entity that could bend the natural laws existed, then the natural laws could be bent.

Is there any reason to believe that such an entity exists or that such bendings of natural law ever happen? NO.

Think about it. You're saying "That which is impossible could be possible if we assume that that which isn't true, is true".

You know that an argument is bunk when it can be used to justify laughable propositions just as well as it can be used to justify your religious belief.

You can say "Virgin births are impossible, but they could happen if an entity (Yahweh) that can make the impossible possible existed".

But in the exact same way you can say "Mohammed riding a flying white horse to heaven is impossible, but it could happen if an entity (Allah) that can make the impossible possible existed"

In the exact same way you could say "Delivering gifts to millions of children in a single night on a sleigh pulled by flying reindeer is impossible, but it could happen if an entity (Santa) that can make the impossible possible existed".

I do NOT mean to compare your religious beliefs to Islam or to Santa. I just wish to point out within the narrow scope of my argument, that your position regarding the virgin birth is untenable, in that the very same argument you use to justify it, can also be used to justify equally succesfully the existence of Mohammed's flying horse or Santa's flying reindeer.

Again, I want to reiterate that I am in no way comparing your religious beliefs to Islam or to Santa. I believe that I have the right to if I want to, but I am nonetheless not doing it. I am just making a very narrow point about how your argument is not valid because it can be used to justify patently false things just as well as it can be used to justify your belief.

You seem to believe that if we could rid the world of religion, the world would be a safer place. Let me assure you it would not be! There are killings, and murder occurring everyday, all day, that have nothing whatsoever to do with religion! These things occur because we as humans are naturally selfish! If you do not believe this, then I would ask you, "how many children do you have to teach to be selfish?" You do not have to teach any of them how to be selfish because we are all born selfish! This is the reason a child has to be trained in how, not to be selfish. My point is, ridding the world of religion would not in any way have an effect on how safe we would be, the only way to ensure safety would be to rid the world of selfishness! Good luck with that one!

It's not religion that is the problem, in my opinion. It's dogmatism. Beliefs based not on a pragmatic examination of the evidence, but on herd mentality and mental lazyness.

Granted, Abrahamic religions are the most notorious form of dogmatic thought, but not the only ones. Stalinism, extreme patriotism, tribalism, racism, are also manifestations of the same problem.

I don't think that it ever happened once that a person with sociopolitical influence was able to mobilize the masses to do acts of unspeakable cruelty or horror, because the people had a tendency to question leadership too much, require too much evidence in support of any statement, and applied too much reason and critical thought to the analysis of the evidence.

It is true that humans have an innate element of selfishness. But they also have an innate sense of compassion and solidarity. In a healthy person, the two are balanced.

In conclusion, I would put to you the famous question by the late Mr. Hitchens. Can you think of any morally good deed or statement that could be made by a religious person, that couldn't also be made by a non-religious one? No.

In reverse, can you think of any morally wicked deed that would be made by a religious person, that would never be made by a non-religious one? Yes.

Is there any reason to believe that such an entity exists or that such bendings of natural law ever happen? NO.

Well, let me assure you, this is simply your opinion! I certainly beg to differ! I am not a Christian because I want to be, rather I believe there is reason to believe that Christianity is true!

Ok, so what is that reason?

You make a mistake when you say,

But in the exact same way you can say "Mohammed riding a flying white horse to heaven is impossible,

NO! I have not in any way said that was impossible! My question is not at all whether it is possible or not, rather my question is, whether it is true! There is a huge, (very huge), difference! You are the one who is saying, "it is impossible!" Along with saying, "it is impossible for a donkey to talk, or a virgin to give birth." I am saying that, all of the above is possible, including, "Mohammed riding a flying white horse to heaven." I would also include that is "possible that I am wrong!" My question to you is, "is it possible that you could be wrong?" If your answer is, "NO!" My question then would be, "which one of us is in the real world?"

Ok, let's say that the talking donkey, and the virgin birth, and the flying horse, and the flying reindeer, and the spiderman, are all potentially possible.

If you stretch your imagination enough, it's easy enough to imagine that they do. You could say that our universe is just one of an infinite number of universes and part of a multiverse. The conditions in each universe are different. If there is an infinite number of universes, it's inevitable that at least one exists in which reindeer can fly and women give birth without losing their virginity.

Or maybe you could say that reality as we perceive it is just a simulation a la Matrix. Such a simulation could be the product of the imagination of a being outside of it, much like talking donkeys are the product of the imagination of.... us. If we allow that the simulation that we call our universe is real, then to be consistent we must allow that things we imagine are, in some sense, real as well.

So, sure, we can say that anything is possible.

Your claim is that the virgin birth isn't just hypothetically possible in an esoteric, new-age, trying-to-pick-up-a-hippie-girl kind of way. You're saying that as well as being possible, it actually happened in reality, in an ordinary sense. You're saying that 9 months before a baby was born in a cave in Jerusalem, a woman got pregnant without sperm cells being involved.

There is some pretty strong evidence against that, and less evidence for it than there is for Elvis being still alive. So I ask you again. For what reason do you believe that Mary was a virgin?

Okay, so you have asked me, "why it is that I believe?" Well allow me to ask you, why is that you do not believe? Do you really believe you could do it justice here in this format? Surely, you have more reasons for your unbelief than the virgin birth, talking donkey, etc. Certainly, you have put more thought into it than that! In fact, above you go into detail speaking of those who are lazy thinkers, and simply follow the herd when you say,

Granted, Abrahamic religions are the most notorious form of dogmatic thought, but not the only ones. Stalinism, extreme patriotism, tribalism, racism, are also manifestations of the same problem.

I don't think that it ever happened once that a person with sociopolitical influence was able to mobilize the masses to do acts of unspeakable cruelty or horror, because the people had a tendency to question leadership too much, require too much evidence in support of any statement, and applied too much reason and critical thought to the analysis of the evidence.

Now, I agree with what you have said here, therefore, if I am not one of those lazy thinkers, who are easily lead, and simply follow the herd, then wouldn't you think that it would be impossible for me to give you the reasons for my belief, here in this format? As I have said in the past, "it would take a book volume!" But allow me to give you an example of how I do not follow the herd in my thinking. You have cited Hitchens here,

Can you think of any morally good deed or statement that could be made by a religious person, that couldn't also be made by a non-religious one? No.

In reverse, can you think of any morally wicked deed that would be made by a religious person, that would never be made by a non-religious one? Yes.

Now, many Christians would attempt to defend the actions of religious people, and also attempt to defend the actions of the characters in the Bible as somehow being moral. The problem as I see it with these many Christians, and with Hitchens himself is that they have lumped Christianity in with religion. While religion is motivated, and concerned, by, and with morality, and teaching it's adherents how to be moral, this is not the concern at all with Christianity. Christianity, is not concerned at all with teaching us how to be moral, how to have a better life, or how to fix our problems! Rather Christianity is concerned with explaining to us we are immoral, and there are no good deeds we can do to reverse this. The Bible tells us, "our works are as filthy rags!" Just as Adam, and Eve attempted to correct their problem by sewing fig leaves together, our attempts to better ourselves, and ascend the ladder to God by our works is futile! With all of this being the case, I would not be surprised in any way to find Christians acting in an immoral way, seeing as how we are all immoral.

In short, rather than teaching us how to be moral, Christianity encourages us to let go of our own efforts of morality. The bad news, according to the Bible is, we are not and cannot be moral, however the Good News, (Gospel), is that God has made a way to save the immoral.

Now, as I said above, there are many Christians, in fact I would even say most Christians who have also lumped Christianity in with religion. They believe they have somehow obtained morality by their behavior! As I hope you can see, I am not a member of that herd, and have been able to see beyond the masses!

To answer your question about tired of the nonsense being the universe, he has made this statement else where! I'll answer the rest later!

Hey Jack, I've told you why I don't believe in any of the stories of the Bible.

Now can you pleae go ahead and tell me why you believe any of them?

[goodwithoutgod]

[Replying to Realworldjack]

realworldjack: "Now, many Christians would attempt to defend the actions of religious people, and also attempt to defend the actions of the characters in the Bible as somehow being moral. The problem as I see it with these many Christians, and with Hitchens himself is that they have lumped Christianity in with religion. While religion is motivated, and concerned, by, and with morality, and teaching it's adherents how to be moral, this is not the concern at all with Christianity. Christianity, is not concerned at all with teaching us how to be moral, how to have a better life, or how to fix our problems! Rather Christianity is concerned with explaining to us we are immoral, and there are no good deeds we can do to reverse this.

ah yes, the ol incarnation and atonement theory..sigh. God demands payment for sin, sends down a part of himself in the form of a man named "jesus" so he can do what we can't, pay for our eternal sin, so he can be executed, to satisfy god's own ego for atonement...makes perfect sense. Kill part of thyself to satisfy thyself.

The Bible tells us, "our works are as filthy rags!" Just as Adam, and Eve attempted to correct their problem by sewing fig leaves together, our attempts to better ourselves, and ascend the ladder to God by our works is futile!

Hate to break it to you RWJ, but adam and eve, noah, moses are all fabrications. DNA can be traced back and it doesn't point to a single source.

With all of this being the case, I would not be surprised in any way to find Christians acting in an immoral way, seeing as how we are all immoral.

Which is why 70+% of US prisons are filled with Christians, vice the .02% of non religious people.

In short, rather than teaching us how to be moral, Christianity encourages us to let go of our own efforts of morality. The bad news, according to the Bible is,....

According to the bible? That gathering of musings centered around pseudepigrapha, interpolations, parables, allegorical writings and zero credible eyewitness accounts can't be a source for anything except creative writing, with poor editing.

..we are not and cannot be moral....

Says who? Man created morals over time, religion stole those societal accepted norms and fabricated their story around them, chicken - egg.


however the Good News, (Gospel), ....

The gospels are fabricated, largely fictional, inconsistent with one another, and not written by whom you think, as well as talking about things the authors didn't actually witness

...is that God has made a way to save the immoral."

It is a great story, but a story never the less. My paper on the atonement theory below....cited and peer reviewed.


-----------------------------------------------
Eric #######
Professor V######## ########
Christian Spirituality Vision REL 123
April 12 2014

The relationship between incarnation and atonement

To contemplate the relationship between incarnation and atonement, with special emphasis on Anselms idea of satisfaction, we must first look at what incarnation and atonement means to those of the Christian faith. Incarnation is continual in that our redemption depends on the reality that the eternal son of God came to us as a man. If he did not come fully down, then we are not fully saved (Dawson 5-6). Since Jesus became what we are, accepting our very humanity and God crossed the gap between human and deity, and he overcame our sin and came to live on our behalf. He chose to leave a faithful life that was beyond our capacity, but required by the Father.

The very obedience of Jesus led him to die on the cross as penalty for human sin. Not only did he die for us, but he gave us new life for salvation, and salvation depends on our continuing union with him. The Incarnation is basically a fundamental theological teaching of Christianity, based on its understanding of the New Testament. The Incarnation represents the Christian belief that Jesus, who is the second part of the triune, God, took on a human body and became both man and deity. This can be seen in the Bible in John 1:14: "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (Bible " King James version " John). The Christians worldview is rooted in the incarnation of Jesus Christ, the belief that Jesus is God in human in one person (Mueller 141).

Atonement is a theological theory which describes human beings reconciliation with God. This atonement is basically the forgiveness of sin through the death and resurrection of Jesus. This voluntary sacrifice by Jesus made possible the reconciliation between man and God. God so loved the world, and gave his only begotten son (Bible " King James version " John 3:16). This Scripture verse highlights the source of atonement by the very provision of Gods love. It is the love of God the father that Paul has in view when he speaks of him who spared not his own son, but delivered him up for us all (Bible " King James version " Romans 8:32). Surely God could have saved man by other means then allowing his only son to die, since God is all-powerful, other ways of forgiving sin were available to him. Some view the very necessity of his great self-sacrifice magnified his glory and enhanced the precise character of the salvation bestowed (Murray 12). Salvation requires not only the forgiveness of sin but also justification. Sin is the contradiction of God he must react against it with holy wrath demonstration of Christ on the cross is the ultimate demonstration of the love of God. The very nature of the atonement requires that it contains obedience, sacrifice, propitiation, reconciliation and redemption.

Obedience is a compilation of motive, purpose, direction and intention, of which Christ was the epitome of obedience and discharge of Gods will in its increasing demands leading up to his inevitable sacrificial death. Sacrifice is the removal of sin liability via the transference of liability itself. Propitiation; to pacify, and Christs propitiation to God was to deal with the wrath so that those loved would no longer be the objects of wrath, and Gods love would be eternal. Reconciliation is concerned with our alienation from God, and the inherent need to have that alienation removed. Redemption by Jesus blood, Thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation (Bible " King James version " revelations 5:9).

This atonement can be broken down into various theories, one of which is the satisfaction theory of atonement, developed by Anselm of Canterbury (1033 " 1109). Anselm posited that sin unbalanced the order of justice in the universe. Once a sin has been performed, something good must be done in order to restore the balance. For example, a sin is incurrence of debt to God, the source of order, and that debt must be paid through true repentance (Albl 271). The work of Christ is to repair the breach human sin introduced into the relationship between humanity and God. Anselm argued in Cur Deus Homo that this work can be accomplished only by a God-man; one person equally divine and human. This doctrine of Christ is commonly called Chalcedonian Christology because it was created by the Council of Chalcedon in 451 CE (Visser 213).

One cannot explain the incarnation by appeal to any supposed obligation on Gods part to respect the devils rights over humanity. Since the devil had no such rights, so it appears that God would not have been acting unjustly if he had just delivered human beings the power of the devil by fiat. What reason did God have to redeemed mankind and the way he did, given that he was not under any obligation to do so? Anselm suggests that since we know Gods will is never irrational, we can be confident that God had some reason for doing what he did, even if we do not see or understand what the reason is (Visser 214).

Anselm believed he could prove, by unavoidable logical steps, that Christ was removed from the case, as if there had never existed anything to do with him, is it possible that without him mankind could have been saved (Anselm 261 " 262). A foundation of Christianity is that Jesus Christ died on the cross for our sins (Bible " King James version "1 Cor 15:3). In this way he fulfilled the old covenant sacrificial system, reconciled us to God, and changed our lives forever. This is the doctrine of the atonement (Mattison 1). At this point the author makes a faith claim, or commonly known as a knowledge claim, by positing its reality is not in dispute. I must interject here the whole subject is in dispute, and has been the center of debate for centuries. The authors mere assertion in a knowledge claim that the atonement reality is not in dispute does not make it true. It does however assert that the atonement theory is an essential foundation of Christian religious belief. The author goes on to say, we know that the atonement works; but how it works is not as clear. Again, a knowledge claim is made; we have zero proof that the atonement works, at best it is a comforting theory for the faithful to cling to in order to validate their faith to themselves.

The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many (Bible "King James version " Matthew 20:28). The statement suggests that Jesus gave his life as an extreme expression of love for mankind. Iranaeus of Lyons argued that Jesus was paid as the ransom to the devil free peoples souls. This view was known as the ransom or classic theory. The ransom theory was the dominant theological theory for centuries until dismantled by Anselm of Canterbury. He pointed out that this theory empowered the devil too much, and he posited that Jesuss life was ransom paid to God, not the devil. Anselm viewed sin as dishonorable conduct that went against God. Since God cannot ignore this conduct, a debt or satisfaction is required. Since mankind is unable to make the requisite level of satisfaction, God became human to do it on our behalf. Thus, Jesus was payment to God, not the devil. But since Jesus was part of the triune god, did god merely appease himself?

The church leaders developed doctrine to reflect Jesus Christs fulfilling of Gods will through active obedience, vice his passive obedience through death. Basically, God requires mankind to obey and live a life of perpetual obedience (Mattison 1). This endless cycle of perpetual intellectual and spiritual slavery upon birth, where we continuously strive to bow and scrape in deference to our alleged creators self-centered will and ego, is hardly what a thinking person would presume a deity of such universe and life creating power, would be so obsessed with. What kind of immature supreme being would create all of this, create life, destroy life, send part of his own body down in the form of a man through immaculate conception, so he can die on our behalf to satisfy Gods ego requirement for sacrifice. I dont purport to understand the consciousness of this alleged magical creature, but it is hard to conceive such childish, disingenuous manipulation of life for the entertainment of itself. This dramatic, over thought, contrite, anthropocentric theory must be the creation of mans imagination. How could it be anything else?

In summary, this complex, dramatic Christian theological concept is obviously a fabrication of much thought, and introspective philosophy. Perhaps they could have put all that time and effort into something more constructive. Creating a subservient, subjugative crutch for people with low mental resilience, apparent inability to use reason and logic to comprehend the world around them, and wild imaginations seems unnecessary. In my opinion, religion and faith block the believers ability to utilize appropriate epistemological methods to process and gain knowledge. As apparent by the fact that a recent study showed that one fourth of America believed the sun revolved around the earth. This is the perfect example of how religious thought handicaps a persons ability to learn.




Works Cited:

Mattison, Mark. The Meaning of the Atonement. Mark Mattison. 1987. Web. Retrieved from http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/openhse/atonement.html

Anselm, Evans, G. R., The Major Works. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc, 1998. Print.

Visser, Sandra and Williams, Thomas, Anselm. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc, 2009. Print.

Murray, John, The Atonement. Evansville: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1976. Print.

Mueller, J.J., Theological Foundations: Concepts and Methods for Understanding the Christian Faith. Winona: Anselm Academic, Christian Brothers Publications, 2011. Print.

Albl, Martin C. Reason, Faith, and Tradition: Explorations in Catholic Theology. Winona: Anselm Academic, Christian Brothers Publications, 2009. Print.

The Catholic Study Bible: The New American Bible 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University press, Inc., 2011. Print.

Dawson, Gerrit S. Jesus Ascended: The Meaning of Christs Continuing Incarnation. New Jersey: P&R publishing, 2004. Print.

[Clownboat]

So I guess it's about what the goal is, for the (metaphorical, of course) spitter upon things. If all you want to do is express your opinion and make enemies, ensure that believers would rather chew on a Chihuly than talk to you, and pretty much cement their beliefs, fine.

Some irony struck me and a Bible verse came to mind:
Psalms 53:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity; There is none that doeth good.

Makes me wonder about the goal of this book... Thanks for bringing it to light.

[Danmark]

So I guess it's about what the goal is, for the (metaphorical, of course) spitter upon things. If all you want to do is express your opinion and make enemies, ensure that believers would rather chew on a Chihuly than talk to you, and pretty much cement their beliefs, fine.

Some irony struck me and a Bible verse came to mind:
Psalms 53:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity; There is none that doeth good.

Makes me wonder about the goal of this book... Thanks for bringing it to light.

If anyone, theist or non, wants to make a powerful statement for his position, it helps to be gracious and friendly in the presentation. I always got a kick out the old Biblical proverb that advised being kind to your enemy, offering him cool water and fine food; that it is like "pouring hot coals on his head." The Bible is not without some humor and irony. Some of it may even be intended.

[Clownboat]

You seem to believe that if we could rid the world of religion, the world would be a safer place. Let me assure you it would not be! There are killings, and murder occurring everyday, all day, that have nothing whatsoever to do with religion!

I would assume a person that would believe this would be talking about the killings that do occur because of religions, not the killings that have nothing to do with religions.

Consider this (which would not require ridding the world of religions):
Only when Christians and Muslims stop telling their children that a god loves them so much as to send them to heaven, but hates the other so much as to send them to hell, will we ever be able to stop the violence and bloodshed.

No ridding needed and perhaps there would be less "killing of the infidels".