How Large is your Penis?

Thursday, June 10, 2010

The Birth of Religion

A way to expose an idea for its absurdity is by looking at the origin behind an idea. Instead of arguing against the idea itself we can look at its origin. If the birth of an idea is absurd, a deformed hideous birth, an abomination against reason, born out of marriage between passion and evil, then its life in general shall be deformed itself, hideous to anyone who sees with reason, an abomination to those who are moral. Deformity gives birth to deformity.

Consider the origin of law on prostitution and the origin of prohibition. Instead of arguing against the ideas that support laws against prostitution or alcohol let us only concentrate on their birth. Is the birth of anti-prostitution laws and prohibition hideous? Prostitution was opposed by religious groups who did not like it. They are offended by people having sex outside marriage. They thought it was immoral. A hideous birth. Prohibition was supported by women who did not like alcohol, they managed to pass legislation because the men were out in the war. Another hideous birth. It is not a surprise then why the arguments in favor of anti-prostitution or prohibition are weak, absurd, pathetic and why these laws are failed laws. The deformed child grew into an ugly beast.

Now let us concentrate on the birth of religion. What kind of birth is it? It is a birth between the ignorant mother and the authoritarian father. Ignorance came first which developed into authority.

It is in human nature to seek answers to any questions that we has. But this great virtue that separated us from all the species and made us interesting comes with a vice. If no answer is provided man will substitute an imaginary answer for no answer, a contrived answer that he invented by his own madness. The will to truth rather will false answers than no answers. In our primitive state when life was brutish and short, filled with misery and ignorance, we needed a way to invent answers. Because we are too weak-minded to say that we do not know. Thus, we needed a way to satisfy our ignorance so that she would not haunt us. This is the birth of religion that we inherited from our mother, our ignorance.

We did not know chemistry, physics, astronomy, geology, or geography. So we invented answers to all of these questions. We invented Zeus to satisfy our ignorance of thunder, we invented Helios to satisfy our ignorance of the Sun, we invented other superstitions and myths to explain how the world operated around us. These myths were taught between friends and eventually passed down to their children, the children grew up to believe in these myths. Each tribe had its own story, each civilization had a separate myth conflicting with another civilization, because these myths were invented, not discovered. Though among this great diversity of satisfied ignorance things were quite peaceful, this is when religion was disorganized. But things eventually get violent when the father of the deformed child teaches him authority.

During our period of ignorance there was no authority, there was no state. Civilization preceded the state. The state had no method to secure its authority. Even if the state was more powerful than the ruled class the state would be in a perpetual war with the people, which will lead to its ultimate destruction. A state needed legitimacy to exist. A way to justify its own existence to the people. An excuse to convince the people why it can dominate them with its power structure. It did this with religion. Once religion had developed the masters could rule the people by establishing certain morals. These "morals" were morals derived from religion. The masters set codes and obligations for all the people to follow. It came up with excuses that this is what the gods demand. The gods are beyond human and immortal which made the ruled class both fearful and praiseworthy of these gods in religions. The state is now born from religion. And now religion becomes organized. It has morals and obligations that the members must follow. Failure to be obedient results in punishment from the father. Now that authority is established different civilizations have their own religion which leads to larger war and violence.

These skeptics who think that the only good side to religion was in the distant past when it kept people in line are wrong. Religion was never used to keep people in line, religion was used to secure authority. To keep people in line, for authority, means to make people obedient, to keep people in line, what it really means, to make sure people behave well. We must not confuse these two distinctions, these skeptics commit this confusion. Religion was never used to make people behave, it was really used to secure authority, and authority called itself as a way to keep people in line. Religion did not succeed in promoting behavior among people, it succeeded in promoting obedience to the father which resulted in the illusion that religion was used to keep people in line by authority.

This is the birth of religion. It is not a surprise now why what religion says and does is so absurd to any rational person. This absurdity is the consequence of its absurd birth. Religious birth was never concerned with promoting truth or morality but with ignorance and authority. This is why it is entirely unsurprising why there is so many truthful errors in religion and so many immoral propositions to its followers.

Free your mind from religion. Not only will you free your mind from ignorance but also from tyranny.


  1. I'm not sure if agree with your initial premise you say that

    "A way to expose an idea for its absurdity is by looking at the origin behind an idea."

    However it's well known that religion has evolved a lot since its inception. I hardly see how the absurdity of religion in its original form can be used as an argument against religion today. It a comparison between two completely different things.

    Also I think your description of the beginnings of religion is a bit of generalization.I'm no expert but aren't there other theories of how religion started?

  2. "I'm no expert but aren't there other theories of how religion started?":

    Maybe. But this is what I think happened. I have absolutely no evidence to back this up except from my observation as how religion functions in the world. I am not concerned about this though. People who complain and say I need evidence before I can form ideas are boring and uncreative people. Sigmund Freud created his interesting ideas with no evidence, so did Freidrich Nietzsche, and many others. I will admit that I am entirely making everything up that I am saying here and based on some other ideas I have heard. But what I think is based on observation and I will be willing to test it. Until that time I will invent up explanations.

  3. It is written Satan has deceived the whole world until the heel of time when a woman shall bruise him by exposing his lies. Check out the bruising of Satan at
    Please read all of the posts to see the whole picture

  4. Statism is a religion, too. I think you'll like my latest blog post, Spinoza - please leave your thoughts on it!

  5. "Statism is a religion, too.":

    Statism by itself is not a religion. But in many cases it seems like a religion. It is amazing the worship people have towards the state, and it is amazing what people think the state can do, as if it is some diety. Religion is what gave birth to the first states (as I explain), so they go together. This is why the church and state were together.

  6. What is the distinction you are making here Baruch? Something is a religion, it seems to me, if it is an ideology to which you sacrifice your reason and ability to make choices, in exchange for feelings of comfort and safety, and perhaps purpose. How is that not an accurate description of the state?

  7. Puzzled, I wrote about what a religion is back here ( ). I never seen a good definition for religion so I had to make one up. This is the one I try to stick to.

    One more thing about the state. People never exchanged anything for the state. They never consented to it. It was rather mandated upon them on birth. So if you define religion as "ideology to which you sacrifice reason and abilitity for comfort and safety" then statism cannot be a religion. Besides your definition for religion is not a useful one.

  8. Well, I don't like your definition, but it is your blog, so fair enough. However, on your point about the state - true enough, but what I'm saying people are sacrificing their reason to is not the state so much as statism. Statism is a choice - you can choose to see the state as an armed aggressor, or you can adopt a statist viewpoint.

  9. "Religion is a propaganda machine and a force for social engineering,intended essentially to ensure obedience to the rulers and to raise revenue for them"
    The Real Da Vinci Code(