Selfish Religion

Free access to scriptures religious leaders try to censor

Richard Dawkins, an atheist, in wonder why people are religious.

He made many arguments. To explain why people are religious, we would expect that religions would serve ones’ gene pool survival.

It doesn’t seem to be that way. Religions, for example, teach us how to

…devours huge resources. A medieval cathedral consumed hundreds of man-centuries in its building. Sacred music and devotional paintings largely monopolized medieval and Renaissance talent. Thousands, perhaps millions, of people have died, often accepting torture first, for loyalty to one religion against a scarcely distinguishable alternative. Devout people have died for their gods, killed for them, fasted for them, endured whipping, undertaken a lifetime of celibacy, and sworn themselves to asocial silence for the sake of religion….”

Dawkins argues that religions may work as placebo (meagerly). Perhaps, religions promote group selection theory (which is partially true).

Perhaps, religions are just stupid remnants that we still have that used to work. That is true, but only in countries in England, where Dawkins live, as I shall show.

But all his arguments only meagerly touch the surface why people are religious.

You see, one very effective ways to win in a competition is to screw better competitors. In this case, all the stupidity of religions make perfect sense because it is enforced on others!

In many other countries, religious bigots can force their moral ideas to others. Hence, the stupidity of religions will be suffered by others. That will make it easy for the religious to win.

For example, say I am a King, Sultan, or Emperor that wants to have many women. It is toward my best interest to promote and even enforce celibacy for the rest. I would want all the other males to be as asexual as possible. That way, I will get as many women as possible.

Hence, such kings will prohibits all information that may motivate males to seek women, such as porn. A Sultan would rather his subjects to commit jihad, crusade, or whatever to against another countries or minorities rather than wooing women. That way more males will die and there will be more women for the king.

A political leader can also more easily find justification for war with religions. Rather than waiting for the enemies to be a real threat or a real assholes, which often mean that the enemies are tough, a king, or sultan can simply argue that a minority is evil. What evil? Well, anything. You see, the other side believe that "God like chocolate, which is of course, a heresy because God actually prefer cheese." This must be true as said in some ancient books written by someone supposedly important some thousands of years ago. That books must be credible due to angelic, apostolicity, or whateverolistic succession based on some divine doctrines.

Things sound good. All the other males are death and the harem is full. Oh wait a minute, there is a problem. Our males are reading playboy. They don’t want to die in holy war. They want to enjoy a good life and pursue happy dreams.

What would you do if you were the Sultan? When things don’t go our way, we call it immoral. The Sultan will simply issue a religious edict that playboy is immoral and hence should not be read.

What about the women? Well, many males can often provide good options for women. Some males may offer women with high salary as porn star. Another men may just want to have fun with women outside marriage. Under free market mechanism, many people are rich without having to be politically powerful. That men may want women to be their casual mating partners.

What’s best for a woman is, of course, what the woman choose.

But if woman chooses other males’ offer, then she is less likely to choose religious bigots’ offer, such as marriage, often toward poverty.

Hence, it’s pretty natural then that many religious bigots want to criminalize, porn, striptease, and sex outside marriage.

Truth and Falsehood of Marriage

In ancient time, sex outside life long legally binding marriage is illegal. That effectively rations females in equal share for everyone. The justification is no woman want to share anyway. Not true.

Prostitution is prohibited because no women want to be prostitute anyway. Not true. To the opposite, being a prostitute often pays much more for women with equal beauty than being a wife. Having a right to be a prostitute will give women some bargaining position that ensures that when they do choose to get married, they are reasonably monetarily compensated for their sexual service.

Yes many women want to be prostitute. Many of them have tasted marriage where the males just leave living them with obligation to finance their kids through college on their own. What job do you think would work? The real reason behind anti prostitution law is to ensure that such irresponsible males get a wife anyway.

Rather than prohibiting porn and prostitution because it hurts women (which women?), what’s more likely is that it’s prohibited to prevent competition. The law may be there to eliminate women’s alternative to marriage, hence making all marriage forced marriage. It’s also there to protect ugly women from competing with higher quality porn goddesses.

What about humans’ trafficking that turn women from poor countries into sexual workers in rich countries? Well, many argued that it should be prohibited because all women would rather stay in some messed up country where their clits got clipped rather than serving richer males in more affluent countries with high pay and hence all such trafficking must be non consensual and should be prohibited. Not true. The real reason is probably that ugly women in affluent countries do not want to compete with cheaper prettier higher quality babes from poorer countries.

When laws are there against mutually consensual deals between humans, beware, most likely, its insidious lies. That’s the kind of lies that witch hunters, Nazi, inquisitors, and the rest use.