Morality 101b

Free access to scriptures religious leaders try to censor

Okay, let me make this a little clearer. First you need powah. It comes from bullets, or ballots. But that alone is not enough. We are not simply greedy, selfish, cruel and cowardice species. We are greedy, selfish, cruel cowardice and hypocritical species.

If I said to Thierry, lets’ loot the central plain, or baghdad so we become rich and to hell with those suckers that we fuck over. Thierry wouldn’t do that because Thierry doesn’t want to look selfish.

I need a paint. I would say, let’s loot the central plain or baghdad. God says so. The inhabitants are evil because they worship 4 gods even though the correct number is 5. Or whatever.

Now, the killing, looting, raping, burning, becomes holy war. It’s called sanctify for a reason.

People need veneer. They need paint to cover their true nature. That paint is what we call sacred teaching, religion, ideology, or whatever.

The paint has to be believable but not in scientific sense. The tell tale sample of such beliefs are religion. The claim can be totally baseless. Who can verify heaven or hell exist? Scientifically it’s not a credible claim. However, literally, it is a believable claim. Why it’s believable? Why would people believe in religion?

1. You can’t disprove that.
2. Gun in their head gives them benefit of doubt.
3. They share the loot.

The same goes. Government don’t just prohibit ganja and claim that they want to be drug tzars. Government need to bullshit first. They need to say that ganja is so dangerous.

1. You can’t disprove that. Definition of dangerous is not even clear. The statement is not that disprovable.
2. Government got powah.
3. Everyone else want to be drug tzars too. Many, for example, belief that ganja should be taxed. So that gives incentives to control it.

The paint doesn’t have to be true. It doesn’t have to have any evidence whatsoever. It simply need to be something hard to disprove and serve interests of others’ in powah.

Most claims are vague. Name one claim that justify non libertarian measures that we can ask in sceptic forum? The claim is not really false. It has no scientific meaning whatsoever that it can’t be disproved at all.

That’s Morality 101b. Questions?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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