All Religion is Extreme

Religion, theism of any type requires a religion, has to have doctrine to be a religion. Another word for doctrine is dogma, though that requires it to be unquestionable like Christian or Islam.

Many religions have a simple doctrine, a few basic rules of live and let be one must follow to be allowed to hang with the club. But those ones also update their doctrine to accommodate new information and it's always up for debate.

These few good religions are called pagan or heathen now, and the followers are usually the best deluded people I have met. Delusion on it's own is dangerous if the doctrine that enforces it endorses dangerous behavior, pagans lack dangerous doctrine and thus, like us gamers, only want short escapes from reality.

This is not, in any way, moderate. Both the pagan and gamers are extremists, you either do it or you do not, there is no in between. Pagans will likely understand this better than anyone, in spite of many being far too tolerant of the other religions.

Your religion is your doctrine, and so it is what you should be judged by, what laws you keep in that doctrine are laws you agree can apply when your delusion so commands it. You thought I was going to point out all the bad things the followers do, didn't you?

What the followers do is not important, what they claim they obey is. If they claim that on part does not apply today, that means it did apply before and can apply again, they are saying that they agree with that law.

Claiming it's allegory only makes it worse, since a scientific method is not applied to determine what is allegory, everyone can interpret it mean whatever they want, and change that meaning for any reason they so choose. This is, in itself, dangerous behavior.

So the choice is not who doesn't actually hurt people versus those who do, it's if your doctrine claims you can hurt people for any reason. All religious people are extremists, because they all claim to follow a doctrine.

Us gamers can be pretty religious about gaming too, but lacking a doctrine it is not an actual religion.

Religion - A Delusion By Any Other Name is Still Delusion

The only consistency of religious people is a total lack of comprehension of the difference between fact and fiction. This is even seen in the very few religious people smart enough to understand the scientific method and why it works, think about it though, they don't apply said method to the thing which they use to define their life the most.

I will grant those few intelligent religious people one thing, they know they have no evidence supporting their god claims. Many pagans go one step further and just admit it's a placebo for them, which is the most honest thing a theist could ever say.

But let's focus in the intellectually retarded people who claim to know their god exists and then never once present evidence. One of my friends in Twitter calls then Tortucans, apt but the reference is obscure, I prefer to just call them what they are, deluded.

The nature of delusion was clouded by centuries of psychiatric mumbo jumbo, but modern psychology has managed to unravel the evidence and find the truth on the matter. Psychiatrists do not like the facts on this because they cannot use it as an excuse to abuse patients and kill perfectly healthy people anymore, to them I say fuck you, you are wrong, deal with it.

The simplest definition of delusion is a belief that opposes demonstrable reality, but this definition is for to broad and ends up including optical illusions as well. Optical illusions are not delusion, they are momentary and cannot be avoided, delusion can be permanent and is usually avoidable.

The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of people choose delusion over fact, because delusion is simple and comforting, like a pacifier to an ape infant. So a more accurate definition in the simplistic vernacular that even someone as idiotic as a cretin can understand is: an explanation of reality that opposes or denies demonstrable facts or empirical evidence.

The god delusion is the perfect example, let's choose one of the over 3,000 god delusions to demonstrate, Athena is a perfect choice for this demonstration. When a person is indoctrinated, the delusion is not inherent but the resistance to said delusion is decreased drastically.

In her heyday, when the majority believed she was the greatest of the gods, Athena was given credit for emotions. Today we understand emotions so well we can actually control them using refined chemical compounds called medicine.

Back then the children were constantly told that no one can understand emotions because it would upset Athena, and thus you should just accept them and stop asking questions. They did just that, and for a century no one ever thought to find a way to help those plagued with uncontrollable emotional responses that made them dangerous to society.

Along comes a new god, more popular because he encouraged humans to seek answers, as long as they were subjugate to him and not Athena. So the kids were told not to question that god but to question all the others instead.

The result is doubt for what anyone said but those who claimed to hear this god, the new delusion of the century. The trick of this is that it made the people no longer accept the Athena claims, but kept them blind to the new claims, and when they got to the age of reason this was habit.

This habit of not questioning something that clearly is untrue is called delusion, the loss of the Athena delusion allowed the medical class to eventually find medicines to help calm emotional responses, but the new god that took her place was given credit for lightning and thus people stopped looking for ways to harness that power. The ultimate cost of the god delusions.

Now we have discarded both of those and began studying electricity, chemical compounds, even the forces of nature, because those delusions no longer plague us. A new set of delusions does plague us, ones which threaten our medical advances by discouraging study into biological sciences necessary for further advancement.

To make this worse, this delusion is still packaged by people who do not suffer the delusion and sold to those they know are gullible enough to buy it, we call those snake oil salesmen preachers. We call the gullible sods too stupid to question the preachers theists.

But to get these deluded people help we must destroy the barrier they claim as freedom or tolerance by ridicule and mockery, until religion is no longer protected or given special privilege our species will always be oppressed by it. This delusion is not easy to break through either, science has gotten so much evidence and collected so many facts as to appear scary to the deluded fools.

Religion continues to offer an excuse for the comforts of egocentrism, arrogance, and even crimes against the universe. Religion also offers easy responses to complex problems, and these responses appear to be answers but do not truly offer anything useful.

Those who claim that this is just a placebo, also known as "moderates," are infected by the delusion as well and displaying cognitive dissonance in such responses. Moderate atheists are just enabler, moderate religious people do not actually exist because they still follow that horrible doctrine.

This is why I give special consideration for pagans, you will never hear one pagan use the no true Scotsman fallacy or claim there are moderates, because they learned their lesson and ditched the delusion and the horrible doctrines while admitting that others could exist who still follow the bad ideas. The reason for this difference is that pagans admit everything must change for it to be perfect.

It's My Birthday - A Simple Challenge to Creationists

I have often stated that when you cannot grasp basic science but want to wear the uniform, become a doctor. The alternative is to become a creationist but everyone already knows they're idiots.

Both use science without ever truly understanding it, the difference is that doctors are less inclined to deny scientific advances. Not that doctors are all intelligent or better than creationists, just those in countries where religion is not an acceptable reason for allowing a patient to suffer and die, like they are allowed to do in the USA.

The creationists keep reciting the same tired, debunked, and ignorant arguments that use to be hilarious. Now they are just sad and pitiful. The reason is because none of them seem to have learned anything after 1983.

That was the last year any respectable scientists ever claimed that mutations are all detrimental. The reason being, we have discovered many mutations in many species that have resulted in them being more fit for their environment, including us.

In 1998 they discovered a specific sequence of genes responsible for HIV resistance in some human populations. In 1997 we discovered that blue eye and blond hair is caused by a rare mutation in the human genome, rare because it is even less likely to pass to offspring.

From the discovery of nylonase to algae capable of absorbing toxic waste produced only by humans, the list of recently discovered genetic mutations with hugely beneficial effects is continually growing.

So the creationists attempt to dismiss these by calling them adaptation instead of evolution, which is just sad. Adaptation is the result of natural selection acting on the phenomenon of evolution, in other words, adaptation is the result of evolution.

But here's a challenge to creationists, I have no reward to offer other than to agree with you should you succeed in this task. Provide evidence of any species willfully altering their genetic make up, resulting in a specific adaptation to a specific and known environmental change.

Now this challenge is twofold, though I doubt you will succeed at either step. I know creationists have a problem with sequential problem solving and the very definition of evidence, so I will describe the two steps more clearly.

The first step requires you provide evidence, meaning facts that require no interpretation which suggest the phenomenon. The word "phenomenon" is really a catch all in science, it describes and event, occurrence, object, person, fact, law, or basically any noun that is within our reality.

Thus you must show how the organism is aware of the change and able to discern what the change is and what is required to better fit the change. If you cannot present evidence suggesting this, you cannot have failed the challenge, without this recognition there can be no intent and thus no possible way the organism can adapt without random mutations.

Now, given the unlikely event that you have succeeded at the first step, the second step is one that biology has proven cannot occur a very long time ago, but I grant the benefit of doubt. You must provide evidence than any organism can alter their DNA at will, and that the changes will affect the organism immediately, prior to their demise.

Now the catch, you must also provide evidence that the theory of evolution does not, in any way, predict this phenomenon. I know none of you will ever succeed at this challenge, as it requires you to study actual science before presenting anything, and the catch means you must study the theory of evolution completely, or you will miss the explanation.

Should a creationist take this challenge and succeed, I will concede that the theory of evolution is incomplete. The fun fact is this: it does not mean your religious myths are any more correct as there are many such myths just as credible and other scientific explanations that are far more credible than creationism.