Then Man Created God

Some truths are interrelated, which means they are “chained,” allowing us to infer one from the other. This book is based upon the principle that believing a lie is no different than telling a lie. Not only does this similarity exist with the potential effect of spreading a falsehood, but also in the unbending reality that just as telling a lie needs support from other lies, a false belief often requires one to believe other supporting falsities to sustain it. Ironically, the two processes use the same mechanisms because the believer invariably ends up deceiving himself. This is the foundation upon which delusions are based and is therefore common in love and politics - always a main ingredient for religion. The corollary to this principle is that one cannot believe something to be true without also believing all of the dependent truths. This presents a problem for religion because it means one can’t just conveniently pick and choose which truths to accept. For example, if one affirms that for A to be true B and C must also be true, one should also be able to safely deduce that anyone who believes A to be true must believe B and C to be true as well. But what if one doesn’t accept this awkward conclusion? What if one accepts A but rejects B and C? Obviously one’s claim to believe A and disbelieve B and C does not stand up to scrutiny. Very often this thought process is precisely what happens to an intellectually dishonest and/or “brainwashed” person. I call the mental deficiency that generates this kind of mindset LOLTS (Lack of Logical Thinking Syndrome), which is the most common cause for the dilemma religious people face in the faith-based beliefs they profess. Many of them are not genuine “believers” but merely pretenders who are looking out for what they think is in their best interests. In most cases, after a believer thoroughly analyzes his/her religious dogmas and associated beliefs, the believer comes to the conclusion that he/she is actually holding God out to be little more than an incompetent fool – and one whom they can easily outsmart! …. There are those wacky religious leaders who claim that pharmacists have a duty to refuse to fill certain prescriptions. These right-wing religious nuts in the USA have found a favorable audience in the government and have endeavored to have it make a ruling giving pharmacists and other health providers the right to refuse to perform certain services or educate clients on procedures that they, the pharmacists, “object to as a matter of conscience.” …. If pharmacists truly believed that life begins at conception, they must also believe the chained truth that there are thousands of medications that are not abortion-related that they must also not fill for women of child-bearing age and who are sexually active! This would require them to question the clients about their personal and private matters and depending on the answers act accordingly to fill the prescriptions or not. What happens if the woman exercises her rights to privacy and refuses to answer these inquiries? In a similar fashion, religious bartenders too need to exercise caution in serving alcoholic drinks to women and should question them accordingly; under this theory they certainly do not want to run the risk of serving alcoholic drinks to someone who just conceived this morning! A pharmacist refusing to prescribe contraceptives is like a religious person taking a job as a hangman and then refusing to do the executions. If they feel that strongly about it, they should not have taken the job in the first place because they know ahead of time what it entails. To turn around and protest after the fact is an indication the individual is trying to use a nefarious way to impose their religious beliefs upon others, and that process in itself smacks of evil and a violation of the constitutional rights of others! By the same token, should the Christian accept a job in a gun shop and then refuse to sell guns or bullets because they may be used to kill? What about a waitress who refuses to serve patrons meat because her religion teaches that animals also possess a soul? Do they now see how ridiculous their argument is and how it lacks any merit? Where would it end, what other jobs should give people the same right of refusal? Does a librarian have the duty to prevent adult readers from accessing books with adult topics? It is not a part of such an individual’s job in any circumstance to control the morality of others, just as it is not the duty of a gun salesperson to prevent the gun purchaser from committing a crime using a gun just purchased, or refusing the sale because the gun may be used for wrongdoing. The proper solution in all of these cases is that these individuals should either do their jobs or quit immediately if they feel that strongly about opposing the situation. Failing that, anyone who espouses that kind of theory should be fired immediately for being a complete idiot. The public needs to be protected from such a person, and action should be taken to prevent these folks from affecting other people’s lives. … They all know the raped female victim has the right to choose and is the only one with the final decision as to whether or not to bare a child for her assailant. However, should they admit this or make any kind of exception, it would reveal the false premises of their entire anti-abortion stance, and so they would rather live with the false believe that God condones rape by creating a life that becomes the reward for a crime against a woman. There is just no morally acceptable way of claiming any benefit from such an evil act! For more information or to contact us, visit us at: http://www.denjenpublishing.com