A SCEPTIC LETS THE EVIDENCE SPEAK ON ITS OWN TERMS

A sceptic is merely one who checks if her or his beliefs are really true or if the evidence for them is sufficient and okay.

If only half of what I write is correct then religion should be abandoned!!

Give it no money! Have your name removed from its membership list.

The religious person is a sceptic.
 
He is sceptical about atheism or attempts to debunk his favourite miracle tales.
 
She is sceptical about a right to abortion if the girl's life is in danger from pregnancy.
 
He is sceptical about masturbation being okay.
 
She is sceptical about the notion that the Catholic Church is a false religion.
 
If you are going to be a sceptic, then be a scientific one. A scientific sceptic investigates and though he may often fail, he keeps trying to correct his views. He lives by the principle that it is better to be sceptic when you are continually checking things out than to be a sceptic in matters that are based on what God supposedly said or stuff that cannot be tested to see if it is true or probably true. The risk of error is too high. Also he tries to avoid self-refutation.
 
The views of a dedicated scientific sceptic deserve more credence than those of the religious for the same reason that any person who tries to be objective does.
 
And remember, religions come and religions go but scepticism has been around forever and always will be.
 
We live in an age that has the power to send every religion on earth a terminal illness. The illness we send is called thinking. Religion, particularly Roman Catholicism, is the prevalent form of exploitation and mental illness and means of legalised theft through getting paid for providing sacraments and prayers that do not really work. As communication has advanced to an incredible degree, the information we need on any subject is present at the press of a computer button. It is important to stress simple refutations of religion for in this busy age people don’t have the time for in-depth examinations. So to simplicity I dedicate this volume. In this age in which we have the power to destroy all life on this planet, religion has no right to reverence for it leads to division and division leads to war and could lead to our final destruction. Help preserve the world by promoting this work!
 
Much religion says that only God knows what is best for us and if he makes rules we must simply obey and not criticise. This attitude indicates that even if war is commanded by God or an alleged revelation from him then war must be declared. It is evil in itself, evil in principle and evil in its implications.
 
Much religion says that sin is the worst evil. The Roman Catholic Church says that all religion that is not Roman Catholic is sinful. Clearly, then when a Catholic nation thinks it needs to go to war it must consider the religious benefits of doing so. For example, will the war break the hold of Islam an untrue religion on the other nation? Will putting a Catholic government in place stop all the pornography? Indeed the spiritual benefits as understood by the religion would matter more than freeing the people or otherwise helping them. Can you imagine how much strife such a doctrine as the duty to hate sin would cause especially when what is sinful in one religion may not be sinful in another?
 
If people believed that we should only have a faith that plays it safe there would be no need for religion. Such people would argue that if a woman needs an abortion to save her life, then let her have one. They would object to the Catholic claim that even then abortion is wrong. They play it safe. There is no harm done if their faith is wrong. Religion then is intrinsically evil.
 
The true sceptic will have beliefs. The sceptic will be open to revising those beliefs if the evidence warrants that. That is because the sceptic bases beliefs on evidence. He or she understands that believing means seeing that something appears to be likely to be true.
 
The pseudo-sceptic will tend to reject all paranormal and religious claims even if they have good enough evidence.
 
And there is no good enough evidence.