Let’s Not Get Silly, Now

Yea, with regard to this silly thing. What hilarity, huh? How ri-di-cu-lous. Those people are kooks of the first order. Don’t they know that the way to redemption is through trusting that a dead guy who lived 2,000 years ago, was killed, rose from the dead, ascended to heaven, and built a mansion for each and every one of you (while currently seeing to its upkeep) will personally see to your arrival in heaven, where, naturally–to go along with your mansion–you’ll be walking on streets of gold?

Richard Nikoley

I'm Richard Nikoley. Free The Animal began in 2003 and as of 2021, contains 5,000 posts. I blog what I wish...from health, diet, and food to travel and lifestyle; to politics, social antagonism, expat-living location and time independent—while you sleep—income. I celebrate the audacity and hubris to live by your own exclusive authority and take your own chances. Read More


  1. erica on April 22, 2005 at 16:52


  2. Kyle Bennett on April 23, 2005 at 07:51


    He's making the tired old point that morality and purpose can come only from religion. Remove religion and people naturally revert back to their murderous, irrational natures. Why, all atheists are really just Nazis, dontchya know. Or if not Nazis themselves, then helpless sheep that will seek any authority to replace the hole left by their self- and soul-destructive rejection of the infinite love and devine wisdom of our Heavenly Father.

  3. John Sabotta on April 23, 2005 at 02:42

    Silly, silly religionists!

    Yorck: "Herr President! I have already stated that in view of the development that had been taken by the National Socialist ideology, I did…"

    Freisler [interrupting]: "did not agree! To state it exactly, you told him: Regarding the Jewish question, the extermination of the Jews did not suit you; the National Socialist concept of justice did not suit you."

    Yorck: "The essential point is the connection between all these questions, the claim by the state of total power over the citizen, with the elimination of his religious and moral obligations toward God."

    Freisler: "Tell me, where has National Socialism eliminated the moral obligation of a German? The German man, the German woman, infinitely more healthy, has infinitely deepened them. I have never heard before that it had eliminated moral obligations. And as for religion, there National Socialism is very modest. It says: Please take care of that as you please; only stay in the other world with your demands, church. For the souls, after all, will do their fluttering around in the other world. Here on earth our present life counts. Otherwise the church could concern itself with politics. So what you say is at least quite distorted; it makes no sense."


  4. Richard Nikoley on April 23, 2005 at 07:10

    And John, your point is? Exactly?

  5. Richard Nikoley on April 23, 2005 at 08:22

    Oh, _that_ point. Well, personally, I never grasped the profundity of morality and purpose until once I dumped religious mysticism. Far from leaving a vacuum, it opens up a whole new world of wonder and possibility.

    Of course, the circular reasoning going on with John's point is, as you mention, human nature is fundamentally evil, so we need the "higher" authority. But, it's religion that teaches us this. Rather self-serving, eh?

    The real point to make is that human nature is so fundamentally good that we've done quite well, on the whole, in _spite_ of religious doctrines that seek to hold everyone down.

  6. John Sabotta on April 24, 2005 at 05:30

    The Rorschach bloch of my post produces guesses at my meaning that are both unimaginative and inaccurate. Why not accuse me of blatant Gnosticism or adherence to the tenets of Falun Gong? "The Wheel of Law bears bitter fruit" as the Shadow might have said in a more interesting universe.

    I also reject the vulgar conservative notion that Christianity is the prop of public morality. I hold atheists as responsible for their actions as I do religionists; everyone is capable of knowing the difference between right and wrong. Roland Friesler was not driven to evil by atheism; he was just an evil man. Evil is not so easily explained, or explained away – and neither is good.

    I suppose I just objected to the vulgar Objectivist notion that all bad things proceed from "mysticism", although if you expand your definitions enough you can make anybody responsible for anything. "Here are two historical figures who seem to be playing opposite roles from the ones you've scripted for them – please explain how this can be?" Of course you can't explain it, because no one knows what human nature really is. As I say, I reject the vulgar notion that atheists lack a moral compass – is it too much to suggest that the opposite vulgar notion is also false?

    As for the "fundamental evil of human nature", that sounds like Manichaeism. But, really, I'm no expert on this stuff.

  7. Richard Nikoley on April 24, 2005 at 07:42

    OK, John, thanks for being more clear.

    I think that religion, in general, _is_ the "prop of public morality," as you put it. It's not that I necessarily disagree with most of the moral tenents most people hold, it's that I object to the authoritative approach to it. I agree that everyone is capable of knowing right from wrong, so why don't they go about _knowing_ it, then, rather than quoting scriptures or authorities to me?

    The source of evil is not mysticism. You're right. The source of evil is the criminal mind. But evil, through the criminal mind, only flourishes because of the mysticism of its victims.

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Follow by Email8k