Anti-Beliefs: Constant Self-Reinforcement

In a lot of my articles, I refer to a word that I invented to classify certain goals, this represents a clear lack of humility… These goals justify themselves, as such, I call them “anti-goals”. An anti-belief, according to my definition, is a sort of circular argument; there is no solid base on which to hold on to. Why do I write an article about these? Once again, it is to attack religon… I have to mention that I have nothing against religious people, what I condemn is the set of beliefs that these persons adhere to. Also, I despise people who promote their religion to you even if you clearly stated that you were not interested!

Defining further an anti-goal

So, let’s dissect this further — what exactly is an “anti-goal”? It’s a self-serving beacon masquerading as a noble pursuit. These are the lofty ambitions set not to foster advancement but to loop indefinitely in their self-affirmation. They are devoid of the humility necessary for true progress, wrapped instead in a smug veneer of faux enlightenment.

Defining further an anti-belief

And as for anti-beliefs? These are not foundations built on rock — they are fantasies floating on air. They twist around themselves, making it impossible to grab them without getting tangled in their illogic. Religious doctrines often fall squarely into this category — unchallenged, unquestioned, and unyielding to reason. They loop back on themselves, stating their conclusions as premises. “Because it is written, it is true,” they say. And why? “Because the written word is infallible!”

Religious dogmas and decrees

It is precisely this infuriating circularity that I aim to expose. Religious systems, with their dogmas and decrees, often operate on the premise of anti-beliefs. They claim universal truth while standing on the shifting sands of outdated texts and practices. It’s ludicrous yet dangerously pervasive.

On individual rights and truth

Let me be perfectly clear: I respect individuals and their rights to personal beliefs. However, I draw the line when these beliefs, lacking any rational foundation, are pushed onto others as indisputable truths. The audacity to assume that one can impose such fundamentally flawed convictions on another, especially after they have explicitly expressed disinterest, is nothing short of coercion. It is not only intellectually dishonest — it’s socially irresponsible.

The harsh light of reason

Thus, I write to challenge, to provoke, to question — not out of disdain for the believer but out of concern for the belief. We must scrutinize these anti-goals and anti-beliefs with the harsh light of reason. We must refuse to accept the unacceptable just because it is tradition.

Let us then invite open dialogue, encourage healthy skepticism, and foster a community where beliefs are not shields against inquiry but subjects of it. Let us strip away the veneer of sanctity from beliefs that do not hold up to scrutiny and insist on a space where ideas must earn their keep by virtue of truth, not tradition.

For in the end, if your beliefs cannot withstand the rigors of debate, perhaps it is time to reconsider their value. Let us be relentless in our pursuit of truth, however uncomfortable it may be!