Quizmodus: I think that when you first posted your beliefs, you started off fine, but since your logic has fallen short, I think.
“Given my history, I can absolutely state with all confidence that my lack of belief in a deity-concept is NOT based on ignorance. In my experience, the opposite is true.”
Your assumption is that people choose religion based on ignorance. Then you proceed to broadly generalize people in religion. You forgetting that ignorant people are everywhere, in the religious community as well as outside. If you look around you, it would appear that there is no real correlation between “ignorance” and “religious people.” There are many religious people who are ignorant; there are many atheists who are ignorant. There are also religious people who are not ignorant, and atheists who are no ignorant as well. So to say imply that “People choose religion out of ignorance” is faulty logic, because clearly ignorance and non-ignorance exists on both sides.
“I do believe that religion is generally a crutch for people, for whatever reason”
Could that reason be the same reason why you uphold your beliefs? Could your beliefs be a crutch? Could it be that by your desire to be “better” and “smarter” then the masses, you hold on to the idea that the masses are ignorant because they illogically believe in, as you put it…
“nonsensical thinking: Qi, John Edwards, the Pet Psychic, UFOs, Bigfoot, homeopathics, fortune-telling, Miss Cleo, etc. All of this can be directly traced to religious training.”
Your ideaÂ’s certainly place you as better and smarter then all of us, now doesnÂ’t it? Is that your crutch? Are you fulfilling a need to be beyond everyone else?
Maybe an alternative solution might be that religious people arenÂ’t all illogically using religion as a crutch, or as a reason to feel superior, but that they are merely trying to define their own values and beliefs while trying to logically find a purpose in the world, and logically trying to find out how this purpose fits in with an explanation of the world, and they use religion as a means to this. That would also leave you with an alternative; that you are attempting to do the same with your anti-religious beliefs. For the alternative to exist for you, then you would have to acknowledge that the same alternative is there for the religious. This would require you to step down from the pedistal, however, and play on the same field as the rest of us.
“Religion may occasionally benefit individuals, but such benefits are temporary. In the long run, religions can only do harm, both personally and on a global scale.”
You can use bad examples of how evil people have done harm in the name of religion, but this fails to refute the ideaÂ’s presented in the religionÂ’s themselves. You can bring up an example of an immoral cult leader who claimed to be a Christian, and I can bring up Mother Theresa. Either way, neither of us are are argueing for or against the religion. We would only be discussing individuals within that religion. And to say that religion only benefits people temporarily is a faulty assumption with no evidence to back the claim; just as is your argument on religion only doing harm on a global scale. You broadly generalize while failing to look at all of the facts (such as the potential good religion may have done). That my friend, is illogical.
“But then, it's much simpler and probably more self-validating to dismiss my beliefs and lack of belief as ignorance. That very neatly sidesteps the necessity to examine your own beliefs in order to understand mine. Examining one's closely-held beliefs is possibly the most psychologically painful process a person can experience, especially when those beliefs have been taught to you since before you you could speak.”
But, are you not doing the same to people are religious? You have clearly dismissed religious people as being ignorant. I wonder if this neatly sidesteps the necessity for you to examine your beliefs in order to understand someone elses. The argument applies to you just the same.
“I've tried to keep my writing as emotionless as possible, but this is such a touchy subject.”
It’s a touchy and emotional subject for you partially because, as you said, examining one’s closely held beliefs is possibly the most psychologically painful process a person can experience. Maybe that is why you “sidestep” other beliefs as well, maybe your just as afraid to lose your resolve or redefine your values just as much as the masses.
“Johnathan Napalm, you wish not to be sterotyped, yet you give a stereotypical reply. You failed to read and understand ANY point in my post, and instead of responding rationally, you counter-attacked with an emotional, baseless diatribe. I could have re-constructed your post almost verbatim from various discussions with other theists over the past few years.
That's why I don't usually engage in these debates. I cannot use reason to oppose emotion, and religions are entirely emotional.”
I’m sure you may consider your replies unique for most atheists, and Jonathans to be stereotypical. Does that make you better? Considering that it would appear that you are doing the exact same thing that you blame theists for doing (such as stereotyping, sidestepping arguments, using your arguments to put you on a pedistle above the masses, and using empty logic to base your arguments), I would hazard to guess that you are no better at all. Considering this, I also believe based on the structure of your argument that you use the ruse of “reason” to hide your underlying negative "emotion" towards the religious. If this is true then this is probably worse then argueing with emotion alone because you are lying to yourself. You see religion and religious arguements are not entirely emotional to me, but it certainly is to you, as you have proven with your own words.
“The word is actually "poisoner", but that didn't stop the religiously motivated murder of hundreds of thousands of innocents througout the middle ages.
But that is only part of the harm that I'm referring to. What I tend to be concerned about is the psychological harm that religious training inflicts, especially in early childhood. I was trained to take things on faith. Don't question. Doubting Thomas was the bad guy, because he didn't believe until shown the holes. The lesson, of course, is to accept what your told without question, without doubt, often in spite of evidence to the contrary. Another point of harm, and this is more tenuous, but still significant in my opinion, is the underlying lesson in most modern religions, and that is the lesson of unworthiness. Children are taught that they are evil by nature, unworthy to exist from birth, and can only be "saved" through the abrogation of self-responsibililty to an external, absolute "moral" authority. If anyone can explain to me how it is not psychologically harmful to constantly tell children that they are evil and unworthy, I'll send them a dollar.
Don't try to tell me it isn't this way. The unworthiness of the human condition is the very very basic tenet of christianity, as is unquestioning, unexamined faith.”
You are taking a scripture out of context, and a bad example of “bad people” and using it for an argument against religion. That logic is just as faulty as the people in the middle ages who did the same; taking scripture out of context, and using faulty examples. Luckily for you people haven’t been killed by your faulty logic, but I would hate to see you in a place of power.
It also sounds like your bringing up a bad example of how to expose children to religion. Is this something that you were exposed to? I know that I was, and it turned me away for quite some time. Hopefully your not using your personal bad experience to base your views on an entire religion. It would be one thing to say that you have difficulty with religion because of what you had been exposed to as a child. ItÂ’s entirely another to base your belief system on your personal difficulties while trying to find alternative arguments for it all the while. If that is the case then what you are doing is no better then those who blindly follow what the religious say. For purposely going against what the religious say just for the sake of not following them (then finding later justification for your actions) is just as blind.
By the way, the unworthiness of human condition is an inherent Christian doctrine, but presenting it to Children in the manner you purpose is not. It does not and should not have to be presented in a manner that it scars the child. You also lump in “unquestioning, unexamined faith” which totally false in your pretense. It is definatily O.K. examine your faith, for open-minded doubt is the sibling of faith. Doubting Thomas wasn’t the bad guy; he was still an apostle and saint. He just needed more convincing then the average person. Judas was (one of the) bad guys, who knew the “truth” yet sold out anyways. Get it straight.
“Not once did I ever make judgements of believers in my posts. All I did was express my opinions of RELIGIONS. You chose to take those opinions are attacks on your person. Whose fault is that?”
ItÂ’s YOUR fault, quizmodus. You blantently said that religious people are ignorant. Read what you wrote, and donÂ’t try to play it out like your posts havenÂ’t been an attack to religious people, as well as religions in general. I am not offended by you, you are at least very cordial in your arguments, but that doesnÂ’t change the fact that you have been attacking all along.
“It is true that "evil" isn't an attribute of the art, or of the weapon. But regardless of intent or attitude, if I hit you in the throat with a swordhand, you'll still die. And, in the same light, if a child is taught to be unworthy, he/she will fell unworthy.”
Just as you feel “unworthy” today. This is why you have designed your beliefs as they are, to place you in a more logical and comfortable place, above everyone else. This is just my perception. I am very sorry that your experiences have been what they have. Please understand, once again, that the doctrine you refer to wasn’t designed to make kids feel like crap. It was designed so that a person will have humility and recognize a higher power out there beyond himself, one that he must turn to for guidance. We turn to the higher power and other people because no one person has all the answers, and no one can survive completely by themselves. This doctrine needs to be presented to children when they are ready to hear it (not when they are too young), and with care so they don’t get the wrong idea.
Well, I think I have said enough. I don’t mean to slam you, and I am not angry at you, or anything like that. It’s just that you felt that the argument against you on this thread wasn’t logical enough. So, I felt compelled to give you some logic from a different perspective. I’m sure I haven’t convinced you to want to change your beliefs by refuting you, but I just hope that someone like yourself and others here who sound intelligent enough will keep looking for answers. You certainly don’t have them all, nor do I. Just keep searching, and don’t brush off ideas because of your predispostition against them due to bad experience, or because you’ve looked into it “before”.
And, keep writing them codes, and practicing in your office! I donÂ’t write code, but I practice in my office just the same!
PAUL
