Talk about religion
Warning!
What follows can be extremly offending to some.
If it is- Bite me!
Some of my best friends aswell in the virtual world as in the real one are belivers. They range from protestants, to free church evangelicans to catholics, jews, muslims, hindus and atheists (because atheism is a belife just as much as any of the others).
I don't care! I look at them as people, and I judge them by their actions, not by what supersticions they happen to belive in. I'm a beliver myself. As it happens, I belive in science- and as we all know it- some of the scientific theories are just as much based on a belife as any of the religions are.
So by all means- go to your churches, mosques, temples or whatnot (as long as they're not state financed that is), and pray away!
The whole problem with religion on the world scene could essentially be described as a bunch of orphan kids in a playground fighting over who has the strongest daddy. But in every playground there's allways one kid that is a bit stupider. A bit meaner. You all recognize them, it's that kid, a bit over developed physically, coming from a dysfunctional family- The playground bully!
Right now that bully is islam!
What distinguish the playground bully is his aptitude towards using violence and terrorising the others in the playground, stealing their lunch money and generally acting like Nelson Muntz.
But when in minority or when out powered these bullies tend to cry and accuse others of being the cause of their missfortune.
If you have faith- Good for you! If you have religion- You really need a major antibiothic cure!
Here are some thoughtful words from another beliver. The self proclaimed atheist Pat Condell (video).
posted by pela68 at 09:57
8 Comments:
Atheism is not 'a belief'. It is lack of belief in a supernatural being in the absence of convincing evidence.
Friday, 25 January 2008 at 19:41:00 CET
Yes thats true AC. But can you proove beyond a doubt that there are not a supreeme beeing? And if not; how can you be so sure that there are none?
I'm as much as you in doubt about a "higher force" or a god if you will. But! To denie the possible existance of a such being is bad science. I can not proove the existantce of a god- nor can I proove the non- exitance of a god, and as such I lean towards quantum explanations of our existance. The old "Schrödingers cat", maybe there is a god- or there are none. Both stances are equally true from a pholosophical standpoint.
But I have to stress the point that the problem is not wheather or wheather not you have a faith. It is religion that is the poisoning or the opium for the people if you will...
Believe in allah, jehova, odin or santa claus. It's fine by me. Just don't try to super impose your belives on me!
And atheism is very much a belief system just as much as any religion- from a scientific point of view...
Friday, 25 January 2008 at 21:44:00 CET
"Existence" Gnaargh!
Friday, 25 January 2008 at 21:46:00 CET
Excellent post, Pela68. I absolutely agree with you. Faith (in a supernatural being) is what distinguishes believers from non-believers. On the other hand, perhaps atheists have faith in science?
Friday, 25 January 2008 at 22:54:00 CET
Mustang:
That's exactly my point. You hit the nail on the head there! We all belive in something or another, but who's to say- or judge what's right or what's wrong?
I have faith in me- AND in YOU. Everything else is to be considered... Well... superstition.
Atheists as well as belivers (in a diety) can very well be scientists, but only if they have a common moral ground. That includes the atheists, the christians, the jews, the hindus, the bhuddists- But not the muslims!
What excerpts the muslims (religionwise) is their moral code, the total lack of the Golden Rule. And that is also something that leaks down to their overall social system, as has been prooven in land after land, country after country during centuries of muslim agression and occupation of territories that did not belong to them from the beginning.
The moral code of islam is that there are none! Not by western standards anyway...
Rape, pillage and plunder seems to be what islam (not muslims) are about. They (islam) want to conquer the world, and right now we are letting them do so...
Can we resist? How can we do it? Who is the one to do it?
Hillary?
Friday, 25 January 2008 at 23:52:00 CET
Of course you can't prove a negative. But until believers come up with more convincing evidence for the existence of a 'supernatural' being or beings, it seems more sensible to doubt their existence on the balance of probabilities.
And science isn't a 'faith'. Scientific method proceeds by testing hypotheses against the available evidence. If the evidence doesn't support the hypothesis, it is modified or abandoned. This is not how faith-inspired believers operate.
Monday, 28 January 2008 at 11:54:00 CET
Hillary? As has been pointed out, the Clintons have accepted millions of dollars from the Saudis for their presidential library.
Monday, 28 January 2008 at 11:56:00 CET
AC
You are absolutely right. The problem with science is that certain areas can very well be seen as having faith. Take gender science for example, race biologism or the Big Bang area of cosmology. None of the theories can be prooven (or atleast haven't been prooven so far) but are still considered to be "sciences and truths" per se.
To belive that everything is written in rock- with the knowledge we have now- is just as ignorant as if being a modern time relativist (philosophically).
What I ment to say was that there are certain standards or shall we say lower levels of understanding that you have to aquire before claming to have knowledge and that scientific (some- mind you)methodes are better to get to that point of enlightenment than just pure belife.
Let's take the Soviet Union for example. I allways forget the chap's name (S- something), he was the grand engineer behind the SU:s agricultural sceme back in the old bad days. He was a man of science that was driven by faith, and as a result- famine. There are hundreds of examples of catastrophies or near catastrophies initiated by blind faith. And there we stand to day- maybe more than ever with the ongoing relativsm permeating our institutions of knowledge.
Yes- the "Hillary" question was rethoric and sarcastic... (c;
Monday, 28 January 2008 at 15:06:00 CET
Post a Comment
<< Home