RE: Believing in Deities is a Form of Psychosis
August 6, 2017 at 10:07 am
(This post was last modified: August 6, 2017 at 10:16 am by Astonished.)
Comrade, I think you still have extremely grave misgivings about this whole thing and you can't seem to help yourself insulting the rest of us, so I am BEGGING you to please stop doing that, it's not done in mean-spiritedness as far as I know but it is still terribly irksome.
Please just, if not acknowledge these points, understand that thinkers here do acknowledge them (because they're correct) and why what you are saying can be construed as offensive:
1. People who don't embrace irrationality do not, by definition, use faith. In a religious context or otherwise, belief in something based on no evidence is something rational folk don't hold truck with. Saying we do otherwise is to insult our intelligence. Yes, everyone is CAPABLE of doing it, but you've said all people DO engage in it and that's not okay, even if you turned around later on and said the former is what you meant. It's best not to say either as a blanket statement, or one that includes rational skeptics.
2. Religion in and of itself is worthless as a means of doing anything you seem to believe it is responsible for. It is a cancerous manifestation of our in-built evolutionary development as a social species. The earliest and most primitive attempt to figure shit out and organize a power structure. If a rational skeptic framework had been adopted in its stead from very early on, we wouldn't be having these unbelievable problems still to this day. To say it's useful or in any way good is to misunderstand psychology and evolution on a scale that would embarrass the most devout apologists. Because of its lowest-common-denominator station, religion is able to appeal to the most people and it preys upon the mind's evolutionary programming, causing misfires of the otherwise useful or no-longer-needed survival mechanisms in the way that cancers do within the body. Yes, it was here first, but isn't that usually the worst version of anything? But that's all it has going for it. And it's not doing us any good staying on top.
Please just, if not acknowledge these points, understand that thinkers here do acknowledge them (because they're correct) and why what you are saying can be construed as offensive:
1. People who don't embrace irrationality do not, by definition, use faith. In a religious context or otherwise, belief in something based on no evidence is something rational folk don't hold truck with. Saying we do otherwise is to insult our intelligence. Yes, everyone is CAPABLE of doing it, but you've said all people DO engage in it and that's not okay, even if you turned around later on and said the former is what you meant. It's best not to say either as a blanket statement, or one that includes rational skeptics.
2. Religion in and of itself is worthless as a means of doing anything you seem to believe it is responsible for. It is a cancerous manifestation of our in-built evolutionary development as a social species. The earliest and most primitive attempt to figure shit out and organize a power structure. If a rational skeptic framework had been adopted in its stead from very early on, we wouldn't be having these unbelievable problems still to this day. To say it's useful or in any way good is to misunderstand psychology and evolution on a scale that would embarrass the most devout apologists. Because of its lowest-common-denominator station, religion is able to appeal to the most people and it preys upon the mind's evolutionary programming, causing misfires of the otherwise useful or no-longer-needed survival mechanisms in the way that cancers do within the body. Yes, it was here first, but isn't that usually the worst version of anything? But that's all it has going for it. And it's not doing us any good staying on top.
Religions were invented to impress and dupe illiterate, superstitious stone-age peasants. So in this modern, enlightened age of information, what's your excuse? Or are you saying with all your advantages, you were still tricked as easily as those early humans?
---
There is no better way to convey the least amount of information in the greatest amount of words than to try explaining your religious views.
---
There is no better way to convey the least amount of information in the greatest amount of words than to try explaining your religious views.