New religion

[mayor of simpleton]

Well, it's more the predicable effect of dangerous beliefs that mostly concerns me. This is why I spend a lot of time on Islamo-Christianity and not, say on Wicca, Buddhism or other relatively harmless religions. The question I usually ask when someone tells me what they believe isn't the evidence they have (although this might be question #2). My first question is "if you really believe that, what behavior can I expect from you?"

This is more or less my opinion as well. The potential dangers of such beliefs tend to send up a red flag for me. If there are people out there who are really in "need" of such a system of belief, this is all fine and good with me, but if they step over the bounds and wish to make a dictation of what the pursuit of happiness is or to apply this "god/deity whatever" as a trump card to excuse empirical investigation or better said censur them I really have an issue with this.

There are many out there who are not able to live without such a clandestine social order. They just are not ready to let go. Forcing them to do so could very well cause them to fall into such peril of "crisis of existence" that is would be ill advices to force them to do so. Their process of accumulcation and adaptation has just not quite (yet) crossed this bridge. Forcing such "evolutionray changes" may indeed be as false as the beliefs that they tend to propagate.

We could apply such clandestine behaviours to other things in life. The "anti-Globalization", "Occupy Wall Street", "anti-Global Warming" all share a lot of common ground with various theistic religions. The dogma, non sequiturs premises, hasty generalizations of validity, pseudo sciences and "act of centering the being" (aka reigious faith) are often present in all of these movements. Often these groups, just a theistic religions, tend to start with a central answer and then form and manipulate all pending questions to suit the answer assumed to be "absolute and universal" from the git go.

I tend to target various epistemolgies, not because I do not agree with the arguments possible validity, but rather I wish to expose them for what they are really worth in terms of soundness. For the most part, I choose words a bit less cryptic, as not everyone can use words like "epistemology" in a sentence.

I'm not big fan of getting into debates on the hair splitting between atheism, deism, pantheism, agnosticism, etc. Once we've agreed that the universe is a natural place governed by predictable laws best understood through science and reason, the rest is abstract philosophy that has little impact on how we live our lives. We're I to switch to atheism tomorrow, nothing of significance about me or the way I live would change. I suspect the same would be true of any atheist shifting to deism.

I only deal with this kettle of fish only if someone really wishes to dive in.

My central issue of concern is with the theistic religious systems of the world. They tend to be very frightful at times. At the moment, the best defence they seem to offer up now a days is a combinations of "Bullies and Bombs"...

If a theist says that they believe in what they believe via "religious faith" and they in turn respect the right of others to have a differing perspective, I can deal with that. Problem is that the seats of power within theistic religions tend not to respect others. My hope is that those having the courage in a "theistic world" to open their opinions regarding a rejection of these views can do so without lowering to the levels of the "Bullies". I don't even wish to think about the "Bombs"...

For the sake of intellectual honesty, I'm content to admit that my reasons for being a deist are instinctive, based on the sense of wonder I have of the natural universe, the potential of the human mind and my enduring hope of the human prospect (despite the rank stupidity I've witnessed over the last decade). None of these preclude atheism but I have a need to say "God" and attributing some conscious intent that the atheist doesn't have.

As an added bonus, I get to identify with great thinkers from history who had fantastic hair. I have this unexplained sentimental attachment to the 18th century.

That same intellectual honest prevents me from adopting the label "atheist" because on that deep level, for whatever reason, I am unshakably convinced.

Well, first of all I can respect that position. You have very "good" reasons to have the opinion that you have. What "good" would arise out of changing this perspective?

It's your experience and your life.

My experience and my life would not allow me to have this position, but this does not mean that I do not have an appreciation for metaphors or similies. My rejection of the position is easy for me to articulate, but lets be honest here... does my opinion here really matter all that much too you? Should it? I'd say... probably not.

I find that refreshing. We are more than likely capable of having a dialogue, rather than the exchange of monologue platitudes...

I try to keep in mind that neither I nor any other freethinker is smarter than any theist. Given the right upbringing or indoctrination, it could just as easily be me rolling around on the floor of a Pentecostal Church imagining that I'm speaking in tongues. I'm not smarter. I'm luckier. Our purpose should be to free the minds of those enslaved by a terrifying and dis-empowering belief system.

Quite true...

In fact, I tend to stay clear of refering to my person as being a "freethinker". Such "bandwagons" are a breeding ground for many a hasty generalization. I find it quite funny how very many "freethinkers who make claim to be "followers of Darwin; thus atheist" actuall believe in the concept of Free Will, whie at the same time confusing Fatalism with Determinism... not realizing that "Free Will" would defeat the vast majority of Darwin's Accumulation/Adaptation. This might step on a few toes, but I find there are indeed a few (NOT ALL) self-declared "atheists" who actually have created an "anti-god" and have all the tendencies of worship, dogma and faith that their enemy has.

I suppose this is what you can expect when people confuse correalation with causality. Such errors are not exclusive to theists, but are common in all of humanity.

Being an atheist is only an answer to a single question and not an indication of IQ. Sure there are stats to make claim of the "higher IQ" of atheists, but the difference is not significate enough to amout too much. Various forms of penis envy are all too human, I suppose.

Cheers!

Meow!

GREG

---

DP, smarter or luckier remains a question, as someone had to see the drivel for what it was, despite upbringing and environment, and someone had to step out of the crazy box to have a cig, thinking, "WTF?" Though it may have been some sort of chance informing either cause at the moment of the effect, I doubt luck had anything to do with the truth of the matter.

How did that old saying go?

"It's smarter to be lucky than it's luck to be smart".

I don't buy into that very much either, but then again... I don't believe in luck.

Meow!

GREG