RE: Your perception of theists
July 5, 2015 at 11:29 pm
(This post was last modified: July 6, 2015 at 1:24 am by Excited Penguin.
Edit Reason: further adding of words
)
I voted yes.
It's tragic, I guess, but, even so, my thinking less of them doesn't elicit any blame in their directions. I hold the view that free will is an illusion and so I think that nobody is actually responsible-nor can they be-for their belief or lack thereof. I am very much opposed to the abstract thing that is religion though, very much so indeed, but I don't hold any grudge over individual human beings on account of their delusions or on account of any other thing for that matter.
As to the why of the question, well, naturally, because theists choose to attribute real meaning or qualities to non-existing entities and illogical concepts, which, I suppose, is a failure of language usage and philosophising in general.
It would be both hypocritical and arrogant of me not to admit this. I hope to actually help, not to live happily by pretending the problem is either moot or nonexistent. I don't wish to pander to the holier-than-thou mindset of certain proponents of freedom of thought(such as is made known by speech or by other actions) who seem to conflate antithetical modes of reasoning and so, for example, end up supporting freedom for it's own sake, with no regard for consequences(the anarchist position), and, conversely, constraining it for the same reasons. The goal and how you achieve it are two very different things and not to be confused lest undesired situations ensue.
It's tragic, I guess, but, even so, my thinking less of them doesn't elicit any blame in their directions. I hold the view that free will is an illusion and so I think that nobody is actually responsible-nor can they be-for their belief or lack thereof. I am very much opposed to the abstract thing that is religion though, very much so indeed, but I don't hold any grudge over individual human beings on account of their delusions or on account of any other thing for that matter.
As to the why of the question, well, naturally, because theists choose to attribute real meaning or qualities to non-existing entities and illogical concepts, which, I suppose, is a failure of language usage and philosophising in general.
It would be both hypocritical and arrogant of me not to admit this. I hope to actually help, not to live happily by pretending the problem is either moot or nonexistent. I don't wish to pander to the holier-than-thou mindset of certain proponents of freedom of thought(such as is made known by speech or by other actions) who seem to conflate antithetical modes of reasoning and so, for example, end up supporting freedom for it's own sake, with no regard for consequences(the anarchist position), and, conversely, constraining it for the same reasons. The goal and how you achieve it are two very different things and not to be confused lest undesired situations ensue.
