Quote:
|
Originally Posted by d*d
That smacks of the superiority that aethiests think they have over people who beleive in their God(s), ah bless em, it's just the echoes in their heads of higher brain functions you have as much chance of proving that as you do of proving gods existence, it's fine not to beleive in god but as an opinion it is no more valid than others.
|
I am of two minds about this post. Firstly, I am not an atheist. That takes every bit as much committed faith as being a hardcore fundamentalist. Nope, I am an agnostic, so if it smacks of any superiority, it is the superiority of one who has figured out that both sides are arguing over nothing that can be known, and has opted out except for popping into debates such as this one with the latest "it could work this way - let's see who buys it".
Now, whether or not there is a god, I can see more reasons not to worship that to worship.
1) The inverse of Pascal's wager: There is more than one religion that claims to be the only true religion. Therefore, rather than a situation where there is even money of a reward or oblivion, there is instead a situation where there is at best a three way split between eternal happiness, nothingness, pain. Since there are many more than two mutually exclusive religions, the odds are on pain. I will not opt into that game. (Frankly I am with Halx on the one hand, and, on the other, believe the afterlife is the subjective eternity that happens in the nanoseconds to hours that it takes for you brain to shut down when it's all over.)
2) Occam's Razor. It is, lacking any evidence one way or another, simplest to believe that what you see is what you get. There is no need to posit an all powerful being to posit that you are here, it is now, and time seems to move from birth to death.
3) There really is no conflict between "echoes of higher brain functions" and "God the almighty". They could easily mean exactly the same thing. In fact, I am pretty sure that this is the case and has caused untold suffering and death over the millennia.
4) Back to Damnation/Wrath/Eternal Punishment. No god who incites its followers to do violence to others or risk eternal damnation is worth a cup of warm piss. No god that will burn a human soul for all eternity for eating a shrimp or laying with one of one's own sex, or touching the skin of a pig deserves my respect, let alone my worship. No god that will demand one sarcrifice one's son, or who will sacrifice its own progeny is anything that I care to acknowlege, let alone laud. If there is a prevailing air of arrogant superiority among atheists and agnostics, it is for this reason. Slugs worshipping the salt bottle, fish praying to the hook, lambs following the shepherd to the slaughter pen. How can one not feel superior when one opts out of an arrangement like that. There are Christians (who I respect) who claim that god is love. (Higher brain function, right there.) They don't seem to me to be the majority, and, even if they are, they surely don't seem to make enough noise to be one.
So that is my argument:
It is unneccessary, unfortunate, and unkind to follow gods. It is equally unnecessary to believe that there is not a god. There is nothing wrong with feeling superior about denying the whole shebang and just trying to live well.