Ok, well I can't get my camera working so I'm gonna have to keep posting text responses. Since I'm snowed in I figured I'd finish up the outline I've been working on.
First off I'll deal with the argument that its disrespectful for atheists to take out the bus advertising. Well yes it is, but its disrespectful to gods, not to people. I mean the exact wording is "There's probably no God, now stop worrying and enjoy your life." Thats not really disrespectful. The problem here is that religous people have enjoyed a bizzare protected status for a long long time, so that no one can say they are wrong. Simply because something is your particular religous belief does not mean that no one can tell you you're incorrect, and when someone comes in and doesn't instantly "respect" your beliefs, they aren't wrong for doing it.
The next point...well question you raised was rational thought. Basically it boils down to the argument of faith vs evidence. I can't believe something simply because someone else is really really sure its real. I just can't.
I can't believe in god because someone has told me they felt him any more than I can believe in fariys, unicorns, or genies. For me to accept something as real there has to be basis. There has to be a logical argument, supported by evidence and capable of withstanding critisism and still being valid. Religion is none of these things.
Quick rehash of your argument that christians are either A) more prone to self sacrifice or B) self sacrificing for a different reason. As to A) I addressed that in my earlier post and, no they aren't. Now for B) again, its not correct. You can tell yourself that you're willing to sacrifice your time/money/effort for god, but...well we were talking about this in the car yesterday, the tendancy for humans to be altruistic to individuals that we don't know is not a religous thing, but an evolutionary adapatation to tribal culture. If you want me to go into the details on the blog I can, but I'm going to skip that for just now, as this is me responding to points you are raising and not an ethology lecture.
Now we move to your point about what are my problems with christianity. Ok thats kinda broad and slightly misleading. I have very few problems with christianity, other than the obvious "its based on myth." In his article "Atheists for Jesus," Richard Dawkins spoke to this issue and I've put in a link for it off to the right. Basically, Jesus was largely tilted to going against the grain. He didn't accept things because they had always been that way and he came up with a wonderfully better system of ethics than had been handed down to him by the religious orthodoxy. Would that everyone could be so bold. My problems with christianity are the same
as my problems with paganism or Gaia worship: You're not basing it on facts. You're basing it on feel good tradition and hoping for messages from god. Well god's not there and he's not talking, so what you get is messages from man, and boy is man failable. Find your ethics in moral philosophy, find your ethics in emulating someone who you wish to be like, find them in something rational. To pharaphrase Plato, Is tourting babies wrong because god says it is or does god say tourting babies is wrong because its wrong? My ethics are not grounded in something that I have to prove exists, they are grounded in social structer and an understanding of what is good for society and my fellow man is also good for me as an individual. Altruisim helps the altruist as much as the one recieving the aid over the long term and this is a wonderful basis for an ethical society.
As for my problems with Christianity...well its a good idea. Jesus was a pretty good guy as he is protrayed in the bible. Now the old testament god...woah. Yeah, not tolerating that as a basis for morality. Its pretty horrible by anyones standards, and the length that I can go into on those issues, I'll save for a later post, I'm going to use this one for answering most of your other questions.
Now the question of authority, no I do not have a problem with authority, when the authority is legitimately based on something. The government doesn't declare things good or bad by arbitrary declaration, it does it by debate and understanding different sides of an issue (or it does in a proper system) whereas religion just claims authority and then stomps on the questions of those authority with allegory.
Ok, I'll wrap up for now, back to you bro.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Hmmm...Interesting thought about authority, but... Why is any authority IN authority? It is, in some measure, from self-proclaimed authority. Adults, parents, teachers, etc. Even elected authority is based on the collective authority of the people doing the election. Why is it legal for some people to vote, but not others? Did something about that truth suddenly change when the voting age dropped 3 years to age 18?
ReplyDeleteBased on your reasoning, religion has at least as much authority as anything else--or nothing has authority. If there is no God, all authority is self-defined--something you criticize religion of doing. Perhaps religious thought, and the thoughts you share, are closer than they might appear at first viewing.