now, don't get me wrong, I'm not going to accuse anyone group of being wrong or right of anything. but what really seems to be irritating me lately is the little battle going on between the two groups of 'faithfuls.'
I'm very laissez-faire when it comes to religion, much like people are in their political views. some people have beliefs that reach on both sides of the aisle that doesn't make them a Republican, Democrat, Liberal, Conservative, Realist, Progressive, Nose Picker, whatever. and I really don't like to be pigeon holed into any subtext or denomination. my parents believe I'm agnostic. so thats fine.
so I understand. I sympathize. but I also have a problem with a flood of these so called 'arguments' lately.
on the Christian side, it seems many have dedicated themselves to the preaching need to promote 'Pascal's Wager.' if you don't what it is, here's a symposia of it.
If you believe in God and you're wrong, you didn't lose anything. But if you don't believe in God and you're wrong then you will go to hell. so don't be an atheist, its just bad. just be a believer, whether you believe it or not. and you're mostly doing this as a time spender to past boredom by. but you'll die eventually. so you might as well skip that part and pick a side.
there are many flaws to this. just in the text alone. by basically stating its in your own self interest to believe in God, even if it has no consequence to your life is a bit absurd. the statement alone is meant to induce a fear and strike a promotion into the rank and file of the Christian faith. but I could deconstruct this even more but Voltaire already did enough of that and if his writings are a bit too dense then try reading Diderot's arguments against it.
I don't simply feel the need to follow. but I also believe it to be a fatally flawed logic. by forcing someone into a submission of faith completely disavows the needed tolerance that is often so flowery preach by the more liberal minded of the christian faithful.
when I approached one of these bloggers with my de spinozistic beliefs, they merely discounted me as 'not of the types they wanted.' what this meant, I had no idea but I didn't believe such an orderly reprieve would be condemned so quickly. apparently the very introduction of such thought was considered 'heretic.' which lies with my biggest problem with those of preaching faithful of christianity. this closed off belief and lack of open mindedness that has backtracked progressive individual desires and science by a few hundred years is clearly the reason why so many get turned off by it. we don't like being told what to do, even more so than someone so arrogant to make it a law. (ie: those that aren't agaisnt Ghey Marriage).
it almost seems like they like to be contrarian to any passing fade that comes their way or might even be considered a 'challenge' to their authority on the rule of the land. think about it? who's really kept back progressive ideals for the last 1,000 years? it certainly hasn't been atheists. though who knows, if they were the ones kept in power, I'm sure philosophy itself probably wouldn't be allowed to be in existence. as anyone knows, those people are just as bad at suppression of ideals contrary to their own much like the Christians were to the very harmless idea of the world being round.
and oh lord, will you please stop condemning people? stop acting like you're some benevolent understanding human being when you can barely stomach anything less than the uniform combination of belief and personality blended into one folded ideal. it borders on fascist narcissism. but thats what you strive for right? one belief under one gawd but only your interpretation right? the interpretation from one of the three books? preferably the second one, yes.
yet the even continued argument by christians that people who don't follow gawd often follow a life that lacks any moral convictions and are often of the most perilous individuals that walk the earth. trust me, this isn't the case. when's the last time you heard of a 'crazed atheist' on a rampage? beside the nutcase who wants to get rid of gawd from the pledge of allegiance, even though, if he knew history, which he doesn't obviously, then he would know it was added to merely separate us from the 'gawd-less' communists and its purpose was political. not bc the politicians in washington were meant to convert everyone. to most kids who recite it, its just a word. I didn't even think about it every morning as a child reciting it at the beginning of class. it was just something we said like a script. it didn't change my beliefs for the day other than I thought 'okay only six more hours left.'
oh and now the Atheists. to preface this, for those who are unfamiliar, this isn't labeled to all atheists as there are many different types (yes, my religious friends...much you don't like being called protestant when you're a catholic, there are many types of atheists) from the practical types to the scientific types to the anthropocentric types.
its really none of those that I feel are doing anything wrong. I mean, I agree with the pratical argument of it all. that a belief in gawd is needed for some inspiration or motivation in life isn't quite what I believe. not that I'm discounting those that are divinely inspired but I just find that gawd has no purpose in my aspirations, ambitions or happiness. nor does if there is a spiritual divine, is it concerned with the fates and actions of human beings.
the ones that irk me are the ones that rant on like Bill O'Reily at a Liberal Dinner Party. the ones that sound very much like a christian preacher with a different script. I mean, seriously, read your writing, listen to your self speak and actually think what you're doing. are you doing anything different than of the opposite of what you're fighting? no, you're not. you claim to think that you are bc you don't use gawd, fear or threats and that you're not the close minded one that you're fighting against. you're a bit wrong.
and use a better argument, for _________ sakes. I mean. something cleaver, perhaps? instead of using the argument for the existence of evil in the world or metaphysical non-evidence of its existence. if you're really that concerned about making your point than do it without conversion in your mind. bc its simply what you're extolling about to the masses you want. you want them to think what you think. otherwise, you wouldn't be making these claims and presenting this evidence.
and trust me, you've got a lot of other things you can claim than the weak willed arguments that many of you have already made. trust me, you're winning about as many points in a race like a greyhound at the Kentucky Derby. I've heard enough criticisms from both sides to make this point perfectly clear. yeah, I like my side of the argument. considered weak by atheists and christians alike bc I can't fully dedicate myself to their single uniform. bc I refuse to wear their colours. give me a fucking break.
and your use of illustrating the bad use of religion for leaders is needless. you can point out the many lunatic religious leaders but remember your belief has spawned some of the most ruthless leaders like Ataturk, Stahlin, Pol Pot and Mao Zedong. so remember, humanity has always leaders of both 'sides' that were bad. try not too claim the high road that your leaders are reasonable. as there is no such thing in this world that you claim to be apart of and are making better. for leaders have been evil too. such as.
but in regards to both arguers:
the sad part is that all of these people are of the solipsistic variety. editing their arguments with occam's razor. trying to edit and re-edit their points through cuts and cleaver misuse like a dirty political spindoctor. musing on about how RIGHT they are and how WRONG you must be. for if you don't believe in their argument, you're a moron.
this is becoming the norm in the very highly chargin I've been reading lately from all sides. each one taking a scripts from the others and changing the tone to be far more condescending and prosaic at the same time. but each one is very blasé.
there are civilized ways about going about this and not declaring that civilization is at its nadir bc you're not following what they (you know who you are) believe in. To many Atheists, its the belief that you can't prove the physical existence of Gawd or God that is the majority of their arguments. what they don't get is that people who do believe are not basing their faith on a physical manifestation of Gawd. they simply aren't. yet stupidly, like some crazed Reverend, they enact an intricate and complicated method of manipulation like their Christian rivals and end up being the very person they are fighting. or presenting the idiotic tablets and youtube videos of some crazed reverend even though their own group is filled with such idiocy.
pressing their beliefs and preaching their will onto someone who simply has already made up their mind. Christians by very definition, the lunatic fringe especially is bad. with their awful guilt trip ridden rhetoric and threats of violent induction by historical nature and by definition are not the peaceful bunch they so claim to be.
you know what, no one really knows. there's no science to prove anything or everything that can be made. a religion of any form is an act of faith and you're just as blind to believe one person as you are to believe another person. whether you believe in God, Muhammad, Buddha, Richard Dawkins or the Toothfairy, you're still subscribing yourself to something. you still write something in that little box when you do your census form. you're still a part of something. whether you like it or not.
sure you can argue that I just made a simple argument. that people, everyone, has a belief and 'worships' things. while holding something dear doesn't necessarily constitute worship, it sure is close. unless you got some existential word or idea, if you're working, you're obviously worshiping money and power. sure, you can go on that we all do. both sides do this. see? you agree on something. now focus that something more productive. like your fantasy football team or your wife.
so I beg of you, through your own hypocrisy, christians, muslims, jews and atheists, to just shut the fuck up. neither one of is right and neither of you is wrong. I find interests in everything. I'm not saying this to make myself feel superior but the act of an enlightened mind is through keeping it open. by closing yourself off to one argument you understand why others closes themselves off to your arguments.
yet quite frankly, when you begin to preach, you begin to make others nauseous, uncomfortable and come off as nothing short of a blow hard who's desperately trying to spread their gospel to anyone who will listen. many of these people simply have made up their mind. so don't even bother. preach to the choir and debate amongst yourselves. and keep the name calling to a minimum. people wonder why there isn't peace in this world. and you people are at the very core of it.
but you know what? the proof of the existence of their argument is their burden alone. and often times when forced to prove these arguments to a skeptic already, they logically hold fast to an argument that doesn't work and can not survive. therefore, the rationalé is considered flawed by the skeptic. and the circle will go on and on. but that's just it. why? why do you care so much?
I've lately decided to subscribe to the belief of 'que sera sera' in meaning that 'whatever will be, will be.' does that mean I'm a 'weak atheist' bc I'm agnostic, according to my atheist friends? fine. I don't care. does that mean I subscribe Baruch de Spinoza's beliefs that things unfold for a reason by association of fate, according to my hardcore christian friends? sure. I don't care. I've got my beliefs. but I don't think you need to know or you even care.
so why care what others believe? you believe what you want. its your choice, gawd given or not.