Somehow, religion is to blame for all the negative activities with which it may be associated, but the positive activities would occur willy- nilly, without religion playing a role. That is sheer axe grinding.
You've used the terms "sheer axe grinding" and "animus" and "hatred." I recognize that these discussions can get shrill and even nasty. Is it mostly the tone with with the message is delivered rather than the message itself that crosses the line?
I consider it strange and irritating of professed agnostics to portray believers as irrational. In the absence of certain knowledge, one is at liberty to opine, and belief in a deity is surely no more irrational than denial of a deity.
I find myself looking "rational" up in the dictionary all the time. It never seems to mean what I expect it to, no matter how often I do that. When I think of rational, I think of logic and the scientific method. You can't get to a belief in God or a denial of God by the scientific method. The only rational attitude to have about God is to be an agnostic--it's an unknown. Belief is supra-rational. I don't think that saying that belief in God is irrational is an insult. It just is. We know what can be known. The rest we fill in with belief. Something less than rational, it is. Saying that we know what we only believe, now that's irrational.
If by "irrational" one means nutty, yeah, there's an insult there.
Let me ask you this. You are supportive of religion and the religious, in general. I assume that's the traditionalist, the social conservative in you. You have your own beliefs. Are there not any religious beliefs that you would consider nutty? That you'd have to be a bit daft or stupid to believe? I'm not talking about one's entitlement to believe whatever he or she wants regardless of now nutty, I'm talking about your assessment of the particular belief. Surely there must be something that is beyond the pale for you. If so, or if not, then I have further questions or points.
They will protest that they have their reasons, but so what, believers have their reasons for preferring belief. It is an impasse.
I can almost see you cringe when I suggest that believers may believe out of a need to believe and apply the word, needy, even though you've often said that there would be no meaning in life without God. I understand why you would consider "needy" a put down. I simply consider it an explanation.
I said in a recent post that I do not have the temperament to be a believer, that I love freedom and detest arbitrary authority. One could draw from that that I am an overgrown spoiled brat, willful and childish. That's not complimentary, either. What's the difference between my preference for no God because I'm childish and the preference of others for a God because they have a childlike need for authority or a protector or meaning or eternal life? We're all human and we all explain things as they make sense to us. We may value our own attributes and look down a bit on those who do not share them. Sure there's bias in that. But animus?
I'm done for now...
Karen |
