I am bugged by the fact that those with clear orientations, who think that religion is bad and oppressive and superstitious and polarizing, and who think that atheism or agnosticism is rational and humane and heroic and liberating, pretend that they are somehow more objective than I am, fail to make a serious effort to engage the points on the table, and merely resort to accustomed forms of ridicule, in essence.
So, how do I score? I figure I'm probably the most vituperative atheist here... Laz gets bored too easily to give really good rebuttals, LOL.
Do I think religion is
- bad? Sometimes, depending on what is believed and practiced, and how dogmatically... This is arguably the religious rather than the religion, but the one requires the other, and since the former will (if bad) often declare that his interpretation IS the religion, there is then no difference on those terms. What makes one interpretation of a religion by a practitioner any more (or less) 'valid' than any other?
- oppressive? It certainly can be, and has been in its time. Fundamentalist versions are. See above.
- superstitious? IMO, by definition.
- polarizing? Depends on how extreme they are. These days, few people in the UK are polarized by the CofE - unless they themselves are fundie (Xtian or Islamic).
Meanwhile, do I think atheism or agnosticism are
- rational? Yep.
- humane? Well, maybe. No more/less than most religions, in most forms. Less so than the ones that teach 'Love the outsider' (i.e., non-believer) - strangely, few seem to follow this tenet. Much more humane than the ones that preach 'Death to infidels', or that non-believers are worth less, or less human.
- heroic? Probably less so than than the religious, since it's hard to get all fired up about not believing in a god... so you're unlikely to charge to death for your cause. OTOH it used to be rather brave to declare oneself atheist.
- liberating? 100%.
Do I consider myself 'more objective'?
Well, I wouldn't say I'm 'objective' on religion as such - but I disbelieve all religions equally...
Do I 'fail to make a serious effort to engage the points on the table'?
I deny that. I discuss them so long as there's a rational rebuttal (or proof). If the 'proof' strays into feelings, beliefs or wishes I will not bother trying to prove/refute these, obviously. I don't mock such: how can I? I do not believe the same, but I can't disprove someone's feelings.
Lastly, do I 'resort to accustomed forms of ridicule'?
Well, I hope not - I think I'm doing well with new forms of ridicule too.
As for the rest of the post, well, most of it isn't (I presume) relevant to me. I'll treat your 'Jew-hater' comment as simply blowing off steam, but I suggest you stick to faecal insults in future (ass-wipe seems especially productive, and appears to be an original coinage too). But good rant, anyhow. I'm all in favour of ranting.
(reminded I owed you a reply after siliconinvestor.com ). |
