First, let me remind you that this is a discussion thread about the "meaning of life", NOT about the merits of religion.
Now I will respond to your post:
Do I understand you to mean that your solution would be to eliminate theology/religion?
My solution ? to what problem, I do not have a problem accepting life and death for what it is, I do not have a problem at all, you are born you live, you make choices and eventually we all die. End of story.
I have no problem, therefore I seek no solution.
Personally, I'm not convinced that would help all that much. Among other things, if they're right then everybody loses, as alleged theological proofs can apparently not be mathmatically derived or experimentally verified.
"Help all that much" Help in what ?
If they are right ? (I assume Theologians), being right about what.... why do you say everybody loses why does anyone have to lose ??... lose what ? Mathematically derived ? or experimentally verified??? what ??
Problem is, I can't think of any sane way to screen screwball religious thoughts from rational ones.
Now that's laughable.... a rational religion... that is an oxymoron.
What is "rational" about a religion. The giving up of the Human mind as a sacrifice of the FreeThinking capabilities, or the fact that you have to accept all their rubbish as "principles"
and which religion are we talking about:
Catholics, Guilty by definition... and sacrifice your life to be granted "salvation".
Church of England, its origins are based on a mere desire of an equally irrational King, to divorce his wife Ana of Aragon, her brother and a dispute with the Roman Pope .
Or the Lutherans which arose by similar socio-economic and political differences (woman excepted), with Rome ?
Or might it be the Muslims, who are known by their terrorist tendencies, religious wars, and the like. "Let me blow you up, while you are at Church....."
Or the Jewish boys, who they are still waiting for their Messiah... at least on this one we would avoid the Y2K trouble !!!!
If I say that such and such a structure has such and such a strength, it can be measured and verified. Then maybe the structure can be used for something. I can't think of a way to do that for religion, so by and large I ignore it.
Good for you !!
But that doesn't really work, does it?
And why not ??
Whoever said "If I discard less than 50% of my data to make it fit a theory, the theory is proved," was not really acting as a scientist...
So ? How do you prove a negative ??
Do I have to prove the statement gods do not exist? why do I have to prove something it does not exist in the first place ?
It is like saying I destroy because I abstain from constructing.
Religion does not require proof of god, as it is evident throughout history, religion depends on faith, and faith is the surrender of the human mind to principles fabricated by other's based on theories alone stated by others.
In addition, it is safer to live based on one's own single belief based on our own analysis, even if errors are committed, than in ten principles postulated by others which are compelled to be accepted blindly as a matter of "being accepted.
Look at the history of religions the blood and wars because of them, the crusades, Northern Ireland. the Spanish Inquisition, the destruction of knowledge, and the ensuing dark ages, because the Church "knew better"
Look at the extermination of most Latin American tribes in order to be exploited by the Spanish Conquerors, all in the name of god.....
Do I want to be part of a cult that by definition (or birth) makes you guilty ? Sex is viewed as Voodoo, women are at best, second class citizens, and in fact at one point they were persecuted as witches.
Do I want to be part of a cult that Uses Hell and the "fear of god" as motivation to act ethically and morally?
I do not need their baggage to be a moral (understanding of what is right or wrong, good and evil) and ethical (the discovery and establishment of a code of conduct), individual.
I can act morally and ethically without being a believer of a faith or religion.
I do not need hell to behave, and act morally right and under a specific code of ethics that I may adhere to. In short, I am not a hypocrite.
Analyze the morality of the story of Adam and Eve... god creates a being that knows is not perfect, places him in a place where he knows Satan has access to, and further knows that Satan will try to win Adam over. Forbids him to eat from the tree of KNOWLEDGE, casually the woman, Eve just happens to be there and is the purveyor of temptation (after the proper indoctrination by Satan), and she convinces poor little Adam to eat from the tree of knowledge...
The "good" and "mighty" god, upon learning of the "horrible deed" he throws them out and tells them now they will have to "sweat" for his bread.... in essence establishing man's labor as a bad thing.
Now wait a minute..... can you imagine a good attorney, how he could claim negligence on the poor victim ADAM, since god was negligent in exposing Adam to bad Lucy ?, no, further, how come Eve was the first one to eat the apple, Adam, was 'forced' to participate, surely collusion could be proven between Eve and good old Lucy. Entrapment if you include god in the deed....
Come-on, the whole 6,000 years of history of religion was originated because Adam was given a public defender, not proper counsel !! I say a re-trail is in order. All because a woman ate a stupid fruit...
This time around we will include the negligence, failure to act responsibly, discrimination, and further breach of contract, .... no to mention further evil deeds perpetrated "in the name of god" throughout the history of humans.
Negligence: If the fruit from the tree was not to be eaten, a proper fencing and an alarm system should have been installed so as to warn god of improper approach.
Failure to Act Responsibly: god, as the all mighty that he is, should have re-construct poor Adam and eliminate the flaws god knew he possessed.
Breach of Contract: god promised eternal life in paradise, given the above failures by god Adam could not possibly be liable for his eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge, besides Adam was unjustly discriminated against because he was unjustifiably excluded from the tree of knowledge.
And in Eve's case it is even worse, since sexual harassment could be considered......
But hey ! do not believe me I am a simple Atheist having fun !!!
"The liberation of the human mind has been best furthered by gay fellows who heaved dead cats into sanctuaries and then went roistering down the highways of the world, proving to all men that doubt, after all, was safe--that the god in the sanctuary was a fraud."
Now, in addition to the above read the following:
atheists.org
reasonworks.com
reasonworks.com
reasonworks.com
Now, Read and reason, use your own mind and THINK, if religion still makes sense to you, well, then by all means join them, just do not pester those who do not believe.
Z.
p.s. btw, the movie was good it is called "The Proposal" and it dealt with a screwed up family in the 1920's and their desire to have a surrogate father since the husband in the family in question is sterile, things get a little out of hand and.... guess what ?
One of the local priests ends up being the surrogate father.... quite a coincidence don't you think ? |
