When she says "babies" she could be talking about people that never grew up.
Printable View
When she says "babies" she could be talking about people that never grew up.
Great post.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkBastable
I wasn't badly defending atheism. There is no reason to defend atheism. I might speak up for myself if you say you hate the type of atheist I am, because you don't know me or my "type" of atheism. My type of atheism is simply that I don't have faith in deities. If you hate that type of atheist, that's your issue and it doesn't bother me. I don't think you're rude. No offense taken.
I'm not unable to recognize irony. Are you, as an atheist person, unable to recognize that modern religion is in contradiction to the physical world? There seems such a strong opposition to criticism of religion, that I have to wonder what type of atheist would be so angry when they suspect someone of condescending. It may have escaped notice, but I was trying to give people an excuse for what I would consider to be completely inexcusable behavior if it were to come from me instead. I have an understanding that I don't know it all and CAN'T know it all. Religious people clinging to a specific religion do not have that understanding. I am trying to be nice by calling them naive. If they are not naive, it's a far more malicious insanity. I think it would be much more "rude" of me to call them insane.
People are soothing themselves. They are coping using myth as a tool. That's nice. I don't think they could handle not having faith, and I think they would tell you the same thing. They need their faith to sustain them (this is not my opinion, it is theirs). It should make no atheist rise to their defense simply because this atheist does not need that sort of sustenance. I hope I have made myself clear.
Exactly right. Thank you, cafolini. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by cafolini
I have also said nothing of the intelligence of Christians. Being naive and having delusions doesn't necessarily mean someone is stupid. I used to be Christian. I don't think I was stupid then. I simply hadn't outgrown that attachment. If that's offensive, I don't know how to avoid offense.
Of course she was. The notion that religion is childish is, however, both insulting and incorrect.Quote:
Originally Posted by cafolini
Varenne continues in her former vein:
First of all, the notion that “religious people clinging to a specific religion (do not have the understanding that they don’t know it all and can’t know it all)” is naïve, silly and ridiculous. “For who can know the Mind of God?” asks the Bible, rhetorically. Christians accept that God is ineffable, and for Varenne to unfairly accuse them of being know-it-alls is ridiculous.Quote:
I'm not unable to recognize irony. Are you, as an atheist person, unable to recognize that modern religion is in contradiction to the physical world? There seems such a strong opposition to criticism of religion, that I have to wonder what type of atheist would be so angry when they suspect someone of condescending. It may have escaped notice, but I was trying to give people an excuse for what I would consider to be completely inexcusable behavior if it were to come from me instead. I have an understanding that I don't know it all and CAN'T know it all. Religious people clinging to a specific religion do not have that understanding. I am trying to be nice by calling them naive. If they are not naive, it's a far more malicious insanity. I think it would be much more "rude" of me to call them insane.
People are soothing themselves. They are coping using myth as a tool. That's nice. I don't think they could handle not having faith, and I think they would tell you the same thing. They need their faith to sustain them (this is not my opinion, it is theirs). It should make no atheist rise to their defense simply because this atheist does not need that sort of sustenance. I hope I have made myself clear.
Varenne goes on to claim that religious people are either naïve or insane. Good one! This is both rude, and an ad hominem argument. It is belied by the fact that many religious people are obviously sane, and very sophisticated (although, like the rest of us, they may be wrong about some things).
Varenne continues with her reductionist “explanation” of religion: “People are soothing themselves. They are coping using myth as a tool.” Does she have any evidence for this? Of course not. Instead, she is merely spewing some psychological mumbo-jumbo. She claims the religious, “need their faith to sustain them (this is not my opinion, it is theirs).” But if the religious are either naïve or insane, why should we accept their opinion? Doubtless some religious people do say they need their faith to sustain them, but they also say that Jesus was the incarnation of God. Why does Varenne accept their (naïve or insane) opinion in the one case, but not in the other?
So, Varenne, you HAVE made your position clear. Unfortunately, it is you (not the religious) who are naïve and unsophisticated. By “explaining” a complicated, rich, human tradition as a manifestation of the psychological neediness of a naïve or insane group of emotionally immature babies, you have reduced one of the luminous achievements of mankind -- a tradition from which ethical wisdom, artistic beauty, and literary glories have sprung – to a trivial psychological defense mechanism for the juvenile.
I don’t buy it.
It's not an achievement, it's a hindrance. You've gone on such a rabid attack of me, Ecurb. You're not atheist, man. It's obvious. I have never heard of an atheist person worshipping religion so stringently. What is your motivation? To convince people that religion has been wonderful for mankind? I wholeheartedly disagree. If you love it so much, why are you atheist? I'm genuinely curious.
"Atheist" is a noun. Ecurb isn't an atheist.
It's also an adjective, Juniper. I've read some opinions that say it is ONLY an adjective, but I agree that it's a noun too because it's a label. It's been used in the descriptive form for a long time; "atheist leanings." Thank you for mentioning that though.
Hang on. Run the grammatical logic of that past me.Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
If it's a noun, why can't it take the indefinite (or indeed, definite) article. Why is he not an atheist?
I would hardly call my attack "rabid". You (not I) are the one who began insulting people in this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Varenne Rodin
Religion consists of myth, ritual and belief (among other things). It seems to me that those who participate on a literary discussion board would at least see the value of myth -- if not of ritual or belief. After all, myth is the foundation of literature -- or, at least, of history, fiction, and poetry. If religion is naive, childish, and needy, does that mean literature is naive, childish and needy?
At times it is. Obviously, that does not detract from its enjoyment, a point I made.
Again, who did I insult? It's not an insult to say that taking mythology seriously is naive. By your thinking, all naive beings should feel insulted simply because they are naive.
We are talking about Humans......Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecurb
'survival' and 'fitness' are not the same as Natural Selection which is mainly concerned with adaptation and changes in physique. "Survival of the fittest"
as I get is,. is females looking for Alpha males for good propagation of genes.
The analogy drawn by you is fallacious in that it relates more to 'economic factors' than evolution. An ant can reproduce more than an elephant and even fell it!!
As the saying goes, When confused over a matter take the easier route'' Or ' when faced with a difficulty opt for a smaller error over the bigger one'....Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkBastable
Unfortunately, the non-God believers are doing none.
I think when someone attacks a 'faith' he is doing the same as hurling an atom bomb over Nagasaki and Hiroshima without realizing that living ones live below!! And that's not fair!!Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkBastable