Friday, December 15, 2006
Scientific American - Is Religion Good for Society?
I know this is one of our favourite subjects here, so I thought I'd post this article from Scientific American.
Given the subject matter, it's surprisingly brief, mostly (I suspect)
because the research points in all different directions at once:
"independent scholar Gregory S. Paul found an inverse correlation
between religiosity (measured by belief in God, biblical literalism,
and frequency of prayer and service attendance) and societal health
(measured by rates of homicide, childhood mortality, life expectancy,
sexually transmitted diseases, and teen abortions and pregnancies)"
...and then again... "In general, religious people are more than three times more generous
than secularists to all charities, 14 percent more munificent to
nonreligious charities and 57 percent more likely than a secularist to
help a homeless person."
So there you have it: a definite maybe.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
85 comments:
munificent. excellent word. I shall try and use it today.
These two statements do rather look at odds on the face of it. However, my interpretation is that most of the money donated to charity in such societies are likely to be donated to religious charities (such as the church itself - look after your own), or to charities connected to religions (Christian Aid, Red Cross).
They're certainly not donating to charities that help look after the health of their populus.
Well, that's one interpretation, I guess. There's no evidence as to which charities are being donated to, so I'm not sure your assumption is justified. Particularly since church members are much more likely to volunteer their time to charities, which would suggest that they're spending time tackling local problems.
There's also the other point made in the article, about religious communities having a higher incidence of membership of non-church community groups. That's surely another point in their favour.
Isn't that special.
I read it like this : religious souls are more likely to give to charity. Societal health in those same areas are bad. One reason could be that they are not donating to charities that help towards improving social standards and the neighbourhood.
It's important to keep in mind that correlation does not necessarily imply causation. It's entirely possible that one causes the other but it's also possible that both are caused by a third, unstated factor.
certainly.
you're still sulking about that superficial thing, aren't you.
The religious probably give more to the homeless because it could as well be their own teen that picked up an STD sharing dirty needles after the bout of depression from their pregnancy and abortion, resulting in a few homicides and led them to live on the streets.
(sigh) Just holding my tongue for a change.
Do you remember Dana Carvey's Church Lady?
a change in what?
The religious minded do charity believing that it'll add up to their religious merit. It's selfish in the end.
I give to charity, but I'm not in the slightest religious, as you all know.
I wonder what the reaction would have been had Islamic organisations offered aid in New Orleans, and expected conversions to Islam in exchange? This tactic is often used by so-called Christian aid groups in Africa and notably in Banda Aceh after the 2004 tsunami.
one suspects that the West see the Christian aid group tactics in Banda Aceh as perfectly acceptable, but the reverse in New Orleans as reprehensible. Double standards, hypocrisy - just two of the reasons I avoid religion.
The West sees religions reaching out to attempt to convert people to anything as acceptible. That's classified under religious freedom. Now if we were upset over death sentences to the converted and beheadings of Imams, then we'd have something to talk about. Otherwise, we are being pretty uncharitable about people, who though they maybe misguided in many ways in my opinion, are trying to do good, often at great risk to themselves.
Uh-huh. I see it more like an insidious form of mental pollution, not unlike deliberately dumping toxic gases into the atmosphere, or dioxins into a water supply.
Yeah, we'd noticed.
i'm with Hector [again, you noticed]. That's complicated because my wife is a firm believer. Hey, it just leads to interesting theosophical conversations as neither will convert the other.
Hah!
Personally, I thought this article was a good refutation of the idea that religion is an unremitting blight on the world. I think it does help people to think outside themselves and behave altruistically. I don't think this is because they think it'll help them go to heaven (my experience of religious altruists doesn't lead me to think that they've got that sort of selfish accounting going on in their heads) - I think it's more because it provides a community group which is focussed on altruism. Peer pressure is probably the most powerful social motivator in the world - I think religious communities have proved a good way of positively using that motivator. That would also seem to me to be the most likely source of problems - when a community loses that altruistic focus and becomes merely a leaderless (but tightly-knit) peer group, then the sort of problems that the article discusses arise.
You'd be wrong.
c'mon kids, lets play nice.
This discussion reminds me how little I have done since 2004 in community or church work. Now that I am mostly recovered from surgeries, I need to get back into it.
Perhaps religion's a natural side-effect of society - and it wouldn't function without it...
Perhaps the older religion's are just being superceded by newer ones (Celebs, films, gadgets)
i've long suggested that football (soccer if you must) is a religion :
1. It has its churches (plenty of stadiums all over the country)
2. It has its congregations (20000 a week at my club)
3. It has its hymns and chants
4. It has its leaders (managers, club chairman)
5. We all believe that our church (or club) is the ultimate and can't quite understand those who do not believe the same. In fact, we kind of pity them for not seeing the light
6. Whilst it has a leader, they're only human. The ultimate sacred body in the church is the game itself. It's bigger and more important than the humans within.
7. Some fight for their church
8. We should go once a week but always attend on special occasions
9. No bread and wine, just pies and beer. We always drink to and remember our church
10. There are highs and lows, but the club is constant.
I conclude that sport is a religion. I believe.
all that is true Jon, but the only reward in Soccer is the score. and maybe a huge silver goblet with inscription on it
something tangible, that's true. But with soccer, when my church leader promises something, it's easy to see if it's achieved or not. The traditional church promise something intangible and unverifiable.
something tangible, that's true. But with soccer, when my church leader promises something, it's easy to see if it's achieved or not. The traditional church promise something intangible and unverifiable.
yes, intangible.
but verifiable? interesting.
Used to be the case that people blamed the Gods when crops failed, now they fire the manager
Verifiability of faith, you have heard this before, is subjective, and not scientific method.
You know Jon, one of the factors that drive people AWAY from churches is the club mentality. There are social cliques and people in it for networking, my husband being one. All the things you describe as a soccer church are reasons I quit going to church . I am looking for the spiritual lessons and guidance for daily living. The people in their inability to understand the words of Christ have ruined church.
that's just blind faith. With respect, you believe it, want to continue to believe it, but it's not fact, not verified and never can be.
That happy coincidence keeps both sides of the conversation fuelled of course.
I'm as certain in my athiesm as anyone I have ever met, and certainly more certain in my athiesm than Better Half is in her faith. But I went along to a carol concert last night, in Sighthill (a tower block estate in Glasgow, currently the home to a sizeable proportion of the UK's asylum seekers), because Better Half wanted to. And while sitting in the room with all of these people who sincerly believe that there is a God still creeps me out fairly hard, I could also see that the people in the choir genuinely felt that they were spreading the good news, that they were helping people celebrate and to understand what they regard as the true meaning of Christmas. The minister himself showed no sign of being the parasitic fraudster that Hector describes, and nor did any of the other people involved in the event. They believe. They are convinced of the truth of the Word of God and, in their own non-confrontational way, they want you to believe, to share in the rewards that they feel that they have gained.
I think that Hector is railing against an aspect of religion which may exist but which, to a certain extent, the Reformation - which, by democratising the Bible and stripping out the institutional pomp and liturgy of Catholicism - has neutered, at least in certain denominations, that is spiritual dishonesty for personal or institutuional gain. Self-interest may yet motivate certain of the clergy but in my experience (Anglican, Catholic, Methodist, Presbyterian) the majority are more concerned instead with helping others see the light, and share in the glory (however misguided Hector and I might think it). It isn't a confidence trick if you, too, believe in what you are giving.
As to the question moom poses, I'd say that religion is (overall) a positive thing in respect of individuals and small communities but that it is (overall) a slight negative balance in respect of wider society. I don’t have much considered evidence (and no quantifiable evidence at all) but given all the happiness faith gives the individual and all the harms perpetrated in the name of organised religion, I can't really come to a different conclusion. But then, I would say that, I'm an atheist.
You're right... I'm just a jealous old curmudgeon with no friends, a terrible addiction to alcohol and a private pact with the devil. Leave me alone, all of you! I'm tired of your voices buzzing around through my synapses.
Dad? Is that you?
Yes, now fuck off and leave me and my friend Glen Morangie alone... there's a good fellow.
not sleeping well Hector? Must be late there.
It was about 12:30 when I posted. I had just watched the last 2 episodes of Oz.
Enough to drive anyone to drink.
It's a great show. Well acted, though a little overstuffed.
It occurred to me last night that there's a TV series to be had from a similar concept. The hitch would be that each episode has no consequences for the next. Characters can be violently murdered and simply turn up again in the next episode, much like Kenny in South Park.
If you just replace football/soccer with cricket, it'll be a fit description of the situation here in India.
Any sport, in Australia.
This just came up in Fark (ref Guardian Article) - seemed relevant
http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink=2495093
Here's the real link to the Guardian article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,1978046,00.html
Here's a question that wants answering:
Who is the greater fool? The man who shouts out "I believe in God!" in a godless universe? Or the man who stands fists akimbo and declares, "There is NO god!" whilst the God of the universe looks on?
Yes. We should really try to live our lives so as not to look foolish. (sighs, takes off jester's hat)
Surely Blaise Pascal answered that question a while back.
foolish is in the eye of the beholder
(grabs Matt's jester's hat and rams it on own head, scampers around yelling 'look at me! Woo hoo!')
fool :-)
Strawberry Fool
Whipped cream recipe from above
1 cup strawberry sauce from above
Gently fold the sauce into the cream with a rubber spatula. You may not use a cup of sauce since it's hard to predict how watery any given strawberry sauce will be — you'll need to use your judgment over how much to fold in before you get a runny fool. You can make this in advance and it'll thicken in the refrigerator, but after several hours it will sort of separate. Not to worry, you can thicken it up with a few strokes of a hand whisk.
Just Good Food
Shouldn't that be capitalized?
You're just jealous because I have a hat.
now you have strawberry sauce on top.
now you're arguing for 'Look a fool' vs. 'Be a fool.'
I look a fool to someone doing something all the time. That wasn't the question! (Try to stay focused, children!) Which is the more foolish stance: "No god." + yes there is vs. "Yes there is" + no god? Or standing on one's head and making strawberry tarts with one's toes?
GO ON! ANSWER FOR REAL. STOP DODGING THE QUESTION.
(And moom, Blaise answered it, yes, but I wasn't asking him)
Focus on the hat?
Ok fine, the hat, it looks really silly on you, and you dance like a monkey with a broken leg. K-- I'm with ya kid, I'm just so burned out trying to understand how these ........ Fools .... can't believe in a God, that I am punch drunk.
The question really is if one looks the fool. You're just as wrong either way. (except that you snuck the word "believe" in the first one - go on, own it. Yell that there is a god.) Just there's nobody to look foolish in front of in the first case.
(starts making a new jester hat out of duct tape, foam insualtion, and spray paint)
I said believe, K didn't, I think you all look very intelligent and well backed with your foolish arguments against the existance of God. You appear the epitome of scientific wisdom. but my God tells me such people are fools and I believe him.
No, that's just the voice in your head. A tinfoil hat should fix that.
ok make mine pointy and go easy on the duct tape
Never really liked Pascal's answer. If you're a good and kind person, and do right by your neighbour and respect your father and mother, but don't believe in a god, do you deserve to be punished for that? Personally, I think any deity who punished someone simply for not believing in them doesn't deserve to be believed in.
Since I believe that, it doesn't matter if I actually believe in God at all. As long as I'm a nice person.
This post wasn't originally about the existence or non-existence of God, incidentally. It was about whether society benefits from having religious people around.
//It was about whether society benefits from having religious people around.//
Yeah, but who in their right mind would care what society thinks about itself? That's just foolish. :P
Pascal doesn't seem to have an answer, per se, moom, just a question.
Truth is that no one is going to produce the evidence for or against the existence of God. Admit it. (How does one even begin the tests to prove that God does not exist? Do you start by looking in everything for God [ie, under the bed, in a banana] or do you begin by ruling out what you think God is not in?) The day will never come when EUREKA! we've conclusively found in favor/or against the existence of a god.
And as for the brain-washed believers (as Hector helpfully terms us, as he ships us all off on a bus for deprogramming), we fools who know God have no choice but to believe in him.
It makes my head hurt, too, dent.
But then, that doesn't take much. : )
OK, a question: Why do you need to believe?
Are you frightened to find out that the responsibility for you and your actions lies within you, and not some invisible deity?
It's not my own actions that worry me, but those of the imbeciles aroudn us...
Need to believe? Why do you need not to believe?
I have not shrugged off responsibility in trying to know and understand God. Quite the contrary; he (very gently) takes me to task on things that are harmful to myself and others that I cannot, from my perspective, see. He's got my back.
Need to believe. No. Do believe, yes. (I also believe in you, Hector, though I have never actually seen you, and only once, maybe, heard your voice although the recording was bad, and come to think of it, you too, just like God, sent me a book [thank you, btw] which would have helped me to know where you came from and what you were like had I taken the trouble to read the whole thing {as it is I have a warped view that the number one cause of death to infants in Australia is being carried off by snakes}) Oddly enough, Grandpa, my gullibility extends to your wife and children. I believe all of them exist too. But no one thinks me a fool, even though I am going only on your word. Because I take your word as reliable. I've compared the times you've talked about your wife and you always call her by the same name. I compare the changing ages of your children and their levels of development over the years. Now, either you are engaged in an elaborate hoax at my expense, or you do indeed have a wife and children. My leap of faith to believe they do indeed exist is born of my own personal observations and conclusions formed through the years. Why do I need to believe in you or your (very lovely) family? I don't. But it makes sense to from what I have observed, seen, read. Same with God.
I perfectly comprehend that seeing "God" through the narrow window of humanity as your only view into his greatness is at once a very limiting and unappealing invitation. And I am sorry. Sorry to be just one such dim and dirty window. But that is not your only option of getting at him. No man or woman told me that God existed. God did. At one point I accepted wholeheartedly the doctrine of my youth. I also walked away from it and questioned it. Some of what I was taught did not bear scrutiny, but God always did.
Need to believe. No. I have free will. I could make a dogged effort to try to unbelieve in God. Try to ignore him all around me, holding me, smoothing out the rough spots in life ahead of me, protecting me, but honestly, I'm not that stupid. He's better to me than any human on the planet, and I have his promise he always will be. Why pretend he's not there when he is?
And if you now have a weird sinking feeling in your gut and wonder how such a seemingly nice girl could be so self-deluded, don't. I'll take my badge of "weirdo" and like it, because it's worth it just to know him.
Like I said, Hector, no one is ever going to conclusively prove or disprove God, so if you're waiting for a pie chart, just stop. I personally believe he will some day make it all too obvious, but that moment isn't now. Honestly, how could you call it 'love' to be totally smitten with someone and then instead of earning their affection until they make up their mind to love you (or not), you take them at gunpoint? You have a mean and cruel idea of God if you think that's what he would want to do you. He's not a rapist and he won't violate your right to choose. And so he doesn't. He stays out of eyeshot, out of earshot, just out of range, but always all over your case. And every blessed one of us decides whether we will look for him or leave him hidden and madly in love with us.
I just choose to let him love me.
That's nice.
Seriously, I think it's great for those people who feel that there is a God backing them up and watching over them. I sometimes wonder what a comfort it must be to offload responsibility for questions that are big and worrying to something that you can't see or hear but that you can feel assured will look after them for you.
For the non-believer it's a great concept, and a nice theory. For the believer it's a great help. If I was going to design a system to allay the fears of the masses that would be how I'd do it.
Thanks K. well done.
Plus, of course, there's the contention that religious people are generally healthier and live longer - and I struggle to find anyone medical who disagrees... the worst criticism appears to be that correlation does not imply causation, which is entirely irrelevant for my purposes - if religion acts as a channel and outlet for those with more vitality then I think it's behaving as a social good. And I'm not interested in whether you live longer because you participate in the church community or because you believe in God, for me it's the simple fact that you're participating in religion - which again makes it a good thing to have around.
This is an interesting article. I agree with most of the arguments, including the assessment of religion as a 'terrific meme' in the absence of any sort of moral judgement. I did get a little irritated when the author then tried to give religiosity a moral superiority as well, but what the hell - the first 2 and a half pages are exactly what I was trying to get at here. Just skip the last couple of paragraphs.
Where did I say that? I didn't. I said, society benefits from having religion around.
And besides, this is not about whether God exists or not. It's about whether people on this earth, now, in their daily lives, in their material existence, benefit from living in a religious community. Whether God exists or not is tangential to the discussion. I wish I hadn't got distracted by that particular question.
All these posts go off topic Matt, no need to fret.
The conclusion I come to from reading KSaras annos, is there is no question here of good or bad. Religion simply is.God Is. Whether you face him or deny him.And bad religion or weak convictions makes for bad society, good religion applied well benefits society."Religion" is too general a term; by my definition your religion is science.
The only thing missing from every equation and formula you ever seem to use is God himself. He's the one ingredient you can never quite bring yourself to throw into the mix. Since every deduction begins with the premise of no god, according to your mental math, Christians (and I suppose other god-believing people) are forever getting two plus two equals five. And you tear your hair out at our unabashed stupidity. And of course you think it's stupidity; there is an extra One in our formula that you do not, as of yet, see. If you would put him into some of your equations, you'd find our math is not quite as madcap as it now seems to you.
I have a question for the sake of hypotheticals: If he did exist and you could find him, would you want to?
Well, whatever. I'm going away for the weekend now, so if any fights break out, it's not my fault.
//Religion simply is.God Is. Whether you face him or deny him.And bad religion or weak convictions makes for bad society, good religion applied well benefits society.//
1. Religion may well be. I get up religiously, every morning. Religion is repetition of a task, in blind obeisance.
2. The existence of any sort of god is a matter of contention, entirely without basis or reason. It makes no difference whether you believe in a god or not, the concept is merely a belief, based upon an undeniable absence of physical evidence.
3. Bad religion may make a bad society. Weak convictions may make a good or bad society, depending upon the nature of the convictions, religious or otherwise. Good religion may benefit society, it may not. There is little evidence but hearsay, for that claim.
The arguments you made appear to be based solely upon a subjective view. They form nothing more than a series of apparently experiential assertions, as far as I can see.
I'm impressed by your argument, ksra, right up to the point where you asser 2+2=5. You and I both know that such an argument is erroneous and illogical. To assert that 2+2 = anything other than 4 is misleading and naive. I'm surprised you used an example so readily proven false.
//The only thing missing from every equation and formula you ever seem to use is God himself. He's the one ingredient you can never quite bring yourself to throw into the mix.//
It's a null operation. If you add nothing to an equation then you have, by definition, added 0. That operation is redundant and therefore not shown in the equation.
//Since every deduction begins with the premise of no god, according to your mental math, Christians (and I suppose other god-believing people) are forever getting two plus two equals five. And you tear your hair out at our unabashed stupidity. //
At your naivete and credulity in the face of reality, not stupidity (Some of the most intelligent, calculating people in history have relied upon god/s to justify their actions and positions). The rank and file of religions are not unabashedly stupid, in my view, merely the unwitting dupes of the longest-running series of hoaxes in history.
//And of course you think it's stupidity; there is an extra One in our formula that you do not, as of yet, see. If you would put him into some of your equations, you'd find our math is not quite as madcap as it now seems to you.//
Like I said... it's a zero. I will never see your One. It's nonexistent, illogical and unnecessary. Your assessment of the equation is flawed, from a rational standpoint. I simply won't suspend disbelief because I am told something will be good for me, by someone who's foolish enough to entrust their future to someone/thing they've never seen, heard or touched. Why do we seek to lock up people who've "talked to aliens" yet venerate people who've "talked to God"?
I don't need to believe, guys. I don't need an unseen entity to make my world work, to grease my social gears, to bear the blame for my failings and triumphs, to balance my math. I am responsible for my place in the world, and for all that I do and say. I have no need to blame anyone else and I have no need to rely upon anyone else, when all is said and done. Others are free to rely upon me, but that does not make me a god; merely a responsible member of society with stronger convictions than anyone else I've ever met.
//I have a question for the sake of hypotheticals: If he did exist and you could find him, would you want to?//
If God, the Christian God does exist and anyone finds Him/her/it, arrest the entity and bring Him/her/it to trial both as an accomplice and for inciting violence, mass murder, hatred, discrimination, war, treason, etc.
More damage has been done in the name of organised religion than any other cause, to date.
The "face of reality," Hector, is a "face" that you believe in with all the naivete you accuse me of. You feel so strongly that the forces of reason and common sense are on your side as you tower up in your arguments and yet you cannot lay a single definite claim or show a single definite proof of what you say. Show me, prove to me that God does not exist and I'll take down the reminders of him that are scattered throughout my life. You can try and try to prove your point, but you are as helpless to make a winning argument as I am to make mine. There is no way to disprove God. And as I said (and am beginning to feel like a broken record) there is no way to absolutely prove him either.
I maintain this has to be the way he approaches us, his creation, if we are to be allowed to make up our minds of our own free will. You want to take him/her/it to court if he/her/it exists for crimes against humanity and inciting to murder etc for not stopping mankind in its misdeeds. (Again! You with the cruel, arm-twisting god who forces us to do what we don't want to do! I
Most of the arguments I make, in places like this one, are intellectual exercises, Sara, as you have realised. I have had this particular discussion with priests (Presbyterian, Evangelist, Anglican and best of all, Catholic). In the end we agree to disagree. I can't prove the non-existence of anything, any more than I can prove that all of the molecules in a container of gas won't at some point be in just one half of the container.
The argument is a classical intellectual wank, "Prove that something, for which there is no empirical evidence, doesn't, or can't, exist."
I have an invisible dragon in my garage. Do you want to come and see the space he occupies? He's mighty and all-powerful. I talk to him sometimes, and I think he answers me back, though my wife says it's probably just the wind. He could stop all of the suffering in this world, with a gesture of his mighty wing, but that, he tells me, would be stifling free will. We have to have faith, he tells me, that his long-term plan will make it all OK and that the suffering will be alleviated. My invisible dragon is better and mightier than all of the other invisible dragons and my relationship with him is closer than that of my bearded and veiled neighbours, who also regard him as a friend (But they are foolish, because they think he is purple and green, and I know for certain that he is a blinding, radiant gold, should he ever show himself to us). My invisible dragon makes the sun shine and the flowers grow and the rain fall, so I have decided that my garage is now too nice of a place to park cars... I have decided to dedicate the whole building to housing my invisible dragon while my car takes its chances with the weather.
Some of my neighbours have come by, to see what all of the fuss is about. My neighbour from next door (Not the unbelievers, with their obsession with purple and green... the other neighbour) has been coming to look at my dragon for 7 years. He tells me he is convinced there is a dragon in my garage but he confesses that he cannot actually see it, that he can only see a few oilspots on the concrete floor and smell a faint smell of old tyres. I tell him he must simply redouble his efforts to see the dragon and have a faith mightier than the mountains, and he shall see. There is obviously some flaw in his character, that the dragon can see, for if his character was pure and good then he would see... he would see...
My daughter, who is 5, tells me she has a friend named Jack. Jack lives behind her bedroom door and comes out to play with her at night. She tells me long, fanciful tales about Jack. They're just so cute that I haven't the heart to tell her the truth, just yet, to tell her that it's just her imagination. Maybe next year? I just pat her on the head and give her a kiss and tell her to run along and don't forget her prayers to the dragon.
When are you going to let go of YOUR limiting beliefs, and come and see my dragon?
What? You don't believe I have a dragon in my garage? Come and see for yourself, and you will BELIEVE, Sister!
As I said earlier,
//I don't need to believe, guys. I don't need an unseen entity to make my world work, to grease my social gears, to bear the blame for my failings and triumphs, to balance my math. I am responsible for my place in the world, and for all that I do and say. I have no need to blame anyone else and I have no need to rely upon anyone else, when all is said and done. Others are free to rely upon me, but that does not make me a god; merely a responsible member of society with stronger convictions than anyone else I've ever met.//
If there were to be a "god", it would merely be the decision to deal with people in a certain way; to edify and nurture our interpersonal relationships in a fashion we would wish reciprocated. That's a basic tenet of most religious faiths, and a decision that does not require the existence of a deity, for mine.
By your own admission then, you are an intellectual wanker. That, or you are a blind believer who puts his absolute trust in something he can neither see nor hear nor ever, ever prove.
This is nothing, but simple, honest faith, Hector. I hate to say it, but if you are not a “wanker,” who spends every moment doggedly hounding the truth of the (non)existence of god, then you are a trusting babe like the rest of us; believing in something you cannot see or hear - without evidence, and without conclusive proof. Where is the superiority in your argument?
I can admit that I have taken a leap of faith. I even embrace this leap of faith as one of the most inexplicable and fantastical facets of my own existence. But you cannot and will not embrace your own equally illogical leap of faith. You insist it is the proven "face of reality" and then in the same breath state that it can never be proven. Please pick one. The duality of your logic does not allow your argument to move forward with integrity.
Although you loudly shout it out that there is NO DRAGON (not of any color!), I do find it rather endearing that you still insist on peeking into other people's garages.
Not really peeking into their garages... just pointing at them and shouting, "You're convinced there's a dragon in your garage, you bloody fruitcake." over and over and over, to the credulous.
Have your faith in the unseen, if it makes your journey to oblivion more bearable. I prefer to go through life with my eyes open and my conscience clear. I get one shot at this life... I refuse to share it with a prejudicial, guilt-inducing, imaginary friend.
I will have my faith and you will have yours, but it looks foolish on you to be shouting "fruitcake" at the top of your lungs when your own conclusions are as impossible to prove as those of the "credulous" you are raving at. The safest stance for you to take in a prolonged debate of this nature is that of agnosticism. Even the laziest agnostic has a safer harbour for debate than you do. They are not so willing to stick their neck out and say, "I have no proof, but I know god does NOT exist. And you are a fool to think he does, because you have NO proof!"
Think it over. If you will not see logic, then by all means, remain a "man of conviction," but at least have the courtesy to stop looking down your nose at others whose convictions have brought them to equally unjustifiable conclusions. Respect our right to our varied leaps of faith even as you take yours.
I will never run from an argument or from you. Should you wish to pick apart my "leap of faith," you may certainly do so at your leisure. I can even promise that the conversation will not end if I am proven wrong. My convictions give me the ability to admit when I am mistaken.
Then we are agreed to disagree.
Thank Chr... someone... for that.
..and any more discussion of whether there actually is a God - or whether religion is wrong in principle - on this thread will be deleted. That's so not the point I was trying to make, and detracts from the discussion I wanted to have. So I'm using my authority as thread owner to get rid of it. Sorry Sara, Hector, but that's not just offtopic, not just self-indulgent chest-beating (imho), but also detracts from the discussion I want here.
Gee, you post a thread about religion and you start deleting stuff when the Lions and Christians pile on. Well done, numbnuts!
oh my
Post a Comment