Desert wrote:
Oh man, what a post. I really enjoyed reading it.
My favorite bit:
But we also don't believe in religion enough to live consistently with its full implications either. That's the problem. Deep down, I think we are all haunted by the idea that religion is a projection of our own fears, aspirations, delusions and self-loathing, and that's what makes it virtually impossible to fully embrace religion, no matter how strongly one wants to believe.
The happiest religious people I have ever known were the ones who were perfectly content not to look too deeply into their own beliefs. I have sometimes envied such people because they are able to do something I could never possibly do. I'm curious about everything. I want to learn everything I can about everything I can. The idea of just taking the word of the preacher at the church down the street about the eternal fate of my soul would be like asking a kitten to play it cool around a ball of string with a bird sitting on top of it.
I agree with you here, MT. Both naturalistic and religious folks are uncomfortable truly embracing their own viewpoints. I never was able to be satisfied as an an atheist/agnostic just throwing grenades in on the religious viewpoint, because I was constantly convicted of my own hypocrisy.
I really hope it doesn't seem like I'm throwing grenades. I always try to resist any hint of temptation that I feel to form hard feelings toward someone simply because they believe things that don't make any sense to me.
In kitten-speak, I don't want to destroy the ball of string. I want to play with it until I understand it better. I want to commune with the string and experience oneness with it...maybe even throw a little catnip in the hookah and share it with the string, just as the string has shared
stringness with me.
I knew that my own views didn't support any particular moralistic framework.
Of course they did. You almost certainly knew that stealing, killing and hurting others for no reason were wrong without needing religion to tell you that. Similarly, you came to understand the value of loyalty and commitment without any need for religious support of those positions, right?
In other words, it was much easier to attack the opposing view than it was to defend my own fragile view.
Why did you feel the need to attack it? Why not approach it with the curiosity and open mind of an anthropologist? Why did you feel hostile toward it?
And I think that's the major problem in this thread: We have atheists attacking the Christian worldview, and Christians defending the view. But we seldom if ever have atheists really describing the full implications of their own worldviews; they never really come to terms with the full implications of their worldviews.
I think part of it is a burden of proof thing. I think that a lot of rational-minded non-religious people would say that they don't have to defend the position that supernatural beings don't exist. That is self-evident. The burden of proof should be on the person claiming that invisible supernatural beings exist.
I think that the full implications of an atheist worldview is that we live and die exactly like every other animal does. We just do it with more self-awareness and self-torment because of our ability to conceptualize the future in a way that animals apparently can't. In other words, we
need religious beliefs in a way that animals would never be able to understand, but that need doesn't have anything to do with whether the religious beliefs have any objective truth to them. I believe that is where the suspicion comes from that all religious beliefs are projections of insecurities that originate within us, not within the mind of the supernatural being who created us.
And they even "borrow" principles from a extrinsic Christian worldview to support their criticisms of Christianity. I'd like, for once, to see an argument presented in this thread from a committed atheist, who can really defend their viewpoint using only naturalistic mechanisms.
Can you explain what you mean by "extrinsic Christian worldview" and "naturalistic mechanisms"? Thanks.
I'm really growing tired of the attacks on Christianity using logic that is only supported by an extrinsic reality. I merely want the atheists here to present an argument for their views on the nature of the world. Stop taking cheap shots at Christianity, and describe YOUR worldview.
I don't think that it is necessary to prove that I have a better worldview or approach to life in order to point out the flaws in a belief system premised on the existence of a supernatural being who looks an awful lot like a power-mad and moody member of our own species.
Believe it or not, I actually aspire to be a typical American Christian. I want to go to church and try not to think too deeply about my faith. I want to get the good stuff from the religious messages I receive. I want to mainline the best opiate of the masses I can get my hands on. Above all, I would love to be immortal and know that I am headed for eternal paradise when I die. I just don't know how to get back there once I have seen behind the curtain.
What would it take for
you to believe in Santa Claus again, especially if he stopped bringing you presents every Christmas? Seriously, do you think you would be capable of cultivating that belief at your current stage of life? If not, why not? Does that mean you are evil or you have a black heart or you are just a scrooge? What if you really wanted to believe in Santa Claus? Could you? I think that a lot of non-religious people would like to be religious, but they just can't swallow it. I think that's where Pointedstick is. He sees how much simpler his life would be if he knew there was a guy in the clouds who was looking out for him, but he can't make something true just because he would like it to be true. He's just not wired that way. Leaps of faith driven by emotional experiences seem superficial and even dishonest. I think that's a valid reaction to any supernatural claim, no matter how good the presents sound.
