 |
|
Group(s): Confronting Religious HegemonyAdd to My Group
|
January 28, 2008 at 08:06:52
Humans Do Not Need to Comfort Themselves With Fairy Tales by Kelly O'Connor Page 1 of 1 page(s) |
|
 
|
A response to Peter Bowden’s “God, Atheism, and Human Needs” Kelly O’Connor Jan. 24, 2008 The idea that human beings universally need some form of mythological belief has been one of the mainstays of the defenders of faith for centuries. They claim that even if god doesn’t exist or religion causes violence and hatred, it’s acceptable because it makes some people feel better about the harsh realities of life. This is a multi-pronged deceptive ploy used to abdicate themselves from any responsibility for those actions and to keep people thinking that their assertion is correct. 
Many people have either been raised without theistic belief or have abandoned theism and discovered even greater meaning and value for their lives. Peter Bowden assumes in his article “God, Atheism, and Human Needs” that proponents of atheism such as Dawkins, Hitchens, Onfray, and Dennett must provide “deeper insight into ourselves, our needs as human beings, and ways to conduct our lives.” In essence, a replacement for, rather than the elimination of, religion. Life does seem much simpler when all of the answers are handed to you on a silver platter (or aged papyri), but it eliminates the worthwhile exercise of introspection and discovery that one must engage in to formulate their own self-concepts, needs, and morals.
This makes Bowden’s claim that atheists are “[avoiding] a fundamental quest of the human race” even more absurd. Figuring these things out for oneself is infinitely more important, and difficult, than accepting an ancient dogma in its stead. Perhaps the reason why so many are opposed to self-examination is because it is exactly as I described it—exercise. It can be excruciatingly difficult to step outside of yourself, examine your beliefs, and dissect that which lies beneath your exterior. If one has been inculcated with the notion that whatever resides in there is dirty, depraved, and evil, that urge to integrate your beliefs and behavior will be furiously resisted and likely satiated with religion.
Being told that your worldview is incorrect and that it’s going to be a difficult process to regain your bearings once you realize that there is no grand plan for your life will often be interpreted as an attack. Even if doing nothing more than pointing out the harm that has been done under the auspices of piety, the news will not be received with accolades from the religious. Compartmentalization and rationalization (as in the psychological phenomenon) are fundamental aspects of maintaining any faith-based belief in the face of contrary evidence. Despite the common perception, it is not viciousness which compels us as atheists to speak out against religion. It is with the hope that we can help those who live under the ever-looming spectre of god’s presence to stop accepting the illusion of freedom and truly experience it.
Bowden points out that one of the charges frequently leveled against religion is its bellicosity. The reason that argument is so oft-used is because it is true. Religion has been the impetus for more violence than any other single reason throughout history. Was the acquisition of territory, resources, and power often a corroborating justification? Of course. Religion is unique, though, in the sense that it literally dehumanizes those with different beliefs, similar to the way that racism does. The adherents of a different religion are literally inferior to their opponents, and too often the drive to appropriate their land or wealth is intensified and rationalized by the division between the two groups. Evangelism has long been used as a cover for the usurpation of power from native inhabitants. After all, god would want to civilize the savages, now wouldn’t he? Certainly, religion is not the sole force, but it is definitely a contributing factor, and one that could be eliminated.
The two arguments that can be proposed to counter the case that the hazards of religion outweigh the benefits are the comfort and meaning it supposedly provides people and that religious groups may help less fortunate people. The latter is true, but only within certain confines. Missionaries who traverse the globe “helping people” often do little more than proselytize, and their aid may depend on your acceptance of their doctrine or willingness to attend church services. In the case of the catholic church in sub-Saharran Africa, it can actually be detrimental. Soup kitchens and homeless shelters may have similar prerequisites, although not all do.
Bowden asserts that “atheists are not into helping others in any organized way.” This is demonstrably false as there are more and more secular charities arising every day, but why would one expect there to be large charities funded by what essentially amounts to a non-group of people? Atheists are individuals with no churches and, until recently, little social networking. On an individual level, though, atheists are some of the world’s largest contributors to charities around the world. In fact, the number one philanthropist on Earth is an atheist. Ever hear of Bill Gates? How about Warren Buffet? That being said, I would encourage people to gather together and contribute in whatever way they are able, not to promote a group or a name, but to create a better world for every person. We are all united in the sense that we are humans sharing this planet, and that is infinitely more important than allegiances to imaginary dictators.
Bowden then comes full-circle back to the comfort/meaning/reason for living argument by claiming that we need a reason for being, that reason must be something “beyond the normalities of our daily lives”, and that religion provides it. First of all, I don’t know that making the claim that needing a reason for being is a fundamental attribute of human beings is entirely accurate, but it is plausible that most people desire that kind of affirmation.
This argument falls on its face in the next two steps, though. Why must this meaning be something greater than the daily activities in which we engage? Is life not made up of a series of days filled with these “normalities”? Normalities such as pursuing a career or education, caring for children, or just making it through this existence? What if there is no “greater purpose”? Will civilization suddenly vanish or will people adapt to being the agents in their lives instead of the pawns in a cosmic chess match? Furthermore, I will submit that religion only provides a façade of fulfilling either of the preceding “needs”.
Whether religion is an evolutionary adaptation making sense of a discordant existence or a spandrel of such processes, coming to terms with reality would only be the next step in our development. Holding on to the crutches that we once needed after the cast has been taken off is counter-productive, and as long as we do so, we will never run. Life can be frightening, bewildering, wonderful, and tedious. It can be mysterious, magical, and ordinary. It can be all of those things at once. Making up answers where there are none is not the solution, and in fact, prevents one from seeking answers themselves. Atheism is not the destruction of the quest for meaning—it is the necessary starting point for the journey.
- Atheist Volunteers
- http://www.earthward.org
- Atheists for Autism Research
- Online atheist community raised $3,555 in the last few weeks for a family in need.
www.rationalresponders.com
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
|
|
|
| 31 comments |
|
Great article Kelly
Many Americans prefer the easy way out of thinking about the meaning of life. Accept spoon-fed doctrine, and you can rest your brain. by John R Moffett (89 articles, 18 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 697 comments [14 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Jan 28, 2008 at 9:01:56 AM  (0+)
|
|
Reply: Thanks
I totally agree. Thanks for the positive review. by Kelly O'Connor (9 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 18 comments) on Monday, Jan 28, 2008 at 10:43:05 AM (0+)
|
|
Great article
Although I am a tad skeptical of Gates and Buffet, your article cuts to the core of a very important issue. Every person's life journey on this Earth is %100 unique. Most do not even choose to question or understand this and instead lead mundane lives of trivial pleasures and pains. The institutions intended to provide a person with spirituality do nothing of the sort. They preach divisive dogma that only serves to give some people "faith" while it turns away all of the rest. This is in stark contrast to the "spirit journeys" that many indigenous people would use as a rite of passage. We come into this world alone and we die alone; alone is the only way that we can ever hope to find ourselves. Atheism is a good starting place for investigation into what it means to be human. I believe it is truly only a transitional state, though. How can I say with all certainty that there is no God/Creator/Great Spirit? My feeble human mind cannot understand the complexities of such an issue. A legitimate question: can an atheist be spiritual? by Ferdinand (17 articles, 4 quicklinks, 39 diaries, 259 comments) on Monday, Jan 28, 2008 at 5:39:43 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: THERE BE THREE IN HEAVEN
Your statement that "your feeble human mind cannot say definitely whether God exists" is as absurd as saying that your feeble human mind cannot say definitely that Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, or the Easter Bunny does not exist. Statements that have no evidence for or against them do not have a 50% probability of being true. Of course I cannot say with ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY that God does not exist. But the probability of God existing is exactly the same as the probability of Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, or the Easter Bunny existing -- very, very remote. But to be sarcastic: We all know that there be three in heaven, Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and the Easter Bunny, and these three are one. But there are the worshipers of the false God, the Great Pumpkin. Every man or woman must immediately take up arms and enlist in the Holy Crusade to extirpate the demon inspired heretics! Robert Halfhill rhalfhill@juno.com by rhalfhill (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 326 comments) on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 6:56:11 PM (0+)
|
|
Projection and certainty without the supernatural
Kelly, by Frank J. Ranelli (66 articles, 143 quicklinks, 29 diaries, 383 comments) on Monday, Jan 28, 2008 at 6:06:59 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Wow
Thans so much for the eloquent and erudite response. I think your response is better than my article. :-) I see that you're a fan of Sam Harris, as am I, and just wanted to let you know that his Atheist Alliance International video of the infamous "The Problem with Atheism" speech is on youtube.com/rationalresponse if you haven't seen it. (I'm that girl who asks the first question at the beginning of part 2.) We have met with him and interviewed him many times, and if you are interested, I would be happy to send you the files--at least, the ones that have been released. The last interview is going in a movie we're putting out this summer. Thanks, Kelly by Kelly O'Connor (9 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 18 comments) on Monday, Jan 28, 2008 at 11:28:02 PM (0+)
|
|
As an atheist I'm still doubtful of your thesis Kelly
That most humans are religious seems to be an undeniable brute fact. If belief in the existence of God (with or without all the religious baggage) did not confer an evolutionary advantage then how could belief in God persist? by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Monday, Jan 28, 2008 at 6:15:50 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: "If belief in the existence of God...
did not confer an evolutionary advantage then how could belief in God persist?" It's important to distinguish between biological and cultural evolution, or the evolution of ideas. We've departed from biological evolution for all practical purposes tens of thousands of years ago (save what we might do via genetic engineering, at lightning speed). The evolution of ideas thus reins supreme for our species--the only species wherein that happens. (This is why it's so important to let ideas be "out there," subject to the evolutionary pressure of other ideas, as happens on this site--so the best ones for our own survival will filter up and be assimilated, though even that takes time to happen.) So the idea of God is still in the trial stage, and has hardly proven itself in any serious evolutionary sense. A good case could be made that the God idea will be the end of us, rather than help with our staying power as a species. On a more personal note, it seems far more instructive to me, and more spiritual in a real sense of the word, to ponder the majesty and mystery of the universe, our own consciousness and how it may have come to be, and the "intelligence" that can be found in virtually every molecule--and particularly in the patterns we are surrounded by, ranging from a pet dog to to a snowflake, to our own progeny or a cherry tree blooming in spring. I am also continually dumbfounded by syncrhonicity and serendipity (check Wikipedia if you aren't familiar with these terms), which, at least in my own life, go so far beyond anything I might conceivably attribute to "blind chance." (And what is blind chance anyway, but a measure of our own ignorance?) by Daniel Geery (26 articles, 95 quicklinks, 126 diaries, 912 comments [27 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Jan 28, 2008 at 10:09:14 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Inspiring
Your last two paragraphs say more than most people could say in a book. A word of caution: Don't get caught spreading common sense! by Jay Farrington (13 articles, 2 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 236 comments) on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 12:14:07 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Just a speculative response
Okay I'm a bit rusty on this stuff so I'm willing to be corrected, so here goes ... It's important to distinguish between biological and cultural evolution, or the evolution of ideas. Perhaps it isn't important. Actually I'm aware of Dawkins writings on memes in the Selfish Gene etc but perhaps it isn't important. Evolution works on the basis of individuals being selected by the environment (or the sets of genes in an individual if you like) it doesn't work on the basis of group selection. Culture can be considered to be part of the environment. An individual with the same set of genes (identical twins) can behave differently in different environments but doesn't have infinite design freedom, there are limits on what a person can do that are set by their genes. Evolution works by increasing the frequency of some genes in relation to others by operating on the phenotypes (structures, behaviours etc) produced by those genes. We've departed from biological evolution for all practical purposes tens of thousands of years ago (save what we might do via genetic engineering, at lightning speed). I've been studying biotechnology in recent years. We (humans) aren't yet at a point where we can do genetic engineering at lightning speed. Genetic engineering only started in 1973. So far genetic engineering has had little impact on the general frequency of genes in the population. One reason that this is so, is because genetic engineering is of concern to the body politics of current societies that make laws. In the 10,000 years of recorded history, I see absolutely no reason to conclude that individual people (sets of genes) have stopped picking sexual partners on the basis of such things as intelligence, physical attractiveness, or behavoir. Belief in God usually manifests in certain behavoirs. The behaviors can be selected for. I've disagreeing that biological evolution is a spent force. That we are attracted to different people for different reasons shows that it is not. The evolution of ideas thus reins supreme for our species--the only species wherein that happens. (This is why it's so important to let ideas be "out there," subject to the evolutionary pressure of other ideas, as happens on this site--so the best ones for our own survival will filter up and be assimilated, though even that takes time to happen.) I agree with the policy you are proposing here but I don't see it the frame that you are seeing it. So the idea of God is still in the trial stage, and has hardly proven itself in any serious evolutionary sense. 10,000 years is a lot of human generations. At 20 years a generation thats 500 generations. That is plenty of time for different genes, different alleles, to change in their relative number with respect to other alleles. If there is a gene for religiousity (of belief in God) and personally I doubt that there is, I think such things are likely to be the result of lots of genes, then the frequency of that gene or set of genes could change over 10,000 years. All the breeds of domestic dog and domestic cattle and most agricultural crops have been "selected" over periods of around 10,000 years or less. If the idea of God, the belief in God had no benefit, it would not have had to have arisen in the first place. Apes don't seem to be theists. But it did. Given that it did, the question is has the number of believers in God increases or decreased over 10,000 years. That sort of thinking would give us an idea as to whether evolution is selecting for belief in God or not. A good case could be made that the God idea will be the end of us, rather than help with our staying power as a species. Personally, I suspect that belief in God is good for the individual in evolutionary terms because it gives the individual a sort of psychic resilence. When reality is depressing the individual that has too much of it doesn't do so well. Atheists thinking about the heat death of the universe aren't getting their genes into the next generation quite so quickly as those who are following the instructions to go forth and multiply. I'm not wedded to any of this Dan. I could be wrong. But I suspect belief in God has been adaptive in the past. And whilst we are mortals it may remain adaptive in the future for individuals. I suspect believe in the supernatural arises as a sort of compromise between the human capacity to reason, to think about the world abstractly and so our own place in it, which confers a survival advantage, and the need to put aside the reality of our mortality so that we don't fret about it. Its the little bit of unreality that many need to get through the present and to have children. Of course I could be wrong. by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 11:57:34 PM (0+)
|
|
Great Article & a Suggestion
As a man of reason, I reject the concept of god or gods, given the the violent history of X-ianity, Islam & Judaism. However, I do find solace in both Eastern & Chinese philosophy. I also, see much merit in Buddahism, which I think is the most decent & admirable religion left on the planet today. (I very rarely see it ridiculed or admonished & have a lot more respect for the Dali Lama than the current pope, the ayatollahs or despicable crop of fundamentalist preachers/ televangelists here in the US.) There is much to be said for the both Eastern & Chinese thought & it's enjoyable to read. Much can be learned & applied to your own life situation. Keep in mind, too, that in the Far East, nobody ever kills anybody else over religion! by iman (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 89 comments) on Monday, Jan 28, 2008 at 6:48:48 PM (0+)
|
|
From an atheist
I consider religions to be the sources of inspiration and self- discovery as the products of human creativity. Organized religions, though are corporations as well as organized atheism. Still, we cannot claim that humanity had created anything in the name of atheism, while they created a lot in the name of religion. I repeat here the wisdom coming from the main religions, a phrase from each: Friom Judaism- You serve your God even by the bad desires of yours. From Christianity- At first there was a word and that Word was Lord. From Islam- An oucne of peace worth more than the ton of war. From Buddhism- All people worship Buddha but not all of them know that. There is nothing from atheism of this magnitude, I am sorry. This is not to denigrate atheism. 90% of religious people do not know what they worship, But it is those 10% we admire. by Mark Sashine (72 articles, 19 quicklinks, 269 diaries, 4101 comments [131 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Jan 28, 2008 at 7:20:14 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Many Buddhists are athiests
Many Buddhists do not believe in a creator god (or God), and even more do NOT worship the Buddha. So, in reply to another post "Can an atheist be spiritual?" I would have to say that 2500 years of practice says definitly YES! -JN by johnneale (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 15 comments) on Monday, Jan 28, 2008 at 7:49:06 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: I find nothing...
...particularly enthralling about any of those passages. Religions merely codified what was already considered moral and ethical behavior. Compare the Code of Hammurabi with the 10 Commandments. Compare Socrates' "Golden Rule" to Jesus'. It was there long before organized religion, christianity in particular. An interesting side note about the passage from John 1 that you used is that "the Word" was a Hellenistic concept called logos stretching back to the philosopher Heraclitus, incorporated into Judaism by Philo, and then co-opted by Christianity. It was a kind of blind, non-anthropomorphic controller of the universe, nothing like the god depicted by most of the biblical text. It also emphasizes the neo-Platonic worldview of the time. -Kelly by Kelly O'Connor (9 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 18 comments) on Monday, Jan 28, 2008 at 11:35:59 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Somehow
my reply to you ended up under the next post. *shrugs* by Kelly O'Connor (9 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 18 comments) on Monday, Jan 28, 2008 at 11:37:31 PM (0+)
|
|
Just to clarify
The Blasphemy Challenge only highlights the originators misunderstanding of scripture. If one has never believed in God to begin with, then it is impossible for them to blaspheme the Holy Spirit. Be well. by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Monday, Jan 28, 2008 at 10:00:27 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: off topic
This has nothing to do with the article, but I'll indulge you by pointing out the obvious fact that I don't believe that blasphemy is even possible due to the fact that there is no deity to blaspheme. That's the point. It was more of a campaign to get atheists to make their presence known, and every single person who has ever made that argument has missed the mark, not to mention the irony and humor of "sell[ing] your soul for a DVD", entirely. -Kelly by Kelly O'Connor (9 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 18 comments) on Monday, Jan 28, 2008 at 11:41:30 PM (0+)
|
|
My "devout ex-Mormon" athiest friend...
wrote this many years ago. I haven't heard from Deana for quite a while, but I'm sure she'd be pleased to have more people read her incredible little story, which I posted here some time back: http://www.opednews.com/articles/life_a_daniel_g_061020_godwho_3a__thoughts_fr.htm Well, I see that link points to the homepage, so you may have to do a search on Deana's name. (Maybe Rob or someone else can tell me how to put in a link to an old article. There are definitely some issues with the present system that surely eliminate less patient folks or those with less time from writing in.) by Daniel Geery (26 articles, 95 quicklinks, 126 diaries, 912 comments [27 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 5:35:30 AM (0+)
|
|
God or no God?
There are philosophies out there that postulate that God (who created the entire universe) is at the top of a huge chain of command. Picture it as the Central Command General who has his staff oficers, field officers, commanders in the field, captians and sergeants and privates. Below the privates (in this analogy) are the cooks and supply personel and so on. What relevance to the private is the orders worked out in the general's office and passed down the line? Humans are both animal and spiritual, unfortunately for us, we are in two worlds, the most obnoxious place to be. If we were solely animals, we would be content with our lot. If we were all spiritual, say like angels, we would have no free will, but obey orders and be quite content too. This is the curse of our situation and of course so-called free will. The behaviourist's would dispute that we have free will, seeing human activity to be controlled by learned habits and in any given situation, can predict what a person will do, so where is the free will? Mohammad was quoted to have said that people are born with a latent tendency to be, or seek, spirituality, usually translated as 'every one is born a Muslim'. Someone said we admire the 10% but I think that the number is far less who really try to live their religion, spiritual practice, philosophy or whatever. And in the article, to change oneself is extremely difficult, given the conditioning of society that imposes nearly every idea you have ever had, overtly and covertly. In any case, to want to change it is first necessary to be dissatisfied with oneself as one is, not dissatisfied with the way the rest of the world lives. And then you need to see yourself as you really are, past your illusions. For that you need someone who has 'gone that way before'. Pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps is not only illogical, it is impossible. Peace by ibrahim turner (26 articles, 32 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 184 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 6:22:26 AM (0+)
|
|
let's please distinguish
what you or whoever wants. Neither religion nor atheism need to be defended as a spiritual activity or a way of life as soon as it is the actitivity of the individual. It when it becomes a criteria of the communal behavior we become worried. Both can be used to abuse people. That should be unacceptable. I am an atheist but if atheism becomes 'mass religion' in this country I will be the first to hide the relgious people. Hopefully, they will do the same to me. Moreover, by rejecting any religion we reject culture, legacy, past, knowledge, etc. We in sorts throw the blanket of the disrespect on the history of mankind. But that is foolish. A person can be whatever he/she wants to be but it has to be with open eyes that atheism and/or religion does not make you better or more enlightened than others. Ben Franklin tells a story of the missionaire who encountered Indians. He started to tell them about Jesus and they listened. After that they told him stories too. He got bored and said that they should stop telling him fairy-tales while he told them the God's truth. They said,'You seem to be bred badly by your parents. We listened to your stories. Why won't you listen to ours?' Augustine St. Clair in the Uncle Tom's Cabin would not be able to say that Slavery was a Devil's Invention if there was no Devil in the people's minds. Julia Ward Howe would not write the Battle Hymn of the Republic. And yes, those things are as important to humans as pure atheistic Candide, the famous statement by Stendhal 'The only thing that forgives God is that He does not exist' and the powerful songs of Russian communist troops ( too bad you had never heard those). Religion as well as Atheism are human spiritual wonders and in their true form are conected as sugar and spice. True love and honestyare keys to both because in reality we are not seeking the way of thinking- we are seeking how to do good. Thus we cannot discard anything, even Vodoo as it happens. by Mark Sashine (72 articles, 19 quicklinks, 269 diaries, 4101 comments [131 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 8:13:21 AM (0+)
|
|
It is possible...
to be Jewish and an an atheist. Put the words "Jewish" and "Secular" into GOOGLE. A secular seder celebrates the human spirit. Attend one. Paraphrasing the old Levy's Rye Bread commercial, "You don't have to be Jewish to enjoy it." by JackN (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 28 comments) on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 10:44:37 AM (0+)
|
|
atheists are Stage 3 souls
Stage two souls seek to "let their light shine" and will live virtuous lives and do many good works. They also can be judgmental of others, self-righteous, rigid of thought, cold of heart, legalistic concrete literal thinkers and may even be guilty of a lukewarm faith. They want to do right and they even may desire to love and please God, but have not yet fully opened up to the Inner Light, as Joan of Arc did when she challenged church and state and persisted that she had intuited God within -even while being fried. A stage three soul may well reject Christ as God, but often agree with the philosophy of Jesus, which Thomas Jefferson laid out when he weeded out the miracle stories from the gospels and clarified the teachings and ethics of Christ in: THE LIFE AND MORALS of JESUS of NAZARETH excerpted from The Stages of the Soul and How Religiosity/Fundamentalism is holding up Evolution published on OPN and under A Greater Awakening Link on WAWA: e by Eileen Fleming (172 articles, 101 quicklinks, 274 diaries, 650 comments [16 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 10:49:55 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: I prefer...
...to think of that development in psychological terms, since there is no immutable "soul". Abraham Maslow's hierarchy of needs or Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development are much more akin to what happens (or should happen) during a person's life. That being said, at least I'm in the top level of the soul hierarchy. :-P by Kelly O'Connor (9 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 18 comments) on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 10:35:33 PM (0+)
|
|
i don't need to believe in fairy tales
that's why i gave up believing the official conspiracy theory about 9/11, cuz it doesn't fit with the facts given to us by the corporate media and the US government: Complete 9/11 Timeline www.cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project We've gone from a Big Bang to the Network Age; i also don't buy the theory that's the result of randomly organized dead particles set in motion by chance by Better World Order (4 articles, 568 quicklinks, 39 diaries, 1111 comments [56 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 1:31:45 PM (0+)
|
|
Humans Do Not Need to Comfort Themselves With Fairy Tales
AMEN Kelly! Could not agree more. by vet613 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 19 comments) on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 8:33:10 PM (0+)
|
|
If I may be so bold as to use your words..............
Being told that your worldview is incorrect and that it's going to be a difficult process to regain your bearings once you realize that there IS a grand plan for your life will often be interpreted as an attack. Despite the common perception, it is not viciousness which compels us as Christians to speak out against atheism. It is with the hope that we can help those who live under the ever-looming spectre of a Godless universe to stop accepting the illusion of freedom and truly experience it. How did that taste? Did it sound as condescending written this way as it did written your way? by larry booth (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 303 comments) on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 10:22:26 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Condescending?
No...although I did find it slightly amusing. No offense, but when you can produce one shred of objective, verifiable evidence for the existence of anything supernatural, I'll reconsider the fact that you've been indoctrinated into a religious cult and can't help but attempt to justify an indefensible position to reduce the feelings of cognitive dissonance. by Kelly O'Connor (9 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 18 comments) on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 10:40:22 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Assertive Brights and sexy clavicles
What sort of evidence would you accept? Would the incompatibily of gravity and quantum mechanics within one unified framework be sufficient to undermine your confidence in the coherency of the natural? Aren't scientists that hold that gravity is true and quantum mechanics is also true even though they aren't compatible tolerating a little "super" with their "natural"? What sort of evidence for the supernatural would you accept? by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Wednesday, Jan 30, 2008 at 12:31:27 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Well...
First of all, quantum mechanics is a field that is much more speculative than physics, but regardless, the contradiction between the two does nothing to prove the existence of god. It just disproves a particular theory in science. As to what type of evidence would I accept--I don't know. My personal viewpoint is that such evidence will never and can never be produced. If there is some other realm of which we are unaware, we cannot interact with it, and therefore, it is irrelevant. by Kelly O'Connor (9 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 18 comments) on Wednesday, Jan 30, 2008 at 1:18:11 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: I wasn't attempting to "justify"...............
I haven't the slightest need to justify my beliefs to you. I just wondered if you realize how pompous you sound? by larry booth (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 303 comments) on Wednesday, Jan 30, 2008 at 6:34:28 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Hmmm...
...I tend to think that holding the logically defensible position may make people sound pompous. Or, maybe it just has something to do with having the highest likelihood, in this case 99.9%, of being right. by Kelly O'Connor (9 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 18 comments) on Wednesday, Jan 30, 2008 at 10:23:45 PM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
