This philosophy would indeed make a lot of sense if and only if everyone held firm to it, which is, undeniably, the world we don't live in. The situation is further polarized by the forced implication of creationism on science. Let creationists call atheists immoral idiots, deluded bastards, blah and blah and blah: tolerable, to some extent. Let creationists call methodological analysis and deductions from nature an 'illusion' in favor of some ancient, mystical text: not tolerable. Radioactive Carbon Dating: illusion. Evolution: illusion. Big Bang: illusion. [enter any scientific theory with which religious texts are not compatible]: illusion.
Why do atheists fight back? To prevent an intellectual apocalypse: similar to the ones only a few centuries back. As the matter of fact, the whole religion versus atheism debate would have been alien had there been nothing of the creationism-in-science-class sort. Say this to a creationist, he/she'd recite a whole list of prominent scientists who had been religious. No one seems to remember the relatively primitive world they lived in. Newton didn't have a GPS to guide him.
In accordance with the general religious consensus, life is just an examination. It is to test you if you make the right use of the 'soul' god has given you. In a nutshell, you should believe in what is dictated on you, with no proofs, logic, and evidence. If you fail to, god(s) will book your one-way ticket to hell (sarcasm might be the lowest form of wit, but it helps to hit the point through). God is benevolent, as well as omnipotent. So instead of preventing evil, he created some, to test his own creations. After all, he's just an examiner, who, just like a teacher, tests his creation.
Back to argument: why would a perfect watchmaker make imperfect watches, only to test if they're perfect? Moreover, if he were perfect, we could expect him to know if the watch he's about to create is perfect. So why would he want to create imperfect watches, only to have them incinerated and to soil his brand? If he does create imperfect watches, he's the only one responsible for imperfections, for had he created perfect watches instead, none would exist. So why worship him? If he's an omnipotent examiner, he could make sure all his pupils pass out, displaying his eternal benevolence. God would make some disabled and some poor, so we can all be good to them. So, why didn't He bother being nice to them in the first place? Are we asking too much? This codes the line of arguments of one of the participants, and myself (although I did not participate).
Yet another, 'interesting' aspect of religion is, life is an illusion. We're living in an illusion, and we have no way of knowing what the reality is. So, if there is a fire a few steps away, beneath the worldliness of our illusive life, we're screwed. Okay, so if there's a fire right in front of us, we can walk right through it. Life is a happy illusion, remember? So if we're within the fire, life is still a happy illusion. It's pretty much like a blind man thinking of all the things that would happen if the orange is blue, needless to say he has not a clue to what 'blue' means. The moral of the story is, if all we feel is illusion, there's no point in reality: for reality becomes the illusion and the illusion is the realized reality. It might take some their whole lives to realize this.
But, then again, we would have creationists crawling up our faces, asking about all the good things god asked us to do. Do it, or go to hell. So there, religion is cool.
Such arguments are certainly pejorative to conscience. If you are good, you'd do good: it doesn't really matter if there is no god to nag you. If you're curious, you don't need the teacher behind your life, to read. If you do need, you're just not curious. If you do need a god to force you to do good, you're just not good, for if you were, you wouldn't have cared if he asked you to, or even if he exists. If you don't think you're good enough, don't, don't ever try on a religion: we all know what Al Qaeda, Mujahideen, etc did for us. (I am not, whatsoever, explicitly accusing Islam of violence.)
Picking-any-religious-person-and-calling-him-a-retard is not my intention. Picking-any-irrational-person-and-calling-him-a-retard is. I am not attacking any religion: I'm just attacking ignorance. I'm not asking you to believe in what I say: I'm just asking you to think. Think outside the box, for the box is too small to exist.
No comments:
Post a Comment