@aidan,
aidan wrote:
But when you say things like:
Quote:We only believe in the supernatural beings that promise us things, and typically the ones the promise us the grandest of things.
All I can think is, 'Who's we?' Because it aint me - and I'm supposed to be the believer. I didn't think it could be you - because you say you're an atheist/agnostic (I'm not sure which)...so yeah, who are you speaking for?
Look closer aidan. It is us. Literally us. You, aidan. Myself, Art.
Are you saying that you believe in unsubstantiated supernatural beings that offer humans nothing? Name a single one. You cannot. Nobody is interested in the possibility of beings of no consequence, and yet a being of no-consequence is no less possible than one of ultimate signifigance. So why only argue for the existence of the ones that are potent and interested in the activities of a single species (conveniently ours)?
We (society) have never shown the slightest interest in proving that powerless silent invisible beings exist. Groups of humans have over time very passionately defended their belief in specific omnipotent silent invisible beings.
Do you disagree? Even the belief in Santa and the Tooth fairy is based on some sort of material human reward. Do you believe in any powerless beings? What about ultra powerful beings that have no interest in humans? Do you believe in any of those? This isn't personal psychology, it's sociology. When you examine what people believe and don't care to believe, it's not that unexpected.
aidan wrote:
And it does make it sound as if you think believers are a little shallow.
Religious beliefs are shallow.
It can hardly be considered otherwise. If I was to eat for the first time an apple and then declare it to be the greatest apple ever, such a conclusion would be shallow. If I was to sample a few apples first before making this declaration, it would be less shallow perhaps.
That might sting, but that's how I feel. I can hardly view any belief based solely on emotion and no evidence to support to have the slightest of depth.
aidan wrote:
And if you really care to know - I could die in the next ten minutes and be buried under the cold, dark earth for eternity never seeing the light of day again, and I'd be happy with what I was given.
My belief is about what I already got - LIFE- THIS life - it's about gratefulness for that and everything I see around me - it's not about piles of treasure and streets paved with gold that I'm just sitting here hankering to reach some sweet day...Jesus! is that what people really believe ALL belief is about and ALL believers believe?
A believer doesn't have to believe in great treasure. The simplistic notion that a being exists that is all powerful but we (humans) capture it's full attention is pure egoism and all that is needed for and air of entitlement.
aidan wrote:
And maybe some do - maybe you did. But don't include ME in that by saying, WE.
Or else I'll have to respond on this atheism thread
I didn't misspeak. I do mean to include you. I do believe you do exhibit these things.
I'm very fond of your posts and I greatly enjoy your insight aidan. In your postings, and from what you've declared about your interest in "misconceptions" about believers, I can't help but feel like you are very much observing the same things that I am and even feeling the same things. I also feel like you wish to somehow stand out as different. You are different in many ways, but in the fundamental ways that define believer, you're very much the same. You may not have radical orthodox (forgive the contradictions in terms. Substitute "extreme" for "radical" if it is better) beliefs, but you do believe in a divine authority. What's the difference? The difference is that even if you don't believe that a god wants you to stone someone, you believe that they
could. Do you deny this relationship?
aidan wrote:
And the crack about the unicorns wasn't meant to be complimentary either.
That sounded as if you think all believers are a little stupid.
Not stupid--selective. Not a little--a lot.
I'm very serious. It's not a crack. Tell me why you do or don't believe in unicorns. Why is a belief in a unicorn more stupid than a belief in gods? You believe that the belief in a unicorn is stupid, or did I read you incorrectly above? Certainly, we will agree that unicorn is less powerful than a god and fewer claims have been made to actions supposedly performed by unicorns. So wouldn't the unicorn be more of a rational belief than the belief in gods? Isn't there less to defend and verify? The more claims and the greater the power attributed to a being, the great the burden becomes.
Watch. If I said...
"I met a girl on Thursday."
There's a good chance you'd believe me. Certainly girls exist. Certainly Thursdays exist.
"I met a red-headed girl on Thursday."
You'd still probably believe me, but the knowledge that the girl was red-headed makes the meeting more rare and thus more specific. Red-heads exist, so still within the realm of possibilities.
"I met a red-headed girl who speaks Spanish on Thursday"
While still possible, at this point you should note that the addition of more claims has made my claim less likely than my original claim of simply meeting a girl on Thursday.
"I met a psychic red-headed girl who speaks Spanish on Thursday."
"I met a psychic red-headed girl who can fly and speaks Spanish on Thursday."
The second claim has a greater burden than the first. So on and so on.
So while you may find it "stupid" to believe in a unicorn, you don't find it stupid to believe in a god. This is tantamount to saying that the belief in the flying psychic red-head is perfectly rational, but the suggestion of the psychic redhead that was land-bound is somehow stupid. you've inversed the relationship. The belief in a unicorn is less shallow.
aidan wrote:
You may or may not have misconceptions about religion itself - but I think you communicate that you have the misconception that you might be able to peg ALL believers and what they believe.
I'm willing to let that be challenged. Specifically, do you accept that there are common denominators in what believers believe? I can't imagine that you'd argue there aren't.
aidan wrote:
That could have been cleared up by saying, 'When I was a believer, my friends and I believed thus and such ' or 'I have known people who believed that if I didn't have my belief, I was of no value'
That's all I was trying to say.
I don't know how to compromise here aidan. I don't think I'm overstating my case. Snood agreed that the belief in god was directly tied into his own self value. He went further than I did in expressing the degree in which he felt the two integrated. Do you disagree? Does your belief in god have no relationship to your self image/value? You are a Christian, yes? Do you disagree with Christian teachings that claim humans are divinely special?
A
R
T