''You're a delusional terrorist!''

Post Reply New Topic

Hi there. This is DeanFoley communicating to you from Planet Earth.

Now let me get one thing out of the way. I am an atheist. There. So, what I post now may come as a surprise. It is not an argument for religion, by no means. But here is something that, after sifting through some posts in the PPR, have mulled over and decided to post. Again, not for religion. It's in defence of religion.

Now truthfully, I'm quite envious of believers. I mean, I can't bring myself to believe in a God. I wish I could though, because I could only imagine what sort of comfort it must bring. I dislike how some of my fellow non-religious treat religious people, like they're all completely delusional people and that religion can only be detrimental to them. And sure, some of those accusations aren't all that far from the truth, with radicals like the KKK and Al-Queda.

But the fact is, these people are opposed by the religious as well. Well, most of them anyway. The point remains, to an individual, religion can devestate them. But it can enhance them as well. I may not believe in God, I may find myself unable to, but if someone else can...if it can bring some happiness to that person, help them deal with a friend's death or bring them comfort with their own mortality, who am I to strip them of that? A lot of religious people do good in the name of their religion, a lot of people have brought happiness to their lives through it. I think it's a wonderful thing then, in that respect, and I only wish I had something like that. And so I do not attack them as deluded or insane. In many ways, religion can be a good thing. And sure, many non-religious lead happy fruitful lives too, don't get me wrong. Nor does every religious person need religion to remain happy, some just hold the belief and if that's how they want to lead their life, then I say more power to them.

But the effects on the individual is not so much discussed as the effects on society. Is it hindering society?

I mean, sure, many may think so. Using my previous examples, the KKK is spreading hatred, and let's not forget that part in ''Jesus Camp'' to rape the world. However, these people are the laughing stock even among the religious. Are they really such a threat to society when absolutely no one listens to them? Furthurmore, as I stated before, religion is the rock for a great deal of people. If it can set some people free of depression or drugs or whatever, allow them to move forward, is it not overall benefitting society? Sure, there may be some problems. But they pale in comparison to the single biggest problem related to not only religion, but the other sides as well:

The division of the human race.

Working together is the fundamental cornerstone of human society. And these debates and fights will only continue to undo that. Whether a person is Atheist, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Jainist, Viking, by uniting together society progresses. So sure, there may be a few religious groups out there trying to oppress others or causing problems. At the same time, there are ways religion is helping, motivating people to give that little bit more back or bringing peace to someone who was otherwise trapped in a world of turmoil.

Peace be to the world I say. I by no means believe a secular society is bad, immoral or any such thing, for the record. I just think it is wrong for the militant non-religious to attack the vast majority of peaceful, intelligent contributing religious side.

So there you have it. To the non-religious, I'm sure many of you out there are also seeking to live in harmony with people of another mindset. To the religious, sorry if I wasn't all that eloquent or insightful in my attempts to defend you.

Gogo human species

Excellent post, I have nothing more to add.

Bravo good sir! Very well written I must say.

Damned hippies.

Nah, it'd be good. Lay down all religions, all will follow logic.

Thank you, Dean! On behalf of all the people of faith who are tired of being called deluded and stupid, thank you! Atheists, too, should thank you for showing us that not all nonbelievers are arrogant and bigoted.

To the original poster:

You say you are envious of the believers? Why do you envy those who delude themselves? I should think that aligning oneself with reality is a better way than self-delusion.

ruveyn

reality is delusion

Cool post Dean!

Nonsense. Here is a challenge. Go to the top of a tall building and jump off. Since it is a delusion you will not be hurt. Care to try it? If not, why not? It is all a delusion, right?

ruven

I have to say this is of the very very few posts in the PPR forum that I agree with.

This is one reason why I call myself agnostic instead of atheist.

Yay! But any other intelligent species out there that wants to ally with us is welcome too. (I don't want to be speciest.)

Atheism itself doesn't bug me. It's the people that turn it into what is effectively a faith centered around denying all other religions wholly, even when they conflict with historical fact. Many militant atheist will claim Jesus never existed, when in fact that any competent historian will tell you he existed, and his teachings most likely served as the foundation for Christianity. The only real question is if he really performed the miracles that were recorded in the Bible.

To put a fine point on it, they would more likely say its reasonable to assume he existed. I've never heard that the census records from those times still exist.

That's complete nonsense, and has all of the finesse of good old Samuel Johnson's "I refute it thus!". How on earth, assuming the lack of objective reality behind our senses can another sense possibly refute it? If it could, then we must assume that there are limitations of possible delusional senses; if you can derive this a priori, then I'd like to hear it. If you can't, then you must appeal to evidence obtained from senses, which by the delusory nature of reality is unreliable or meaningless.

Let's look at it another way: if you're only hurt by jumping off the building, then it reduces to the above problem. If you die then, you might argue, there exists a reality because a common sense cause of death produced a change in your consciousness which is exactly what we would assume if reality were "real". But then this becomes a matter of what constitutes reality. Is simply producing X effect enough to refute the possibility that "reality is a delusion"? Then why doesn't that work in the simpler case, i.e. I touch something and I get a sensation, prick me I bleed yadda yadda. Obviously you'd argue it would, and I'd wager the best version of this kind of realism goes back to completely disregarding a possible phenomenal/noumenal dichotomy; but then you two'd really just be talking past each other, no?

you have sorely mistaken the concept of delusion.

I think ruveyn just wanted me to jump off a building.