Over the years “religious” acquaintances of mine have defended their supernatural beliefs by saying, “I know that I know; that I know that I know.”  For me, this is an  egotistical defense of  stupidity. Their use of “I know” is basically a sandbagging defense mechanism since there is no way to logically and factually defend supernatural nonsense. Isn’t it futile to try to make sense out of nonsense? Supernaturalism is the absurdity of saying, “there is absolutely no way I can scientifically and logically defend my belief system, but I stand by and defend it anyway.” Isn’t it kind of absurd to defend the indefensible? My standard answer for those who believe in virgin births, corpses rising from the dead, saints and sinners, devils and hellfire is, “I know, that you know, that there is no way deep-down you can possibly believe that bullshit.” I know, that you know, that anyone who allows themselves to critically think can be that goddamn  stupid. I emphatically state, “Why supernatural when Nature is so amazing!” Why an invented superbeing from a supernatural world that has brought endless cruelty, misery, fighting, and disunity to the human world

Views: 168

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Joan, It takes a very enlightened and secure person to not only embrace a view that previously ran counter to their own but also to admit their thinking can be revised.

We could use more of that in this world.

I agree. Why can't religionists believe what they want to believe without forcing their views on people who don't hold the same views?

I personally think this world would be a better place if people ruled by reason and with their hearts rather than religion, but would I push for legislation to ban religion because I felt that was best for society even if it had a chance of passing?

No.

Andrea, they want people to agree with them to remove the cognitive dissonance which they have to endure when different believers and non-believers confront them with their different points of view.  Those who take a rational, scientific approach are particularly difficult because They Can PROVE Their Point!

Downright inconvenient, ain't it? [wry chuckle]

LOL - Great points!

If Collins and others believe in the bible, they believe in what the bible states, along with other such unscientific drivel. If Christians actually read the bible cover to cover, I think many would reassess their belief systems.

As for me, science gives me a huge sense of awe and wonder.

Belief in the supernatural is completely unnecessary.

Indeed, belief in the supernatural is utterly unnecessary, Andrea, and for a simple reason: it is completely without mechanism of demonstration.  Believers allege its existence, assert its reality, but they cannot provide any substance to bulwark their assertions.  Accordingly:

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.
-- Hitchens' Razor

A finally-getting-around-to-it view.

Al, your closing sentence lacks a word. "Why an invented superbeing from an invented supernatural world that has brought endless cruelty, misery, fighting, and disunity to the human world?"

And a skepticism alert.

Can an invented being (super or not) bring anything from an invented world?

No.

The cruelty, misery, fighting and disunity were in the natural world before the first humans.

I’m curious about the awareness that enabled natural beings to feel the pain that eons later resulted in humans inventing words such as cruelty, misery, et cetera. Was this awareness pre-human?

Do the religious people spoken of here have an awareness of objective evidence, or even of a need for such evidence?

I doubt it. That’s how effectively religions use ignorance.

Something which does not exist cannot help us, but chronic dependence on something which fails to exist does active harm to all of us.
-- me

There isn't a god invented yet that correlated to reality. So long as that is the case, there isn't a god at all that anyone needs to worry about.

Humankind’s gods correlate to their inventors’ need for control, or power.

We do have to concern ourselves with how those inventors satisfy their need for power.

Here in the USA they have been satisfying their need for power with lines such as an under God here, an In God we trust there. We can count on them to continue.

The GOP’s theists at SCOTUS, saying those lines are a civil religion, have been straw by straw letting those inventors continue.

Happily, young people are coming our way.

Who will hopefully VOTE, because nonvoters elected Trump in 2016.

RSS

About

line

Update Your Membership :

Membership

line

Nexus on Social Media:

© 2019   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service