God thinks you're an idiot. So does Shikamaru.

[timepiececlock]

I bought a Time magazine issue tonight because the cover feature was about the increased fervor in the debate of evolution in schools.

I started reading it in the car, but when I got to the map showing which states had started to enact the predecessors to anti-evolution measures at which political levels, I threw it down in disgust and drove home. I'll finish later, I'm sure.

Meanwhile, it made me want to do what I want to do when faced with this kind of imbecillic stuff (or other imbecillic stuff) that comes from religious groups: throw this song in their face. Not because it indicates any religious belief on my part (hah!), but because if I were a religious person, I'm pretty sure this would be my take on it. It's an attitude of healthy skepticism I wish I'd see more in the masses that do subscribe to belief in higher beings.



EDIT:... further thought:

When I was in early adolescence, around the age of 12ish to 16ish, I really wanted to ingore religions, especially deity-based ones. You know, pretend it doesn't exist since it has little to no bearing on me anyway. Sometime in going from 15 to being an adult I came to terms with some inescapable facts:

a) I may not believe in a god, but lots of people do and they probably won't "get over it"

b) I want to function in the world and be friends with and possibly date some of the abovementioned people. Also, more than half of my family are those people too. Hard to get away from that.

c) Religion seriously influences politics and ideology and where people put their money, and since political science is my major and I want to be in public service, religion isn't something I can ignore.

d) It's p-c acceptable in conversation to say you're an atheist, but it's not p-c to admit that you secretly think most of the people in the world have to be kind of stupid to believe in anything that absurd in the first place. Also, saying that hurts people's feelings, which makes you feel crappy and stuff.

e) Having accepted the fact that religious belief is part of the world we live in, I really ought to put some effort into educating myself about it more simply so I can know what the frell people are talking about beyond the most basic of Biblical references.

f) Knowing that other people believe doesn't really help me understand why they do the things they do in the name of their respective gods. I don't understand why women get the crappy deal in most religions, I don't understand fundamentalism that leads to violence, and I don't understand the rejection of science that betters the lives of all human being. I highly suspect that I could read all the Bibles and Quarans and the ancient Hindu texts and I'd still not understand these things.

Comments

[mswyrr]

I like to think of religion as people building structures to deal with things they don't understand. And since for the longest time "people" meant "men," these structures are mostly man-made and therefore flawed, with the tendency to be sexist, racist, etc.

As a religious person who's had spiritual experiences, and is inclined to believe it when other people say they have, too, it seems the best way to explain things. Religion is the means by which people deal with spiritual experiences that they couldn't otherwise wrap their brains around.

I mean, in political science, you could quantify religion as a social pressure, like a club or something, and say that everything else is delusional nonsense, but that would be rather uncharitable, wouldn't it?

Then again, I always thought Agnosticism, the admission that we don't know enough to be sure about such things, is a kinder way to deal with it than Atheism, which by stating that there are absolutely no gods, is rather as insupportable as the statement that there are.

[rashaka.livejournal.com]

I always thought Agnosticism, the admission that we don't know enough to be sure about such things, is a kinder way to deal with it than Atheism, which by stating that there are absolutely no gods, is rather as insupportable as the statement that there are.

But that implies that there's a choice-- I can no more make myself believe in god than someone who truly believes can forever make themself stop believing. Circumstances and experienced events can change your belief system, but "kinder way to deal" has no real meaning to me, because for me the idea of believing in a god is inherently too alien a concept. There's no dial in my mind by which I can adjust my level of faith from zero to agnostic or from agnostic to believer.

And since for the longest time "people" meant "men," these structures are mostly man-made and therefore flawed, with the tendency to be sexist, racist, etc.

Yes. I know that intellectually, but it still doesn't work for me, you know? Like, I know it-- but I don't get it. I don't understand why people subscribed to that throughout history, or why they continue to do so today. I already know many of the material/historical reasons, but in my heart I don't understand them.

[mswyrr]

But that implies that there's a choice-- I can no more make myself believe in god than someone who truly believes can forever make themself stop believing. Circumstances and experienced events can change your belief system, but "kinder way to deal" has no real meaning to me, because for me the idea of believing in a god is inherently too alien a concept. There's no dial in my mind by which I can adjust my level of faith from zero to agnostic or from agnostic to believer.

Agnosticism doesn't require belief in any god, though. It's defined as "the belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist," whereas Atheism is: "denial of the existence of God or gods."

Denial of the existence of god or Gods, for everyone, absolutely. The difference is that Agnosticism allows for the possibility of spirituality beyond ones personal experience, so I consider it "kinder."

Er, that make sense?

[rashaka.livejournal.com]

Yeah. I think "kinder" is probably not the word your looking for, though, based on the definition you just gave me. For one, "kinder" implies something positive for which the opposite is negative or less desirable. Your thinking that agnosticism, by allowing for the possibility gods, is more of a good or desirable thing than atheism is not really any different than my considering agnostic to be more of a good thing than religion for the same but inversed reason.

::rereads:: Okay, I hope that sentence is readable.


But... (and I'm just splitting hairs off topic now!) "allows for the possibility of spirituality beyond ones personal experience" is not at all the same thing is believing in one or more deities. There are several religions that don't require belief in a god or gods, and being an atheist is not the same as not having a belief in spirituality of some form. Gods are a possible aspect of spirituality, but spritituality does not equal gods. I'd be lying if I said I wasn't a spiritual person, but my spirituality has nothing to do with a supreme creator.

[mswyrr]

Yeah. I think "kinder" is probably not the word your looking for, though, based on the definition you just gave me. For one, "kinder" implies something positive for which the opposite is negative or less desirable. Your thinking that agnosticism, by allowing for the possibility gods, is more of a good or desirable thing than atheism is not really any different than my considering agnostic to be more of a good thing than religion for the same but inversed reason.

When I found it, it just seemed like an awfully desirable middle ground. I wanted to hug it and cuddle it, and wack my dad and uncle over the head with it at the next family get-together, when the inevitable arguing started.

But... (and I'm just splitting hairs off topic now!) "allows for the possibility of spirituality beyond ones personal experience" is not at all the same thing is believing in one or more deities. There are several religions that don't require belief in a god or gods, and being an atheist is not the same as not having a belief in spirituality of some form. Gods are a possible aspect of spirituality, but spritituality does not equal gods. I'd be lying if I said I wasn't a spiritual person, but my spirituality has nothing to do with a supreme creator.

Heh. Yes. Quite right. People are awesome; just as soon as one sets up a tidy dichotomy, they go busting through it!

If you don't mind my asking, how does your spirituality express itself?

[rashaka.livejournal.com]

I dunno if my spirituality "expresses itself." I am guessing you're asking how I express my spirituality...? If that's your question-- then outwardly I rarely express spirituality. But I do believe in spirits/souls, I do believe in reincarnation, and I have had a few moments in my life where I felt pretty profound deja vu for things I have never seen before.

Also, though I don't consider this to be a spirital type of faith, I do have faith in my fellow human beings and our capacity to better ourselves. It's a strong belief that gives me hope--though not supernatural at all.

[mswyrr]

Highly subjective definition:

My uncle is an Atheist. He hasn't had spiritual experiences. For some reason, he thinks the universe conforms to his experience, and that anyone's spiritual experience is delusion. He's encouraged me to drop my emotional crutch and seek help.

He's a pushy sun of a gun.

My dad's a pushy Theist sun of a gun. He thinks my uncle is either in denial, or spiritually dead. And he'll go on about it. Loudly.

I don't much like either. I've got all kinds of dislike for "pushy."

Neither of them have any proof, and to argue (and they do. Oh boy, do they ever...) is rather hurtful and pointless.

Agnosticism always struck me as a nice compromise, 'cause it admits that arguing is pointless, and that there might well be more or less in heaven and earth than anybody's dreamt of.

[rashaka.livejournal.com]

Definitely too narrow a definition. :) Buddhists can fall under the umbrella of atheists because they deny the existence of a god-creator-deity, but you can't say they're not spiritual.