Each of us literally has hundreds of cognitive biases that dupe us into believing that our subjective interpretation of reality is the right one, regardless of our "beliefs." We are all being lied to by our brains, in other words, only the Christian has fallen in love with that brain (they are more addicted to that organ than a chronic masturbator is to their crotch), while the atheist tries to be at least as skeptical of their own "beliefs"/atheism as they are of Christianity or any other "ism" someone wants them to subscribe to.
So if that's true, than what's the ultimate difference between "theists" and atheists that matters to the world?
The difference, of which there are countless, may boil down to the difference between whether we choose to believe that people who may be very different from us in their tastes and philosophy about life, are immoral "sinners" for failing to see things our way, or if they just have a different way of looking at life.
The "theist" thinks we can only have morality, and life only has meaning, if God exists, and that anyone who denies this or refuses to simply "believe" it, when the logic is so inescapable, is simply refusing to accept reality and thus contributing to all of the problems in the world.
The atheist thinks it's exactly the opposite that is true; that we can only have morality and we can only be truly "free" to give our life whatever meaning we desire if God does NOT exist, and there is no one dictating their own moral "authority" while claiming it comes from God, and that their logic is inescapable as well.
The real question, then, is not which one is more logical in their conclusion, as both can create mathematically logical arguments that are, or at least equally appear to plenty of people to be, completely consistent, despite the paradoxes that plague both and undermine the claims of either one.
So ...
Is it better to start with the idea that we are all born sinners and must strive our whole lives to be well, and to "heal" others by trying to "convert" (i.e "convince") them to subscribe to what we "believe" to be true, so we can avoid hell and appease a God who painstakingly planned the brutal murder of his own son as a means of forgiving the murderers he knew they would always become when he created them in the first place...
Or is it better to start with the idea that we are all equally deficient in our understanding of everything we insist we "know" to be true, and therefore are equally unqualified to claim that there is ever only ONE WAY, or even a "best way," to be human, or free, (despite the efforts of so many philosophers who dedicated their lives to trying to figure out and articulate the "good life." I mean, how can you ever try to define what the "good life" is, if such an idea is different for every single person?)
Since our biases are set by the beliefs we start with, and since treating someone as deficient can almost never lead you to the conclusion that they are not, I can see no reason why it would ever be better to start with the assumption that other people are wrong and we are right, because to do that requires the god like hubris of assuming we can use ourselves as the moral yardstick we are claiming is based on an infinite moral rule from a "god" who, regardless of whether he exists or not, is still always nothing more than the image we have come up with in our mind (which is always based on us, more than anything else).
The theist wants to draw power unto themselves, by claiming they are working for God, while the atheist wants to return power to people, by letting people decide for themselves how to live their lives. One seeks happiness by being overly preoccupied with who is fucking who, and the other finds it by discovering the joy of not giving a fuck.
So if that's true, than what's the ultimate difference between "theists" and atheists that matters to the world?
The difference, of which there are countless, may boil down to the difference between whether we choose to believe that people who may be very different from us in their tastes and philosophy about life, are immoral "sinners" for failing to see things our way, or if they just have a different way of looking at life.
The "theist" thinks we can only have morality, and life only has meaning, if God exists, and that anyone who denies this or refuses to simply "believe" it, when the logic is so inescapable, is simply refusing to accept reality and thus contributing to all of the problems in the world.
The atheist thinks it's exactly the opposite that is true; that we can only have morality and we can only be truly "free" to give our life whatever meaning we desire if God does NOT exist, and there is no one dictating their own moral "authority" while claiming it comes from God, and that their logic is inescapable as well.
The real question, then, is not which one is more logical in their conclusion, as both can create mathematically logical arguments that are, or at least equally appear to plenty of people to be, completely consistent, despite the paradoxes that plague both and undermine the claims of either one.
So ...
Is it better to start with the idea that we are all born sinners and must strive our whole lives to be well, and to "heal" others by trying to "convert" (i.e "convince") them to subscribe to what we "believe" to be true, so we can avoid hell and appease a God who painstakingly planned the brutal murder of his own son as a means of forgiving the murderers he knew they would always become when he created them in the first place...
Or is it better to start with the idea that we are all equally deficient in our understanding of everything we insist we "know" to be true, and therefore are equally unqualified to claim that there is ever only ONE WAY, or even a "best way," to be human, or free, (despite the efforts of so many philosophers who dedicated their lives to trying to figure out and articulate the "good life." I mean, how can you ever try to define what the "good life" is, if such an idea is different for every single person?)
Since our biases are set by the beliefs we start with, and since treating someone as deficient can almost never lead you to the conclusion that they are not, I can see no reason why it would ever be better to start with the assumption that other people are wrong and we are right, because to do that requires the god like hubris of assuming we can use ourselves as the moral yardstick we are claiming is based on an infinite moral rule from a "god" who, regardless of whether he exists or not, is still always nothing more than the image we have come up with in our mind (which is always based on us, more than anything else).
The theist wants to draw power unto themselves, by claiming they are working for God, while the atheist wants to return power to people, by letting people decide for themselves how to live their lives. One seeks happiness by being overly preoccupied with who is fucking who, and the other finds it by discovering the joy of not giving a fuck.
Comments
Post a Comment