Skip to main content

What is Religion?

Consider this response to prof. R's claim below, which I lifted from the following article: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1427916/St-Paul-converted-by-epileptic-fit-suggests-BBC.html


"Professor Vilayanur Ramachandran, the neuroscientist who delivered this year's Reith lectures, told the BBC that patients who suffered seizures often had intense mystical experiences like St Paul's. He argued, however, that this did not rule out a divine role. "If God exists and he is interacting with us humans, he could have put an antenna in your brain to be sensitive to him or her," he said. But Canon Tom Wright, a leading theologian who regularly advises the BBC, said that there was "no shred of evidence whatsoever" for the claims."


I can think of nothing more ironic, and certainly nothing more hypocritical, than for a person who simply chooses to "believe" in a God, for which there is absolutely "no shred of evidence whatsoever," to claim that anything that in anyway challenges their beliefs about anything, especially anything in anyway supported by their religious beliefs, must not necessarily therefore be true, because there is "no shred of evidence whatsoever" to support such a claim. 

"Believing" unto death in that for which there is "no shred of evidence whatsoever" to support, and a universe of evidence to refute, is the very definition of what a "religion" truly is - and nothing else!

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why Christianity is More Unnatural Than Homosexuality

I grew up in a family that is about as homophobic as Phil Robertson and the Westboro Baptists, only they're not quite as boisterous about it; at least not in public anyway. They have also conveniently convinced themselves  that their homophobia is really just their unique Christian ability to "hate the sin, but love the sinner" (even though these very same Christians adamantly refuse to accept that people can "hate Christianity, but love the Christian").  The sexual superiority complex necessarily relied on by such Christians is, of course, blanketed beneath the lambs wool of the Christian humility of serving "God." They interpret their fear of those who are different, in other words, as simply proof of their intimate knowledge and love of God. And the only thing such Christians are more sure about than that their own personal version of "God" exists, is that such a "God" would never want people to be homosexual - no matter how ma...
Post a Comment
Read more
  The world changes according to the way people see it, and if you alter even by a millimeter the way people look at reality, then you can change it.” James Baldwin   
Post a Comment
Read more

Why Are Republicans Pro Life?

Most people don't realize that the Supreme Court has been in the hands of the Republican party since at least 1970! In fact, even in the landmark case of Roe v Wade that legalized abortion, SCOTUS was inhabited by 6 Republicans and 3 Democrats, and the vote was 7 to 2. One of the reasons is that the Republican Party has absolutely ZERO desire to win on the abortion issue. And that's because abortion gives the GOP a clear focal point with potentially unlimited organizing power. And it's an even simpler message to sell than religion, since we are "pro-life." (if that was true, however, they wouldn't be actively trying to repeal healthcare for up to 30 million Americans, nor would they be so pro-gun, pro-war, pro-death penalty, pro welfare cuts, pro- social security cuts, pro- drone strikes, etc). The Republican party officially became "pro-life" in 1976, thanks to Jesse Helms (R-NC). The only reason no serious challenge was brought within the pa...
Post a Comment
Read more