ONaMISSION
Posts: 7
Joined: 11/8/2005
Status: offline
|
logically, one cannot ascribe undue merit to the "why" based on a presumption as to whether the "why" even exists (ie., is there a rhyme and an order, or is it all chance?). However, you, sir, are a contradiction in that on the one hand you oppose religion in general (even though you say you cannot see that in your original post, I myself find it glaringly obvious)- I say, you are a contradiction because, on the one hand, you oppose religion in general as being irrational and for whatever other reasons you may believe. Yet, on the other hand, while still opposing religion, you yourself are in fact a deeply religious individual. By that I mean, that you hold a deep but irrational belief, which fact and reason do not support. you see, you believe that the source of things is NOT God, even though this is the explanation so far offered in the history of the world which actually stands scientific reason. The Darwinian position, that everything is an accident, is clearly more based in faith than reason, much like dumping thousands of tiny springs, screws, shards of glass, and so on, into a bucket, shaking it up, and expecting a fine swiss watch to fall out of the bucket. It is utterly absurd that such an immense, immeasurable (for us) degree of order around us and in us could ever be the result of accident. Where there is a great plan, there is obviously a planner. Skyscrapers don't magically appear by chance, where there is a building, there is a builder. But, many people choose to believe what seems most covenient for them, lacking integrity in doing so. In your case, there is no mystery as to your motivation to follow a religion of your own making which denies God as supreme- your name says it all, you want to be lord and master, and not to yield or surrender to another. best of luck on that. you'll need it.
----------------------------
quote:
ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster
The "why" question is important if you decide that it's important before you ask it. I don't know whether it's important or not, but I don't assume that it is. (To me, that is, in a nutshell, the difference between a faith-based attitude and a non-faith-based attitude.)
Anyway, the issue isn't whether it's important--the issue is whether it's a genuine question. Asking "why" means you assume that there is a reason. If there is no reason, you can't ask why.
I don't think I was being condescending about religion, but one thing I have noticed is that people are often disturbed by my very obvious atheism, and assume I must not respect their beliefs just because I don't consider them rational. If religion is THAT important to you, you ought to have thicker skin when you're dealing with people who don't share your assumptions about the world.
Edited to add: You know, on rereading my original post, I don't even see how you assumed I was opposed to religion. I admitted that scientists can't explain why the physical laws are the way they are. Maybe I believe that a divinity willed them to be so. In fact, I don't, but I don't see how you could tell that just from what I wrote.
|
The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread