![[Valid RSS]](/images/valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed")
Comments
| << Some pictures and updates | LostLogicX.com now printable >> |
2 months, 2 weeks ago
A Deadly Philosophy
To put it bluntly, your unfamiliar worldview makes me keenly aware of my mortality; it threatens my very existence. So why shouldn’t I wish you dead? Philosophy is personal.
The author seems to imply that _any_ worldview can be threatened by other world views in this way, but I must disagree. Any worldview which already accepts human mortality (ie one that believes in neither an afterlife, nor resurrection, nor any of that), is entirely immune to this sort of feeling. To one who fully accepts the limitations of human life, there is no threat of impending death or never ending torture when confronted with a conflicting worldview.
I would argue that there is a spectrum of belief that runs roughly: atheist, agnostic, metatheist, polytheist, monotheist. Along this spectrum, you would find that people on the left side are fully immune to the urge to kill those who disagree for fear of their own mortality and people on the right side are very susceptible.
To put it bluntly, your unfamiliar worldview makes me keenly aware of my mortality; it threatens my very existence. So why shouldn’t I wish you dead? Philosophy is personal.
The author seems to imply that _any_ worldview can be threatened by other world views in this way, but I must disagree. Any worldview which already accepts human mortality (ie one that believes in neither an afterlife, nor resurrection, nor any of that), is entirely immune to this sort of feeling. To one who fully accepts the limitations of human life, there is no threat of impending death or never ending torture when confronted with a conflicting worldview.
I would argue that there is a spectrum of belief that runs roughly: atheist, agnostic, metatheist, polytheist, monotheist. Along this spectrum, you would find that people on the left side are fully immune to the urge to kill those who disagree for fear of their own mortality and people on the right side are very susceptible.
Add Comment (6 comments)
deadly philosophy 2 months, 2 weeks ago
Fanatics exist in every stripe. Militant Atheists are no less obnoxious than Fred Phelp's Westboro Baptist Church. Their goal is the same: make a big noise and convince suckers into giving them money.
Where I live, followers of traditional religions are relatively harmless. There is far more reason to be concerned about the eco-liars, neo-luddites, animal-rights activists, and militant atheists. Though followers of these belief systems do not necessarily worship a deity, they are often just as destructive to their fellow (hu)man.
They all want to use the power of the state to force everyone to change their lifestyle. And like most people who want to "change the world", they are completely unmindful of the unintended consequences of their actions. Most of them are either hypocrites or the pawns of hypocrites (Useful Idiots).
I, on the other hand, am one of those horrible God Fearing Christians. I am content to *attempt* to live my life in the way my Lord taught. I am confident that although I am completely imperfect due to sin that my sins are forgiven.
It is easy to go through life with a chip on your shoulder and be offended at everything you see. But the Bible (New Testament) says the believer should shun the unrepentant sinner (and their lifestyle). It doesn't say to kill them and it doesn't say to use the government harass them, jail them and steal their property. For even though we are forgiven, we are still human, we are still sinners, and we are still deserving of the same fate (death). Nothing makes a Christian better than a non-Christian.
I cannot force anyone to believe in my Savior. It would be a sin to try to do so. I can only point people in the right direction and let the Holy Spirit do the rest.
Where I live, followers of traditional religions are relatively harmless. There is far more reason to be concerned about the eco-liars, neo-luddites, animal-rights activists, and militant atheists. Though followers of these belief systems do not necessarily worship a deity, they are often just as destructive to their fellow (hu)man.
They all want to use the power of the state to force everyone to change their lifestyle. And like most people who want to "change the world", they are completely unmindful of the unintended consequences of their actions. Most of them are either hypocrites or the pawns of hypocrites (Useful Idiots).
I, on the other hand, am one of those horrible God Fearing Christians. I am content to *attempt* to live my life in the way my Lord taught. I am confident that although I am completely imperfect due to sin that my sins are forgiven.
It is easy to go through life with a chip on your shoulder and be offended at everything you see. But the Bible (New Testament) says the believer should shun the unrepentant sinner (and their lifestyle). It doesn't say to kill them and it doesn't say to use the government harass them, jail them and steal their property. For even though we are forgiven, we are still human, we are still sinners, and we are still deserving of the same fate (death). Nothing makes a Christian better than a non-Christian.
I cannot force anyone to believe in my Savior. It would be a sin to try to do so. I can only point people in the right direction and let the Holy Spirit do the rest.
Reply -- PolyTick
2 months, 2 weeks ago
Thanks for your comment! I do like your point that the power of the state and those that seek to use it to achieve their goals rather than using their own skills and merits is _more_ evil and _more_ important than the points brought up in my original post (or in the follow up comment below).
Reply -- Brandon Low
| << Some pictures and updates | LostLogicX.com now printable >> |
"People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people." --V
Everyone hates everyone, sometimes 2 months, 2 weeks ago
If you asked early Christian, they would tell you Greeks and Romans did not take kindly to their pantheons falling.
Although the stories I know best are of Islam being spread violently, I doubt the native gods died easily to the Prophets message.
It may be convenient to set your belif system as the most non-violent. However, as a believer I just don't buy it. When I read or hear Dawkins I do not get the warm fuzzy feeling of human brotherhood. Generally when I hear passionate atheists I hear a message that is just coming short of my physical destruction. I am not to be taken seriously as a person because of my belief.
You may say this is no where near death. However post-enlightenment, I think it may be worse.
Face it; Humans do not like to have their beliefs changed. Most people think they have come to their beliefs about higher beings honestly and thoughtfully.
Reply -- Jacob Tomaw
A valid point; hopefully a valid counterpoint 2 months, 2 weeks ago
I fear that it may weaken rather than strengthen my argument, but I'm going to mix another form of belief system in. The polytheistic or atheistic groups who perpetrated mass murder (as far as I know) all had a strict following of an all-powerful leader (eg Caesar).
Sadly, this throws out my argument that the core reason for these genocides is threat to ones belief in an afterlife / resurrection / reincarnation / joining with the all-god. So what then drives these genocides?
I guess we return to the original points made in the article that I linked, which indicate that it is anything which threatens a moral system, regardless of whether that system is state based or god based.
I would still argue that a scientific minded atheist is immune to this sort of murder-inspiring challenge. If a person derives their morality from the evidence of their senses and an acceptance of their own nature as a human being, then there is no system to be challenged. There is new evidence, there are new human experiences, etc.; but there is no essential challenge to the system itself. There is actually no possible way to put a person who scientifically derives their morality in that position.
Now, if I were to develop my own set of moral rules from my experience and the evidence that I can collect and someone _else_ were to try to follow that set of moral rules, they would once again be succeptable to the kind of other-hate we're talking about. So, my conclusion is revised from "religion makes one succeptable to belief-based hatred" to "any externally derived morality leaves one succeptable to belief-based hatred".
Thanks very kindly for your response, you've definitely helped to clarify the issue.
Reply -- Brandon Low
Umm...A Little Off on the Numbers 2 months, 2 weeks ago
One of communism's primary tenets is that it's atheist. I'm not sure if you're aware of the situation, but the communists have been known to get a little bloody now and then.
Also, what's with the friendly replies? Have you been eating too much granola and grape seed oil to get angry anymore? I think we're going to Eat & Drink for lunch if you're in.
Reply -- Todd Bittner
Singapore noodles!? 2 months, 2 weeks ago
I think I do address that in my replies.
Reply -- Brandon Low