neutrality. « Artistic Footprint

neutrality.

by Dahmer on Dec.20, 2009, under Theology and Morality

How does one build an opinion without being termed “abrasive?” 10 bucks says there’s a person out there with the exact opposite opinion than you. How do you make yourself heard without making an ass of yourself? Do you cite more sources to prove a higher level of credibility, do you boast statements based on your educational background or applicable expertise? how does THAT INvalidate another’s perspective?

Well lets ask a more valuable question: would you appreciate the world more if EVERYONE believed the same as you?

isn’t that boring?

perhaps it’s more of a case of tolerance for culture and contrast vs. uniformity and direction.

I’m speaking of course of the religious vs. science sector. There are religious extremists that claim gays are inuman and radical thinking is punishable by a higher being. Just as there are people that believe that religion is sacking the human resolve to find true answers.

I for one agree with the atheist sector, but am trying to validate the motives of religion, which is ancient and itself quite evolutionary, if you will.

sensationalists and fanatics aside, the point is “the endless pursuit of truth”

the creationists believe in many or one deity, with a path for which everyone to follow, and every inch and second was planned and executed by that higher being.

the scientists believe in a logical sequence of numeric and definable situations that can be altered by ones environment, based on the accuracy and precision of an experiment.

For me, the turning point that makes me an atheist is this:

The religious system is based on ancient writings, providing
concessions for modern scientific advancement. a rulebook based on fate
and innevitability. The idea that “faith” is a sensational feeling of comfort and trust.
The scientific system is based on human judgement relative to experience and proof. It is
aware of its faults and compensates with debate and contemplation. it is
an evolving textbook based on wise credibility, welcoming disproving
evidence, should it be found. The idea that your “calculations” will provide you with the probability of success or failure.

“Religion is flawed only because man is flawed”

4 Comments for this entry

Curtis West
December 21st, 2009 on 2:37 am
Could we by extension say that religion is flawed because man made it up (man of course being terribly flawed)?
Dahmer
December 21st, 2009 on 7:53 am
Valid.

But assuming that all men (and women) are virtous and good and seek truth, then Religion (at the time) was a pretty good answer.
Motives of power, manipulation, and absurd devotion aside, Religion appears to be flawed and incapable of competing with scientific “truth”

But still. literally speaking, you cannot PROVE or DISPROVE either. It’s funny though, how science seems to be the only side with that yeild. Some consider religion to be absolute and complete with no fact, only faith. Science uses fact in order to decide that in FACT, religion cannot be disproven.

… Thus our dilemma
Kicker
December 25th, 2009 on 3:58 am
Hi,
Interesting, did you plan to continue this article?
Thanks
Kicker
patriot
February 18th, 2010 on 8:02 am
Let me first and foremost make it clear that religion has always and will always frustrate and anger me. The senseless ramblings of bible flippers has always been an eager annoyance in the back of my mind stirring some sort of bitter taste in the back of my mouth. Yet at the same time i have always understood religion to be a necessity as it is the only real remaining factor in the world that can overcome faulty parents or upbringings and actually teach people a certain sense of morality. As abusive as i have always found religion to be to human intellect and tolerance i cannot deny my jealousy in those people who have the ability to have blind faith in something. perhaps it is out of a cowardly sickness of the way my mind constantly examines and contemplates things over and over again, but i really do wish i could simply BELIEVE in something. but back to youre point of neutrality, i think atheism too involves blind faith and belief. it is simply another form of religion formed by most out of frustration and pure ignorance (and i say most because many are either incapable or unwanting of deeper thinking or understanding of their decision.) after spending a great deal of my youth believing i was a form of atheist i later found out that i am what is called agnostic. agnosticism means that one has examined both the concepts of god and no god, and has decided that you cannot prove one either way. this concept appeals to me in every way because while i lean towards us rotting in the ground and being forgotten like everything else, i also cannot deny the concept that something created the universe (which is only relevant if you actually believe the universe ever had an actual “beginning”) all i know for fact is that there is no religion that accurately portrays a higher being, there are too many contradictions and flaws in both the men who created each religion and the religious concepts themselves. but then religion and “god” are two separate things. there may be some sort of creator that put everything up to be as it is today, but i doubt it. and as for the endless pursuit of truth, well truth is arbitrary, and perception is reality. we believe what we perceive. and i find that to be one of those rare truths that you cannot deny.

on a side note ive been reading some of your other things and plan on commenting, i am incredibly interested in many of your ideas, mostly because they resemble my own with an uncanny resolve. and allow me now to apologize for how scatter brained, typo’d, or nonsensical as the above may be im tired and have found it hard to focus lately. anyways i think you have a very compelling train of thought and that you are an immaculate writer, thanks for posting all of these.