4 ms·

> Religious texts are made up fiction that hold no more meaning in my world view than Harry Potter or Game of Thrones I have been downvoted many times (not sur

> Religious texts are made up fiction that hold no more meaning in my world view than Harry Potter or Game of Thrones I have been downvoted many times (not sure why?) for stating this on HN, but I will state it again: It's sad that this line of thinking has taken over the modern time. We now have "science", so we don't need any of that silly stuff like "philosophy" or "art" or "religion". All can be explained through the scientific method and all other branches of human intellect are null and avoid. Of course, this comes from the new Atheists who influenced a lot of the younger generation years a go when they started but their ideas actually stems from older philosophers who shaped the modern day thinking. Mainly Karl Marx, Friedrich Nietzsche (who was also influenced by Feuerbach), Jean Paul Sartre and Michel Foucault. For example, What did Jean-Paul Sartre say? "Existence precedes essence" and you can _clearly_ see how this has affected the modern Atheism mentality in the 21st century. If existence precedes essence, then everything is relative and nothing can be objective and absolute; thus to claim things such as objective morality in the way that religion does is meaningless. Don't forget that Sartre said: "If God exists, I can't be free, but I am free. Therefore God does not exist". Once again, if you look carefully enough, you absolutely see this in the modern world. The New Atheists for example, took all their ideas and spread them from these philosophers. What was Hitchen's famous quote? He would constantly regurgitate Karl Marx: "Religion is the opium of the people" which again.. is rooted from Sartre philosophy. There is a great talk about this here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KQcm0Mi5To https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KQcm0Mi5To More to it, to anyone who claims religious people are intellectual inept, I would simply challenge you to read any of the material written by the intellectuals of the tradition. For example, for Christianity they would be: Augustine of Hippo, Anselm of Canterbury, Thomas Aquinas or John Henry Newman and tell me you're dealing with someone who has suspended his critical faculties. You are welcome to disagree with them of course, but to claim that we should simply replace these materials with math books is disingenuous. Just my 2c.

schwartzworld 4y ago
> we don't need any of that silly stuff like "philosophy" or "art" or "religion" Op didn't say anything about art or philosophy. You added that stuff in. Atheism doesn't preclude art or philosophy. > All can be explained through the scientific method As opposed to "all can be explained through God"? How is that any better?
wellthisisgreat 4y ago
Religion would be ok to me and, I’d imagine, OP if it presented itself as philosophy or fairy tales that you could take or leave. Or a part of human history like medieval knights. It’s a curios byproduct of human inquisitiveness and that’s it. it shouldn’t have any special rights or claims to have a deeper understanding of the universe that would even give certain people (priests etc) to be the judges of other people’s actions. The world wouldn’t succumb into chaos if all churches / mosques etc . were gone in an instant and people forgot they existed as anything but pretty buildings. There were of course smart and kind people at all times and they happened to use the vehicles of religion some long long time ago when it seemed like the best logic toolbox for the mind
v-erne 4y ago
>> More to it, to anyone who claims religious people are intellectual inept, I would simply challenge you to read any of the material written by the intellectuals of the tradition That's a straw man - we all are idiots sometimes (I believe that most of times but that just me) and this little silly observation can be easily used to explain how otherwise rational and intelligent person can hold two opposite views in their had. Our rational abilities are greatly exaggerated by people like You who believe that there are magical others that can be rational all the time in all aspects of their life. Those people believe in God because they want to believe (by which I mean its an emotional decision and not an logical one) and the logic is there only to rationalize what their emotions are telling them. I suspect that if medicine will get advanced enough we will see finally that by just playing with memory and emotional state of person we can easily turn the most avid believer into Christopher Hitchens (and vice versa).

schwartzworld 4y ago

> we don't need any of that silly stuff like "philosophy" or "art" or "religion" Op didn't say anything about art or philosophy. You added that stuff in. Atheism doesn't preclude art or philosophy. > All can be explained through the scientific method As opposed to "all can be explained through God"? How is that any better?

wellthisisgreat 4y ago

Religion would be ok to me and, I’d imagine, OP if it presented itself as philosophy or fairy tales that you could take or leave. Or a part of human history like medieval knights. It’s a curios byproduct of human inquisitiveness and that’s it. it shouldn’t have any special rights or claims to have a deeper understanding of the universe that would even give certain people (priests etc) to be the judges of other people’s actions. The world wouldn’t succumb into chaos if all churches / mosques etc . were gone in an instant and people forgot they existed as anything but pretty buildings. There were of course smart and kind people at all times and they happened to use the vehicles of religion some long long time ago when it seemed like the best logic toolbox for the mind

v-erne 4y ago

>> More to it, to anyone who claims religious people are intellectual inept, I would simply challenge you to read any of the material written by the intellectuals of the tradition That's a straw man - we all are idiots sometimes (I believe that most of times but that just me) and this little silly observation can be easily used to explain how otherwise rational and intelligent person can hold two opposite views in their had. Our rational abilities are greatly exaggerated by people like You who believe that there are magical others that can be rational all the time in all aspects of their life. Those people believe in God because they want to believe (by which I mean its an emotional decision and not an logical one) and the logic is there only to rationalize what their emotions are telling them. I suspect that if medicine will get advanced enough we will see finally that by just playing with memory and emotional state of person we can easily turn the most avid believer into Christopher Hitchens (and vice versa).