Letters to the Editor
-
@kufir
No, I did not know that! Thank you for the info though. I will have to read it since sex and the history of its practice in a sociological context has always been of great interest to me. I actually collect vintage "marriage manuals" and was shocked to find a quite liberal one from the 30s in my grandma's bookshelf, a devout Catholic woman who had separate bedrooms from grandpa from the time I was a toddler.
Unfortunately I wish Pope John Paul II had stressed more of this sexual liberation during his reign. He could've done something about the contraception ban, no? I did like his many of his policies and do not dig the current one due to his ultra-conservative beliefs.
During my lifetime I saw the catholic church go from a fairly hip and liberal 70s to 80s religion of "do good unto others" to this overly conservative, rightwing republican supporting (due to abortion/gays) movement starting sometime in the late 80s. I'm sure there are still plenty of liberal priests/parishes out there but after sitting through a homily on the evils of masturbation (yes, really!, during the frikkin homily when priests used to talk about something feel-good, no pun intended) in the late 90s I considered the religion gone off the deep end.
And yes, Broomfondle, I had considered taking your name off the header after I realized most of my post was aimed elsewhere but I had originally included you because you mentioned us atheists as being angry and that was originally what I was going to address. I meant no ill-will, just debate.
-
Educate myself on religion?
What religions am I supposed to study before I can dismiss them? All of them? Most of them? The important ones? I guess I have to study astrology in detail before I dismiss that as well. Not to mention occultism, cryptozoology, UFOs and alien abductions, tarot, and a gazillion other supernatural subjects. THEN I can dismiss them?
When am I going to have the time to study things that actually exist?
-
OT Pet Peeve: Immaculate Conception != Virgin Birth
I believe that Jesus walked the earth and was a compassionate and charismatic leader but not the son of god nor born of a virgin who also had to be born from a virgin (why is your religion, most religions, so afraid of sex?).
Anne was not a virgin. Mary was conceived "the regular way" but without the stain of Original Sin on her soul. Jesus was the only person conceived of a virgin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_conception
Sorry that's just a real pet peeve of mine (and I'm atheist!)
-
Utter Nonsense
Mr. Haught's ideas are flawed from word go. His assertion that one cannot live without hope, and that one cannot have hope without faith is preposterous and assumptive, and matched in ridiculousness only by his quaint complaint that "the old atheists were better." It is to laugh.
His entire argument, and apparently his worldview as well, seems to be that atheism can't be a viable belief system because it's just too hard to face the reality that system suggests. Let go, let God, it goes down so smoothly...
As always, we return to that old axiom that religion is the opiate of the masses. Ah, blissful ignorance.
-
Re: Where are all the agnostics
I'm one. And reading these letters has been a great exercise in why.
Like atheists, i abhor the thought of a personal God. The thought of being made, and ruled by some overseer........yech. I can't stand it. But like the athests, i see little to no chance of a personal God.
But like the "believer" i also abhor the reductionism of atheism. The materialist ideology, in the end, also nullifies my sense of freedom and also seems a cage, and one that i can never truely say that "i know" there isn't a God without taking a leap of faith - the exact problem with religion.
So i remain agnostic. Also unsatisfying, since, like the atheists and the believer i would like to just choose and be done with it.
But the advantage of agnosticism is that feel more comfortable with eastern types of religions where i feel no need to justify one view over another, or where i needn't make leaps of faith that i can't seem to ever muster- whether for atheism or belief.
All in all, its a good place to be!
One thing though, to the atheists- please please please, let go of this illusion that religion is responsible for all the wars and violence of the world. Being a "rational" atheist that supposedly goes by evidence, this is a piss poor belief. By all measures, Humans are prone to violence, and whether they justify that violence with religion of one type or another, or if they justify it with rational arguments- in the end when humans want war they will have it. How they justify it is irrelevant. The BELIEF that somehow human history would have been, or would be, any less violent without religion is an unproven theory with very little, if any proof for it. Secondly, to take all the good things that have been done in the last 200 years and lay it all on the doorstep of science is also ridiculous. It belies the fact that many scientists and donors, were motivated and believed in a personal God. To then give these peoples hard work as some type of evidence of atheisms higher morality and goodness is a false argument. Just as the religionist tries to take meaning and morality and make it the providence of their God, so are alot of atheists here trying to take the work and sacrifice of many people who were religious and religiously motivated to use science for good as the exclusive providence of the atheists.
In short, the violent nature of man seems part of his genetic and mental makeup. To blame religion for the violence is to blame the rationalization as the cause. Sloppy thinking indeed. Its especially strange coming from people who come down on religionists for not using evidence as the final arbiter of truth.