Letters to the Editor
Tobbar
Published Letters: 154 Editor's Choice: 8
-
One more time!
[Read the article: The flying spaghetti monster]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]As the back and forth winds down, I just wanted to state that I don't really think religion is an evolutionary adaptation. I think it's a desiease that preys upon and weakens an otherwise healthy society.
Some people have more of an immunity to it than others, that's all. And some get over it while others serve as carriers.
The main vector of infection is fear. Fear of death, mostly. Once any creed convinces you that you will survive beyond your own death, you'll believe anything.
You won't survive your death, that's why it's called 'death'. We're chemicals all the way down and when we die, we stop.
AFterlives are a seductive argument, doubly seductive because not only do we not like to think about our own end, but we really don't want to think about the final demise of those close to us. Bonus! Religion lets them beat the game, too!
Well, unless you don't play by the creed's rules, then you get an eternity of suffering or painful rebirth or whatever. You don't beat the game, you're trapped by it!
Of course, it's hard to build a powerful heirachy based just on people's worries about death- they'll get hungry or fall or love or something and stop thinking about it. So the desiease of religion has evolved to infect other lines of thinking- religions claim to be the source of morality, for example, and sometimes in spite of the cult, some members actually do contribute back to society. The cult often either makes those contributions into either something that only the cult can do, or else they often ban them.
Anyway, it's time we put the sickness of religion on the run.
Go get 'em, Dawkins!
-
Keep at 'em, Ann
[Read the article: The flying spaghetti monster]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I was going to comment re: this late-to-the-game ralley by the superstitious, but you've done it for me.
Tragically, putting words into Dawkin's mouth, or screeching about the current limits of his (or 'science's') knowledge just isn't good enough, guys. You've been losing this argument for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. Losing because you support an irrational and indefensible beleif system.
-
Gene, Gene, Gene,
[Read the article: "I'm guilty of sexual immorality," Haggard tells his flock]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]See, there is no God, or Devil, or afterlife. And, let me clear about this: I mean your God, your Devil, your Afterlife. Yes, I'm talkin' to you.
Not only is relegion a batch of fables and lies, and a parasite on otherwise healthy societies, but this remarkable fiction was, in Haggard's case, sold to you by a gay, lying, meth head.
Pathetic.
-
Something to meditate on
[Read the article: Buddha on the brain]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]There are no gods, spirits, souls, or afterlives. We are chemicals all the way down. When we die we stop, we cease to be.
Why is that so hard for people to accept? Why do we cling in fear to base superstitions that convince ourselves that we will outlive our own death. We won't. That's why it's called death. Is that really so scary? There's nothing unusual about it. Happens all the time.
Anyway, to second a few points. Funny how its never the researchers in quantum mechanics or string theory claiming that they've found God, or Annwn, or the Tao. God of the gaps much?
It's always hard to argue about what science is doing re: pick a subject. 'Science' and the hard workin' men and women who make it happen, are working on a LOT of things. Including conciousness. Including our brains. It's hard to keep up with it all. Ph, and the research points to the fact that we're chemicals all the way down. Makes us no less interesting or alive, mind you, just that we're not magical.
In fact, I'm pretty sure the Buddha himself said something about if you give a monkey a brain, he'll think he's the center of the universe. Look it up, it's in the middle somewhere.
-
Into the fray!
[Read the article: Seeing the light -- of science]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I must give props to Ronald Numbers for his work on the history of creationism.
The desperation and at times the outright lying that Mr. Numbers revealed in his research should be strong medicine to any culture affected with the parasite of relegion.
I think it is important, nay CRUCIAL, to remind people that when 'god' is spoken of, 'Satan' and 'the end of the world' are not far behind. Little baby Jesus the heart of an apocalyptic blood cult? You bet.
There have been some interesting verbal gymnastics from the theists in the letter section, as always. But the hard truth is that there is no god, no spirits, no afterlives. We didn't evolve from apes, we are, essentially, apes. And it get's better (or worse, depending), we may not even have free will:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/02/science/02free.html?ex=1168405200&en=372d99cce6e83e4c&ei=5070&emc=eta1
Bracing!