The virtues of prayer

Share |

Here is a nice video to explain the virtues of praying....and I respond to some of the feedback after.

It is interesting to read some of the comments after the video...to which I will respond:

"Not believing in something (i.e. No god) does not constitute a "belief system", for the same reason that "not fishing" is not a hobby".

Just as believing in a non-existing god is not really believing in anything either. Faith = non reason, altruism = non-self. Religion defiles your nature. Why? No reason. So having reasons for not believing is more of a system than faith, but I agree with your premise that atheists should have a full value system....but whose to say they don't. They are merely staying on topic.

"The notion that religion causes wars because they "KNOW" that they have "the one and only absolute truth".

There is nothing wrong with being certain of your ideas, or 'absolutes' as such. The problem is that religious absolutes are not based on evidence, but rather biblical assertions which cannot be verified to any satisfactory degree. I might add that objective truth is absolute, however it is 'contextual' absolutism.

"You need to realize that man cannot explain everything and in light of the fact that we are all ignorant to some degree or another some of us like yourself need to get off our supposed intellectual high horses and show just a bit of humility".

This is a weak argument. Humanity not being able to explain everything is not the same as not being able to explain everything. Context is everything. You have core knowledge, and you have peripheral knowledge. You can trust that which integrates and corresponds to facts. You can have still more confidence if you are a critical thinker with a propensity to seek and investigate alternative scenarios. I might repudiate the idea that humility is good by highlighting his 'apparent' absence of it. How can a humble person proclaim another people arrogant for having an opinion, which they 'humbly' repudiate.

"Well,as long as you can hate Christianity without hating Christians like Christians hate sin without hating sinners like yourself we should be able to get along. Well,at least not beat the tar out of each other".

Hate? Dislike? Sadly opposing values can make a big difference to our lives. Christianity and other forms of subjectivism are indirectly related to a great deal of collectivist political imposition and coercion, which ultimately destroy lives. That is just the 'political manifestations. Religion destroys lies, whether its the self-righteous parent who invalidates their their child; or the abusive parent who destroys their self-esteem with dogmatic nonsense; or worse sexual abuse. There are people who've been raised with unrealistic fears because of biblical teachings. More problematic and generally, there is the diminished capacity to think logically and critically, well-represented by Christians who cannot respond to logical arguments. The implication is that they are predisposed to repression and evasion.

"Christians go to the same schools that you go to yet you accuse them of being ignorant. They are not ignorant. They just do not accept the things you accept as being true. They choose not to believe some things just as you choose not to believe some things. What we believe is based on what we have experienced and what we have experienced you have not experienced. No one can be expected to throw out their experiences even in the face of your supposed logic. That would be illogical".

Logical argument? Case in point. Comparative ignorance is not simply a matter of school selection. Personal application and even parenting are critical, and there are a great many factors. If Christians have had a personal experience which justifies God, then they have less virtue because they have evidence, so less faith required to believe. Don't try finding logic in this nonsense. This assertion is a repudiation of objectivity. Christians can explain their experience, and they are open to account for that experience if they want to be taken seriously. One need only look at the quality of the Christian thinking to repudiate the philosophy. I might also add that a great many of you are not Christians but nevertheless suffer from a related 'subjective' fallacy, whether some form of moral relativism, scepticism or collectivism, or even liberalism. The only defensible philosophy is objectivism. It is the only one with a valid theory of values. I'll prove the point too. Email me for a debate!

"I am pretty sure small children have been murdered at the hands of atheists,agnostics,and religious folks".

True enough, Christians don't have a monopoly on immorality. Yes...immorality. Christianity is an immoral philosophy. A philosophy is a value system which ought to serve the life of the subject. The idea that people ought to find salvation in renouncing their nature is nonsense. i.e. Faith instead of reason. Faith is acceptance without evidence....so the opposite of logic. Someone in ancient times was really trying to screw with their subjects to teach them this nonsense.

Other types of subjectivism like socialism, fascism or environmentalism, or animal welfarists are equally immoral as they place others, even animals and the environment before humans. They also support placing some humans above the interests of others. They are a repudiation of objectivity and logic.....just like religion. They are just as bad as religion. Indefensible. If you want to defend subjectivity, simply walk in front of a bus...conflict resolved.

"It is a good thing that all who identify themselves as Christians are not the same then,isn't it? It is a good thing that the religious right is only a wing and not the whole bird,so to speak".

Christians vary in the extent to which they accept religion, and how they accept it. I have had Christians email me, thanking me for helping them resolve their attitudes to religion. They, like me, only needed a logical argument to drop religion like a sack of potatoes. Others tend to have less respect for ideas because they were not raised with it. I was raised with a great deal of respect for science, so it was an easy refutation when the arguments were presented. It was literary a 'day conversion'.

It is sad that libertarianism is supported by anarchists and Christians. They offer no plausible justification for freedom. Why? Anarchism is based on subjectivism. Religion advances altruism. Capitalism is based on an ethics of rational self-interest. They are incompatible. This argument greatly upset my grandfather 2 decades ago.

--------------------------------------------

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Blessed is the honest bishop

Share |

Here is an interesting article by a bishop in the Huffington Post about the churches role in inciting hatred of gays, lesbians and the like. It is a rather candid article coming from the church.

When a religious leader is so progressive, you have to wonder whether he retains any religious conviction. Clearly he retains a great deal of intellect...but only by driving his conflict to a deeper moral fundamental realm. Christians are morally obliged to throw themselves under a bus to protect others from prejudice. He neglects to understand that such collectivism is the source of this prejudice in the first place. He is therefore not a champion of moral rectitude but moral ambivalence. But bless the church for engaging and compromising its integrity yet again. It might well culminate in another church to defend or react to the indefensible. But there is plenty of moral scepticism out there, so I'm sure this bishop will find a market.

I am hoping to drive a 'Greek-inspired' revival of rational self-interest. These Christian apologists however keep 'doggedly' or 'dogmatically' clinging to their 'altruist' beliefs contrary to all the bleating evidence. Oh well....another century before the next intellectual revolution. I think we will have to wait until the next century before we can download a code of ethics into people, such that they will no longer quibble over 'what their bleating minds are for'.

-------------------------------------------

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Christian Fundamentalist response to 'Koran smoking'

Share |

In my last post I discussed the smoking of the bible and Koran by an Australian. He was of course making a point that people should relax, and not take religion 'so seriously' and their 'sacred books' so symbolically. He argues correctly that they are just books. I have actually torn up a bible on one occasion on public transport to the disdain of a fellow commuter. I was given the bible by a Christian promoting his cause. I wanted to destroy the bible because its antithetical to my values.

In my case the gesture was practical. I wanted to remove one cancerous book from society. I would not be silly enough to buy the book, but it made the Christian virtuous for giving me the book, and by a different moral standard, it made me virtuous to destroy it. He was very angry at me, but made no effort to beat me up. I challenged his arguments with my own, and he calmed down.

So let's look at a video by a Fundamentalist Christian and examine his arguments....

1. He accuses him of doing drugs in the video - but in fact they are clearly not real drugs. Maybe he has tobacco in them, but they are not 'rollies'.

2. Censoring himself - He may not have closed his account, its probable that the University of Queensland required him to close the account, or maybe YouTube closed the account.

3. He could lose his job - Well some things are worth fighting for; but actually its actually improbable he would lose his job. He has actually raised healthy communication with this video. Its actually a celebration of religious tolerance and Australian anti-intellectualism, i.e. 'just get over it'.

4. Same as Terry Jones - Its not like the Terry Jones case at all. Alex is an atheist opposed to fundamentalism, and Terry Jones is a fundamentalist. Could the disparity be any greater?

5. Because of Terry Jones - Alex Stewart's opportunity to take a stand arose because of Terry Jones. True enough, but why is that an issue. Did he plagiarize Terry's content? No. Actually, he came up with his own. The flipside is actually true. This fundamentalist is not just making this presentation, which is contingent upon Alex's action, but he actually recites mostly media material without any references.

But 'hell', don't expect any intellectual honesty or coherent ideas from Christians or Muslims. That is why they believe - because they need some intrinsic concept of value to satisfy their under-developed minds. Defined by fear at such a fundamental level that they know not their true nature. That is the defining aspect of a fundamentalist - Christian or Muslim.

---------------------------------------------

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

How do we cure religion?

Share |

Otherwise stated - What can an atheist do to discourage or otherwise subdue the 'Christian beast'? Firstly it is not about God. Its about what God embodies. Have you recognised how Christians who are abused or taken advantage by one church, go on to become victims or benefactors of another. If Christians are to stop preaching or embracing religion, they ultimately need to do more than discover reason, because some Christians are rationalising that religion is a justifiable philosophy.

I must however state that young people are inclined to have a rationalised Christian perspective purely because they are young and have yet to challenge the parent, school or social Christian values. This is particularly likely in these situations where you are surrounded by religion. i.e. Consider the Philippines or the Middle East where religion is pervasive....almost suffocating.

By so recognising this point, they need to recognise that values are conditional, as opposed to intrinsic or dogmatic. Conditional because they are accepted or repudiated for a reason. Which means that there is the possibility of failure or rejection. If you repudiate the meaningful standard of value, and argue that you are great because you are 'with god', then such dogmatism gives a person the self-delusion of efficacy, without actually possessing any. It might boost your confidence, but its not going to help.

The fact that they repudiate this notion is a fear-response. The question is why? The reason is - they have been physically or mentally abused, or have otherwise had their intellectual development arrested by dogmatism. A poorly developed cognitive capacity is going to undermine one's self-esteem. In which case, thinking is an act which provides no validation.

----------------------------------------------

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Fear-fighting Christians

Share |

when I reflect on the success and longevity of religion I would attribute it to several factors:

1. Its ability to reinvent itself

2. Its ability to undermine the self worth of believers

3. Its ability to spread fear and intellectual dependency

My neighbour and I were talking about the Christians that come around the neighbourhood each month. I guess I see about 6 of them each year. Most come in pairs, some come with their children. My neighbour is a Catholic. He suggested I don't like how they are always trying to get money from people. Well proof enough that there is no God perhaps; but one must concede that they do need money to survive, and I dare say the rich dislike parasitism as much as maligned community members who have lost confidence in religious institutions. His point however was that 'They mean well'. Being a Catholic, he looked at me like he saw a ghost. Fortunately he has long since repressed my atheism, so he is nice to me again. There was about a month when he avoided me.

The reason I suggest that Christians are not well-meaning is because people only look at Christians in a superficial sense. Christians of course vary in their degrees of moral rectitude. Most people would consider their moral righteousness in terms of their 'giving spirit', or their 'commitment to God'. I simply look at the extent to which I can have a reasonable conversation with them. The reason for taking this approach is because:

1. Money given was money taken from elsewhere. I'm not suggesting Christians don't earn money, but I do suggest those that give in the name of altruism are fakers seeking moral superiority. Anyone needing to peddle such influence usually has a guilty conscientious.

2. A person who is not reasonable is open to any action. A reasonable person can still be deceitful, but they have to rationalise, and this places them in a position in conflict.

Now I must confess that I am rather provocative with Christians because I now have the freedom of not being employed by such people. On the surface they are rather friendly and non-judgemental. But when placed in a position of conflict I have found that they tend to lose control. The problem is of course their lack of mental efficacy. The reason they lack mental efficacy is because from an early age their minds have been sabotaged. Until non-Christians who are simply the product of a bad education system, they have grown up with an anti-life (i.e. anti-reason) philosophy. That does not stop them trying to rationalise it.

This week I joined a local philosophy group. Unsurprisingly these people are all over 65yo Christians. Why people bother to take an interest in philosophy just prior to dying I will never understand. I learnt it from age 19yo, and if I knew its importance I would have studied it from 15yo. Mind you, in a world of contradictions, perhaps I needed more life experience before I could accept such 'provocative ideas'. Regardless over 65yo is too late.

The next problem is that they are reading a Christians interpretation or rationalisation of philosophy. They are reading 'Think' by Simon Blackburn. The problem with this book is that it is a rationalised interpretation of philosophy. It has intelligibly pieces of other philosophers like Schopenhauer. The implication is that Christians are not challenging themselves. They are getting the same sanitised version of the truth that they get at church. There can be utterly no respect for facts or reality if:

1. You do not challenge yourself by reading other material (giving you greater coherency or integrity)

2. Seek to resolve practical problems (giving you grounding)

Another example. My parents have never in the last 20 years of knowing me sought to understand my values. I have challenged them on a great many issues, and yet they are not honest enough to engage in a reasonable manner. It is the psychology of Christians. You might ask why I am lampooning Christians if they are not terribly Christian? The reason is that they come from Christian households and they went to Christian schools with the same destructive impact on their 'young minds', which was never corrected by having children. By the age of 10y0, when children start to question their parents, such parents undermine their children rather than embrace the facts of reality. Of course many children cannot espouse coherent philosophy. But don't under-estimate a child's capacity to identify a contradiction in their parents. Parents in the formative years will laugh off the 'honesty' of their kids. e.g. Daddy, why is mommies skin so wrinkled. When a child retorts to a parent, Christian or otherwise, and they don't have an efficacious mind, they are inclined to attack the child rather than deal with their own issues. The implication of this is:

1. The child is denied validation

2. The child is attacked or abused physically or mentally

This is why social problems persist in society; because people do not have sufficient respect for the facts of reality. They would prefer to undermine those who provoke or challenge us to think rather than actually solving personal problems. It ought however to be apparent that teaching faith (i.e. The opposite of reason, accepting without evidence) is going to sabotage a person's mind.

Why do they do it? Simply because they cannot confront their own shortcomings? People will say that their fear makes them selfish. But its not in your self-interest to sabotage your mind or anyone else's. This is why Christianity has been so insidious. It spreads the myth that values are subjective; so people self-indulgently don't seek to reconcile their values with facts. i.e. Objectivity. People only take an interest in a delinquent child from the age they start to commit crimes. The problem of course is that its much harder to solve problems at this level.

So you might ask yourself - how do you stop Christians rationalising that they are good people. Well, you withdraw your moral sanctioning of them. They cease to be 'well-intended' and you start treating them as intellectual cowards who would rather sabotage their minds, and their childrens, rather than confront (and resolve) the challenges in their life. The greater 'sin' is allowing another generation of people to be injured by religion. The other great travesty is the moral ambivalence that 'non-Christians' have, such that they were raised in Christian households unable to develop a coherent sense of values. They are insecure, but they know enough to know that there is something wrong with 'institutionalised religion'. Many would conclude that the problem is the people. i.e. Humans are evil by nature. But no one questions the underlying philosophical premises shaping these 'lost souls'. They were of course lost before they discovered religion. Religion appeals to vulnerable souls, but it does not help them. It gives comfort by deluding them into thinking that love or values are not rational, or conditional. They live on a succession of reduced expectations and rationalisations.

Those of you who are inclined to argue with Christians to save their souls, you are wasting your time if they are espousing baseless assertions. There is no way a rational argument will convert them. If you recognise that they are responding with intelligible arguments, then you have a chance. But bear in mind that they are still challenged by their social identity with the church. It might not be as strong as the entrenched 'cultural identity' of a cult, however it is nevertheless the basis of their security system. You would have to offer a comprehensive repudiation of religion, as I have attempted to do in these blog entries.

My thanks to those who give me feedback. Glad to know I am influencing people. I'm particularly pleased if people tell me why that appreciate the arguments I make, or what difference it has made to their thinking. The reason being I want to know people are 'really' getting it, and not rationalising.

When I was young I was so passionate about learning. I retain that attitude today. There is no fear of learning from any source. Science was no doubt a key, as it developed a respect for objective reality. If we can teach people to give primacy to facts, to have confidence in their cognitive ability, so they need not fear the world, then society will be a far better place.

-----------------------------------------------

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com