--------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Read V.M. de Malar's latest Column: |
| |
| Politics of Destruction |
| |
| http://www.goanet.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=416
|
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I find Mario's question below, to be pretty daft, loaded, and incredibly
uninformed about the mind-sets of atheists even if there were such a
collectivity called atheists with a definitive version of atheism, apart
from a shared generalised view of it.
In human concepts and the process of conceptualisation, there are infinite
shades of meanings and understandings invested in them by
individuals/people. Indeed, this is true for all religions too. If this were
not true, there would not be so many periodic schisms in all religions such
as Christianity and Islam.
Further, selectivity in belief aspects of any religion is normal even among
those who claim adherence to a given faith.
Many atheists have pondered long and hard over the former religious
affiliation acquired at an early age and before they could choose for
themselves. After much thought, atheists arrive at a view about life and
existence which is different from that of religious people and all that is
entailed in organised religion.
To suggest that there is some kind of laziness in the atheist (and even
imply inadequacy), is to display incredible ignorance. Firstly, it is easy
to accept the status quo but harder and more daunting to question received
wisdom implicit in all religions. Secondly, human/social morality has
preceded organised religion. In other words, religions are human inventions
which draw on prior human morality already in existence. Humans do not need
to be religious to be socially moral as atheists invariably point out.
Unfortunately, this is something that Mario seems unable to understand .
I want to suggest to Mario that, far from being lazy, atheists tend to be
actively engaged in considerable and prolonged mental thought and that, it
is easier to be lazy and accept religion instilled in early socialisation,
than to question it. Indeed, I want to suggest that, Mario has been
'captured' by his religion and is perhaps too afraid to question it--and
that, more than anything else, this could be envisioned as a mark of
laziness if one wants to pursue a thread posited by his own question.
I entirely respect religious people particularly if they have largely
overcome personal doubts about aspects of their faith and have been
sincerely persuaded by it. By the same token I am more than happy to respect
any sincere atheists and I wish Mario would do too.
Thirdly, I should suggest that Mario reads substantially about atheism
before raising vacuous questions. I am increasingly persuaded that he is
rather prone to do this. However, I may not go as far as Carmo's very recent
vivid (BB) Konkani depiction of Mario on Goanet!
Cornel
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mario Goveia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Goa's premiere mailing list, estb. 1994!"
<[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 4:40 PM
Subject: Re: [Goanet] Re: Atheism
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Read V.M. de Malar's latest Column:
| Politics of Destruction |
|
|
http://www.goanet.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=416
|
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--- "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Hi Jerry,
Lazy deists look to "a divine source" to make up
their moral code.
All morality is based on empathy.
Mario asks:
Is it more lazy to be held responsible and accountable
by a universal moral code required by membership in an
organized religion - including Buddhism and Jainism -
or is it more lazy to be an atheist who claims to
have made up his own moral code based on personal
convenience, is able to change it as and when it suits
him based on situational convenience, and is not
responsible or accountable to anyone, other than the
law in whatever society they live in?
