turq, for me it's not about God or no God or many gods. It's about optimal
development and optimal well being, not only for humans but for the whole
planet and the whole universe as well.
On Monday, February 17, 2014 10:33 AM, turquoi...@yahoo.com
turquoi...@yahoo.com wrote:
Not to overly offend those who feel that arguing the existence or non-existence
of a God is fun, but I really don't get the point. It's that not getting the
point that tempts me to follow up on my previous idiot posts today.
I consider ALL arguments idiotic. Those that involve matters of pure belief and
thus can NEVER be resolved...even more idiotic. And I tend to feel that way
whether I encounter Bible-thumping theists or Darwin-thumping atheists.
Zzzz. Big snooze. BORING, and a classic Waste Of Time.
People believe what they believe. And they're all *entitled* to their beliefs,
without being considered idiots for believing what they believe. Even a person
who fervently believes that the moon is made of green cheese is entitled to
that belief without being considered an idiot. Well, the moon-green-cheese
thang is kinda pushing the envelope of non-idiotic beliefs, but certainly those
who believe that there is a God are just as entitled to their beliefs as those
who believe that there isn't one. No idiocy involved.
Until they start trying to SELL their beliefs.
At that point, the concept of idiocy appears, at least for me.
I mean, WTF? What could be more *personal* than one's belief or non-belief in a
God? And what could be *less* open to debate or argument than something that
seemingly by definition can never be settled one way or another?
So when some people cross that line and try to *argue* for the supremacy or
rightness or truth of their particular belief, that's where I see idiocy
entering into the equation. What about them is so NEEDY that they feel the need
to proselytize their beliefs, and try to get others to share them?
The whole thing seems to me to be an exercise in either ego (trying to impose
one's own narcissistic views on others and thus win some imaginary battle)
or insecurity (feeling that if somehow they convert someone to their beliefs
it makes those beliefs stronger, and thus them better or stronger). VOLUMES
of these ego-fests and insecurity-fests have been written in human history, and
they've never accomplished a damned thing but to waste the time of those
writing them *and* those reading them. IMO, of course.
Wouldn't it be more...uh...civilized to, if the subject comes up, just state
what you believe and move on to more interesting and possibly more productive
subjects? What IS it about some people that they actually feel *threatened* by
someone believing something different than they do, or feel *threatened* by
someone failing to argue about it? I just don't get it.
All in all, I think one of the wisest commentaries on the whole subject was
offered in a cartoon I've posted here a few times, and will again below. That's
the bottom line, as I see it. End of story, end of argument.
