Is religion depressing mankind?

[humble_in_doubt]

You’re lucky those philosophers are all dead. They’d box your ears, the atheists and the theists alike.

My philosophy professor in college was an atheist, too, and I know he’d box your ears, too, for being a lazy thinker. Nothing drove him bananas like flippant atheists with lazy intellects who acted like they knew everything but couldn’t defend their way out of a wet paper bag. Whether you know it or not, you are treading dangerously close to that. He would have had your hide by now, I know that.

I don’t want to see you hurt. Get in the ring, or get out of the ring, but quit throwing haymakers and then protesting that you were never looking for a fight. That kind of protest will not save you, when you’ve stirred up a hive of bees…and by bees, I mean the people who take their philosophy seriously.

As for me being a lazy thinker … you speak in these platidudes yet provide not a single concrete example of how I’m being a lazy thinker (fair to say that qualifies as a fallacy ad homimen). I’ve been in the ring here, explaining the logic behind my views, and rather than logical rebuttals I keep getting junk like this? At anyrate you asked for an argument, so then without further ado let me begin.

I say you have an alleged god who performed all these profound miracles – but the only witnesses are long dead ancient men. We’re expected to trust the veracity of their reports when this all powerful god hasn’t even been able to provide us with a single original manuscript of his dictation. Interestingly just as the age of reason emerged and mankind began quanfitying natural phenomena through the prism of science god left the stage of human history. Instead of splitting oceans, turning rivers into blood, or raising men from the dead contemporary reports of miracles amount to stuff like 67 out of roughly 300 million people who have visited the Catholic shrine in Lourdes France recovering from their illnesses (and of course this infantesimal number, amounting to 1 in every 3 million visitors to Lourdes, is attributed to divine intervention). Interestingly before 1914 there were 57 allegedly verified miracles per year at Lourdes, after 1914 only 1.3 per year.

Keep in mind roughly 5 million people visit Lourdes each year. Out of that 1.3 are cured?

Of course we know people with bad, even terminal or crippling illnesses, recover all the time (in some cases for unknown or extraordinary reasons, and this phenomena isn’t limited to the religious). Essentially what the CC does is takes a normal statistical occurrence, calls it a miracle for its own purposes, and then its minions get angry when logical men question this nonsense. It exploits the fact that science hasn’t yet fully quantified the relationship between physical & psychological health. Of course eventually science will understand this relationship, and the CC (along with its progeny) will have to invent a new marketing gimick.

Is it a coincedence that no one is running around these days splitting oceans, turning sticks into snakes, rivers into blood, and all the rest? Or is it more logical to think that since we understand the causation behind events like earth quakes, floods, eclipses, etc. (that our ancient predecessors attributed to a divine power) we don’t see any divine power manifesting itself on earth because there never was one in the first place? So then isn’t it true that the ancients attributed things they couldn’t understand to a god or gods, and when we attribute extraordinary events (we cannot “yet” explain) to a divine power – we’re engaging in the same folly? Of course this is true!

I look forward to having you explain to me why apples are really oranges & why I must be so misguided and off track. Oh btw – I’m a lawyer not a philosopher. Frankly I find most philosophers to be a waste of space

 

[yellowbicycle]

That’s the thing – the context must be understood. He’s talking about how we feel deep down under these two opposing circumstances. For us it always feels good when our sense of power is enhanced.

You have to remember here, what power means to each of us is subjective. Nietzsche is not defining power in terms of brute force. Enhanced power might be getting a promotion at work into a leadership position, getting approved for a mortgage and buying your dream home, or whatever. Now that it’s put in context doesn’t it truly feel good when power is enhanced and resistence is overcome? You’ve been working hard for years to get that promotion, saving for years and working hard at improving your credit score to buy that dream house, now resistence is overcome, your power is enhanced, this day runs a close third to the day your child was born and your wedding day. Applause is thundering your mind – and you remember something you read back in your second year of college & say to yourself, damn, Nietzsche was right after all. This really does feel great!

Again, it’s been a while since I’ve read any Nietzsche, and I don’t remember this particular quote, so I’m afraid I’m going to have to ask for more clarification here. (though I thank you for what you’ve given me so far )
Does it feel good to get a promotion? Yes, good, but not great. With promotions come longer hours and more stress. I guess I’m having difficulty understanding how a promotion at work would mean more power. With the promotions that I’ve had particularly to management level, it meant that I had MORE people to answer to - those above and those below and in that sense my autonomy, and any sense of power was diminished. Telling people to do what other people have told you to tell them to do is, at least in my experience, a terribly powerless situation to be in.
And if I’m understanding you correctly, something like the birth of a child would make me feel powerful? How so? With the birth of my children, and ever since then, I actually feel even MORE vulnerable. Everything I love is wrapped up into these two little people who don’t even have enough sense not to put rocks in their mouth. How could that make me feel more powerful?
The wedding day is sort of the same story. My husband has enough sense not to put rocks in his mouth (most days ) but, again, my heart is wrapped in someone who isn’t me - that makes me vulnerable.
So, you see, in my mind, it feels good every time my sense of power has diminished.
You see what I’m saying?
I recall reading him in college or high school, I don’t remember exactly, and enjoying his work greatly - it all made sense then. I know I must just be missing Nietzsche’s point still.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Again, it’s been a while since I’ve read any Nietzsche, and I don’t remember this particular quote, so I’m afraid I’m going to have to ask for more clarification here. (though I thank you for what you’ve given me so far )
Does it feel good to get a promotion? Yes, good, but not great. With promotions come longer hours and more stress. I guess I’m having difficulty understanding how a promotion at work would mean more power. With the promotions that I’ve had particularly to management level, it meant that I had MORE people to answer to - those above and those below and in that sense my autonomy, and any sense of power was diminished. Telling people to do what other people have told you to tell them to do is, at least in my experience, a terribly powerless situation to be in.

Indeed indeed … but what drove you initially to seek that promotion? You perceived that your were overcoming resistance and would enhance your power. In a sense you did – but in another sense you obviously didn’t. Now your looking at your new boss (two steps higher on the ladder than you were before you were promoted) and you might think – gee he’s the real guy with the power, so you continue to try and overcome resistance and enhance your power (but now by chasing his job, or perhaps striking out on your own and starting a small business, or whatever).

Same with the so called American dream of that big house with a white picket fence and nice yard (of course with the cute dog and 2.5 kids … how does one have half a child anyway ). Now you have mortgage payments, property taxes, school taxes, water and sewage bills, etc. Not as easy as renting is it? Hence that power we sought and achieved only compels us to seek more power yet.

Nietzsche wasn’t necessarily selling the merits of this process, his was an observation. This is the human condition. To us enhancing power is good (as a general rule). Even if in retrospect we sometimes regret our choice of seeking more power – we still (sometimes subconsciously) seek even more power. We’re continually trying to climb the mountain.

Nietzsche would respond to those who would object to this condition by saying rather than allowing ourselves to be tugged along in this constant cycle of seeking power, attaining it, regretting we attained it, but then seeking more power, attaining more power but regretting it still again … we should embrace our will to power and understand our true condition. We won’t have any luck denying ourselves, because no matter how hard we try we cannot break the cycle of our will to power (this is why communism is such an unnatural state for humans). If, however, we acknowledge this & embrace who we truly are – we will not only be more successful but also happier.

Obviously I’m summarizing this quite a bit (and there’s much more to his philosophy); but on these sort of points I think Nietzsche was very solid.

And if I’m understanding you correctly, something like the birth of a child would make me feel powerful? How so? With the birth of my children, and ever since then, I actually feel even MORE vulnerable. Everything I love is wrapped up into these two little people who don’t even have enough sense not to put rocks in their mouth. How could that make me feel more powerful?

The wedding day is sort of the same story. My husband has enough sense not to put rocks in his mouth (most days ) but, again, my heart is wrapped in someone who isn’t me - that makes me vulnerable.

No no … I used bringing a child into the world and our wedding day as examples of happy events in our lives (reread my original post on this subject), I did not posit these are examples of our will to power (though I’m not sure – it’s also been many years since I’ve studied Nietzsche in depth … even though I did memorize the key points of his philosophy pretty well).

So, you see, in my mind, it feels good every time my sense of power has diminished.

You see what I’m saying?

This is only how it seems, but I agree with Nietzsche that your statement here is not representative of the true human condition. In fact what we in many cases view as power diminishing is actually power enhancing.

I recall reading him in college or high school, I don’t remember exactly, and enjoying his work greatly - it all made sense then. I know I must just be missing Nietzsche’s point still.

He’s hard to read no doubt.

 

[KyivAndrew]

humble in doubt wrote: “Christians act as if the god of Judaism was the first law giver. However, history bears out the truth … and this is obviously a misconception. From Hammurabi to Anglo-American common law … the field of law has been evolving ever since the cave men first figured out how to produce fire (and I’m sure even earlier).
So law preexisted religion, and it will outlive religion.”

humble in doubt, when you write blanket statements like this, you might appear neither humble nor in doubt. Hammurabi? O.K. let’s assume that the start date of modern law, as you imply, is the Code of Hammurabi which predates modern religion, which I believe is what you are trying to say. Well, what came first in history: Hammurabi’s Code or the Great Pyramids of Giza and the religion of Osiris?

O.K., you say, law has been around since cave men produced fire. I will tell you, you will find in history, that the most ancient burials of humans found on earth contain such familiar “religious” funeral rites as the laying of flowers on the deceased long before anyone found the Bill of Rights in excavation.

I joined this forum to learn and not insult (at least try not to) and, from the amount of posts you’ve been able to produce, it seems like I will not be able to keep up with your posts, but I check in and out, or at least try.

You stated on this thread that you had never read C.S. Lewis’ Screwtape Letters.

That kind of surprised me because you are being very vigorous in attacking what you perceive as modern religion’s failure to explain suffering. Tell me: What exactly have you read on Christian explanations on suffering. I mean we just finished a thread on that subject down below in philosophy. Have you read C.S. Lewis and The Problem of Pain. Have you read anything concrete from Christian Apologetics on the meaning of suffering? In order to dismiss the Christian Tradition so quickly and its inadequacy in explaining suffering, what exactly have you read to back up such a claim? Malcolm Muggeridge on Jesus or Mother Teresa? It could even be T.S. Eliot’s poetry; I don’t care. I’m just very much interested in what you have specifically read that makes you qualified to pronounce on Christianity’s failure to explain suffering, apart from personal experience or hearsay.

Miracles? Everyday is a miracle, humble. Read the philosopher Mortimer Adler’s: “How to Think About God: A Guide for the 20th-Century Pagan” and you might realize that every day is a miracle in and of itself (it’s called exnihilation).

I am more than willing to concede I am wrong if I made a mistake. May God Bless you.

p.s. from the amount you post, I am more than certain I will not make any timely responses.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

You stated on this thread that you had never read C.S. Lewis’ Screwtape Letters.

That kind of surprised me because you are being very vigorous in attacking what you perceive as modern religion’s failure to explain suffering. Tell me: What exactly have you read on Christian explanations on suffering. I mean we just finished a thread on that subject down below in philosophy. Have you read C.S. Lewis and The Problem of Pain. Have you read anything concrete from Christian Apologetics on the meaning of suffering? In order to dismiss the Christian Tradition so quickly and its inadequacy in explaining suffering, what exactly have you read to back up such a claim? Malcolm Muggeridge on Jesus or Mother Teresa? It could even be T.S. Eliot’s poetry; I don’t care. I’m just very much interested in what you have specifically read that makes you qualified to pronounce on Christianity’s failure to explain suffering, apart from personal experience or hearsay.

Miracles? Everyday is a miracle, humble. Read the philosopher Mortimer Adler’s: “How to Think About God: A Guide for the 20th-Century Pagan” and you might realize that every day is a miracle in and of itself (it’s called exnihilation).

I am more than willing to concede I am wrong if I made a mistake. May God Bless you.

p.s. from the amount you post, I am more than certain I will not make any timely responses.

OK you make some fair points … but my overarching point is that religion is man’s attempt to make sense out of life. It was an outgrowth of our lack of answers for questions like why do we die, why are we here, why pain, etc. Law is an outgrowth of our intellectual evolution and exceeding efficiency in survival.

At any rate for me the problem of pain and suffering had little to do with my march away from religion (in fact it had nothing to do with it). What I know is simply this … the Judeo-Christian god allegedly did all these profound things, but all of them before the age of reason. Interestingly just as man began quantifying things using science these profound and obvious miracles (splitting seas, turning rivers into blood, raising the dead, and so on) utterly ceased. Of course I believe the reason for this is very simple. The ancients explained the unexplainable in supernatural ways. For instance our ancient ancestors didn’t know why earth quakes or solar eclipses occurred so they attributed these events to manifestations of divine power. Today we know why these things happen so we no longer say things like god caused the hurricane or earth quake (at least logical religious people won’t make these sort of absurd assertions).

There are still things we can’t explain (for instance we know little about our own brain). So the few things that remain a mystery religion still uses to point to the existence of a god … essentially repeating the folly of our ancestors. This is the sort of logic that compelled me away from faith. As for suffering and all the rest, when I was Christian I never had a problem harmonizing wickedness or suffering with religion (albeit I find Calvinism the most useful in this regard from a logical perspective … but that’s another story I suppose).

 

[KyivAndrew]

Thanks for the reply humble; boy do you sleep?

I can only add from my own end something the late Malcom Muggeridge (an atheist socialist who became a devout Roman Catholic the more he learned of life) noticed. He stated and, perhaps it is quite true, that mid-level scientists can happily go through life as agnostics and atheists with full confidence and never fret from putting religious people down. It was only the top-tier physicists, scientists, those who could just glimpse what an incredible Creation this Universe is that remained believers in God - Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton and others - the geniuses in other words; not the med. student l went to school with who, having absolutely no knowledge of philosophy, would state matter-of-fact “there is no god.”

Some scientists, physicists would even say they see the beauty and intricacies in creation (the human eye for example) as evidence of God even though their reason can explain how the eye functions and for what purpose.

Still other scientists, in trying to explain the stunningly uncertain laws behind certain areas of quantum mechanics, or even physicists in their encounters with dark matter and string theory, realize that there is a purpose and wonderment and a “music” in Creation beyond comprehension. Reason and Faith are not mutually exclusive, in fact many of the times they affirm one another. You praise reason highly, but wasn’t it Kant who warned of the limits of reason.

Creative Biology as a theory, for me, will never be able to explain Love, Vicarious Suffering, Beauty, etc. We are human beings and not animals. We have souls. There is a difference in kind and not degree between us and the animals. No animal could ever write Shakespeare. So we are unique. How and why did this happen?

It is my experience in reading history that those regimes that put their full trust in human reason, like the Communists, were the most brutal regimes humanity ever experienced. The atheist regimes of the 20th Century: the Soviet Union, Red China, and racist Nazi Germany (Hitler was some sort of pagan who believed his godless racial ideas to be scientific) were the ones responsible for the greatest mass deaths EVER - over 100 million people in the 20th Century.

The Communists believed that there was no god, none, but that historical study showed that there were perfectly reasonable immutable laws of history: the class struggle, dialectical materialism, and the teleology of a classless society. There was no room for religion in society so the Party became the lone moral lodestar for Communist Law. They believed they had reason on their side, and that the priests and their priestly morality were sentimentalists and backwards.

The most intelligent Communist, Nikolas Bukharin, wrote a work entitled the ABCs of Communism on Communist Morality basically stating that what the Vanguard of the Party decides is moral, is moral. Thus, in the 1930s, when Stalin turned on Bukharin, Bukharin had no recourse in his torture cell in the Lubyanka to an independent morality but had to accept as a good Bolshevik that the Party was right and that he must die, by his own logic. These true-believers, in killing off God, believed they had invented a truly scientific society governed not by superstition but reason. What a complete monstrous failure!

I believe Chesterton was right when he said that the alternative to belief in God is not belief in Nothing, but, something much worse, belief in Anything. New Age, crystals, UFOs, Bigfoot, the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, you name it. When God is killed in society, movements like communism and nazism quickly appear because, not believing in the Christian belief of the Fall of Man, they see no reason why we humans cannot by nature be continually perfected, until we create paradise on earth. (Eric Voegelin called this “immanentizing the eschaton”.) Christianity would never allow this because it knows human nature in its fallen state has basically not changed much since creation.

You state that: “Law is an outgrowth of our intellectual evolution and exceeding efficiency in survival”. O.K. but how would that synch with the Nazi lawyer and judge Freisler who believed he was fulfilling reasonable racial laws in the Nazi Peoples’ Court. Or what about the legally-trained Communist Prosecutor Vyshinsky who too, in sending millions to their death, believed he was executing the peoples’ laws and Soviet Constituion which were based on reason and not silly, superstitious religion. The Law is both Form and Substance. As one trained in Ango-Saxon law, it might be difficult for the Westerner to believe there exist other states of law which also believe in perfect reason but are absolutely immoral.

The Law, as a subject, can be pretty amorphous as to how moral it is when it relies merely on human reason (the Soviet and Nazi lawyers believed their laws reasonable too). On what grounds could you convince them they were wrong morally, without resorting to Christian/religious morality. The point I’m making is reason has its limitations.

I’m just interested where you personally believe morality comes from. There can be immoral laws too. Legal statutes are like open vessels waiting to be filled. How can you humble_in_doubt “reason” with a Communist or Nazi lawyer that their laws are wrong. What is the foundation of your morality without God? Reason by itself cannot give morality to law, as we can see from history. Human reason depends on human reason, and the examples of Communism surely show the limits of human reason. What is the provenance of your morality humble_in_doubt? Or do you discount morality altogether, but how could you? What as a human being who does not believe in God provides you with guidance on morality?

Anyway, don’t you sleep? I should be in bed now! God Bless!

 

[KyivAndrew]

Oh hours late but one correction: where I said “creative biology”, I meant to say “evolutionary biology”. mea culpa

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Thanks for the reply humble; boy do you sleep?

I can only add from my own end something the late Malcom Muggeridge (an atheist socialist who became a devout Roman Catholic the more he learned of life) noticed. He stated and, perhaps it is quite true, that mid-level scientists can happily go through life as agnostics and atheists with full confidence and never fret from putting religious people down. It was only the top-tier physicists, scientists, those who could just glimpse what an incredible Creation this Universe is that remained believers in God - Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton and others - the geniuses in other words; not the med. student l went to school with who, having absolutely no knowledge of philosophy, would state matter-of-fact “there is no god.”

Unfortunately his observation was erroneous because Einstein was not a religious man (indeed he expressly stated he lacked belief in a god who answers prayer, or in a god who is involved in the affairs of mankind). In other words Einstein might not have been an atheist per se (although that’s debatable I suppose) but he certainly held no quantifiable religious belief.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Still other scientists, in trying to explain the stunningly uncertain laws behind certain areas of quantum mechanics, or even physicists in their encounters with dark matter and string theory, realize that there is a purpose and wonderment and a “music” in Creation beyond comprehension. Reason and Faith are not mutually exclusive, in fact many of the times they affirm one another. You praise reason highly, but wasn’t it Kant who warned of the limits of reason.

Creative Biology as a theory, for me, will never be able to explain Love, Vicarious Suffering, Beauty, etc. We are human beings and not animals. We have souls. There is a difference in kind and not degree between us and the animals. No animal could ever write Shakespeare. So we are unique. How and why did this happen?

Sorry I gave such short thrift to your post earlier (I was pressed for time). However, whether or not some scientists are theists or not isn’t the question (though I would dispute the fact that top tier scientists are more prone to theism – since it’s simply not true … I’ve read up on most of the really big names in physics today, and virtually none are theists). This may have been true in the 17th, 18th, or 19th centuries but no longer.

At anyrate one observation I’m making here is that you’re not dealing with the substantive objection I raised. Just because a physicist finds poetic music in string theory (or whatever) doesn’t mean anything. My basis for rejecting religion is logic, not physics.

I say again we’re told stories of a god who tore apart oceans, walked on water, turned rivers into blood, destroyed cities, flooded the earth, raised men from death, etc. yet god no longer does any of these things today.

The caveat is these profound sort of miracles stopped when we (mankind) began understanding why those sort of events occur. This logic, as simple as it may be, is decisive. If it were any other topic any reasonable person would agree with my logic whole heartedly.

With regard to communism – you have to remember communism compelled atheism, not the other way around. Marx himself wasn’t bothered by theism per se, but rather viewed religion as something the ruling class uses as a tool to allay discontent among the masses (and something that mitigates the risk of rebellion among peasants). Indeed atheism and communism have nothing in common. If you read the reall big atheist philosophers (like Nietzsche) you will find a depiction of human nature that is wholly inconsistent with communism.

If you want an accurate picture of what a secular country, where logic and kindness is the ruley, looks like – you need only look to Scandinavia. Indeed the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, and Finland are rated the “worlds happiest countries” (see link here) … all secular countries where very few respondents report belief in a god, and virtually none in any particular religion (albeit Lutheranism or Catholicism still tends to be the state religion in these countries). Rounding off the top of the list, Canada & New Zealand (both pretty secular countries). Switzerland and Belgium also placed high (so you can say you have at least one fairly religious country that reports being really happy … but most of the happiest nations on earth are almost completely irrelegious).

So what does this say about religion … not a thing right? We have proof that religion is NOT a factor in personal happiness or national success. Leaving all the poetic and sophistic musings aside, the only way we can really evaluate the veracity of religion is through logic.

If I invent a religion, and that religion holds that stars are really giant candles in the sky … that might very well work in a primitive society – that is until we invent telescopes that can see the stars and confirm they’re not giant candles. At anyrate telescopes aren’t invented yet, so not only do I postulate stars are giant candles but I also attribute every natural phenomena I can think of to a god. Earth quakes, rain storms, thunder, volcanoes, hurricanes, etc. I tell people these events are all the wrath of a god who only talks to me & they better listen to me or else. I get their attention & they listen to me. We have churches built, spread our religion all over our region, create a very in depth doctrine that tries to anticipate objections to my new religion, etc. Then one day the telescope is invented and we can see plain as day that stars are not giant candles. Of course the founder of the candle religion is long dead (died thousands of years ago, even though his religion is now hundreds of millions of people strong). The advent of the telescope should destroy the candle religion, but there’s tens of thousands of clergy men in the candle religion who bet their lives on this religion. Here they are middle aged (or old) and their entire livelihood is at risk … so they do everything they can to keep the candle religion alive.

This is my logic.

 

[TNKnight]

I will not attempt to provide a logical argument or physical evidence to counter your statements. All I have to say is that this is why it is called a “Faith”. We believe, even though we have not seen. I can say that I have seen God’s hand in my life on numerous occasions. I have experienced God’s love and mercy. I was depressed while I was living life on my own terms, but have experienced great joy and satisfaction since I resumed the active practice of the Catholic faith.

I wish you well and will pray for you.

 

[jam070406]

I can say I’ve gone through a similar situation as TNKnight.

humble,
have you heard of Fr. Zlatko Sudac? He was born in 1971. He has gifts and has performed miracles. Much like Padre Pio.

stjeromecroatian.org/eng/frsudac.html

 

[jam070406]

p.s.
humble, you need to clean out your inbox. You can’t receive any more PM’s till you do.

peace.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

I can say I’ve gone through a similar situation as TNKnight.

humble,
have you heard of Fr. Zlatko Sudac? He was born in 1971. He has gifts and has performed miracles. Much like Padre Pio.

stjeromecroatian.org/eng/frsudac.html

St. Francis (my patron saint) was the first to suffer stigmata’s (as the priest you reference claims). Here’s what modern doctors say about this issue:

*From the records of St. Francis’ physical ailments and symptoms modern doctors believe they know what health problems plagued the holy man. Doctors believe that he had an eye ailment known as trachoma, but also had quartan malaria. Quartan malaria causes the liver, spleen, and stomach to be infected causing the victim intense pain. One complication of quartan malaria occasionally seen around Francis’ time period is known as purpura. Purpura is a purple hemorrhage of blood into the skin. Purpuras usually occur symmetrically, which means each hand and foot would have been affected equally. If this were the case of St. Francis he would have been afflicted by ecchymoses, an exceedingly large purpura. *

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stigmata

The article also cites the fact that no cases of stigmata’s were reported prior to the 13th century (when the depiction of the crucified Jesus in Western Christendom emphasized his humanity). These incidents also coincide with periods where the issue of authority loomed large in the church.

I don’t what these type of things are caused by … but I do know what they’re not caused by. However, out of respect I don’t want to speculate further.

 

[liquidpele]

This thread was entertaining, so I will throw out my opinion.

Religion is not depressing mankind any more than it helps it. People use it as a social construct, and at the end of the day use what they need and do what they need to do to get by and make themselves happy. In short, I am a firm believer that a society defines its religion, and not the other way around.

 

[Ceil-1]

The stigmatists are evaluated based on whether or not they develop infection/permanent tissue damage. Faith is an internal knowledge. You have not been given the light, or, more likely, have ignored it. Now, you rationalize your position with endless excuses. Pardon me if I am not impressed.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

The stigmatists are evaluated based on whether or not they develop infection/permanent tissue damage. Faith is an internal knowledge. You have not been given the light, or, more likely, have ignored it. Now, you rationalize your position with endless excuses. Pardon me if I am not impressed.

So if a guy invents a fictitious character and demands people believe in and worship that character. Then a movement of people who believe in this fictitious character is born. As time goes on all sorts of different sub-movements form. But some don’t believe in the fictitious character because they aren’t fooled & they understand it’s a fictitious character. Whose more logical? Whose the one “making excuses”? Why should the unbelievers worry about whether or not the believers are “impressed” or not?

The only reason we would worry a little bit is to ensure theocracy and zealotry remains checked.