posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 06:52 AM
DANG! This got waaaay too long-winded. Sorry, guys.
Well, I was reading everything, but got tired after a page and a half, so hopefully I did't miss something that will make me look like a a fool.
So, first off, I am a die hard athiest, or at least I am that based on my own personal definition of "die hard." By this I mean that I am very
comfortable in my beliefs and am not actively searching for people to convert. An analogy I could use is a drunk man at AA (coincidently a religious
group) saying "we are just drunks around other people. We're alcholholics; we usually are content with just hurting ourselves."
Which leads to something Icon sais:
Does it really hurt you, the atheist, that another person finds comfort in believing a God?
No, in fact I feel the exact opposite. I would LOVE to believe. Blind devotion to any deity would be welcome. But it just doesn't feel right. I'ts
uncomfortable. And it isn't just because I haven't found the right one yet.
To answer the first questions in the post:
What would it matter to me if there was no God? Nothing. I've totally accepted it. What would it matter to me if Beelzebub walked through the door? I
wouldn't give it a second thought.
Would it matter if one side got total victory? No, because again, I think it is a moot point. And how can one side get victory when we're already on
the same team (with us being humans.)
Quick break to update you: My back hurts. OK, back to typing.
Icon also asked (paraphrased): "Why can't we (humans) get past the religious divide and just accept that we're all humans." Because we are very
very fragile sensitive creatures who are scared of being the best ever in the galaxy, universe, whatever. And believing in a higher power gives a
sense of comfort to many people.
Then the question is posed about if it would really hurt you to have someone who disagreed with you. It shouldn't, but then again, our own
uncomfortableness holds us back.
OK, now onto intelligent design/evolution.
First and foremost, these are really hard to compare to each other. It would be like saying "what's better: a book of poems by Kurt Vonnegut or a
telescope by Edwin Hubble?". They just can't be compared. This also leads into what some think is a double standard, which is why is it OK to teach
evolution but not natrual selection. First off, go back and re-read the start of this paragraph and you'll understand. And it basically comes down
to what can be proven (no comments about conspiracies, please. Hehe) and what has to be taken more ambiguous. Math, physics, geography, et al., they
all can be repeated and gotten the same result. No one else has ever been able to walk on water, build a 300cubit boat that held a huge number of
animals, immaculate conception, parting the red sea... you get the picture.
I have no problem with the bible. I actully own 3 of them. Maybe 2. I think I loaned one out. And I think the bible is a good story. A good,
non-fiction story. If you want to teach it, put it in some comparative writing class. It is also the best way to understand the topic before you
commit to anything.
Now, this last point might be just waaaay too based on my own personal view on things, but I gotta say that with the people I know who have died, I
would have a very, very difficult time accepting that this was what God wanted and it was his wish. When you "don't believe," you are more apt to
cope and begin to move on faster.
Thats enough now. I had another huge post on another thread and my browser ccrashed and I lost it all. woes me.