repost

i replied to something WAAAY down on the page. i took a lot of time to think about it and type it out, but it is going to get overlooked.


the post i replied to (by ripdog):

'To follow along blindly is the definition of ignorance. Your analogy about the fetus choosing gills instead of lungs is totally fallacious . A fetus does not get to choose what features it may inherit(I would have chosen the enormous penis gene). My parents sent me to Catholic schools, brought me to church every Sunday, and taught me right from wrong. I choose to believe that man made God, not the other way around. So you won't find me in church every Sunday. I believe in God at least as much as I believe in Santa Claus, The Easter Bunny, or The Tooth Fairy. To me, religion is a crutch and a cop out. It's a way for mankind to justify the horrors we perpetrate on others, without having to accept responsibility for our actions.


As for passing on the gills--assuming gills are homozygous recessive, that means the gilled fetus has the genotype aa. If it mates with another aa, there is a 100% chance that it will pass on its gills. If the mate is heterozygous (Aa), there is a 50% chance to pass on gills, and if the mate is homozygous dominant (AA), there is a no chance that it could pass on its gills to the next generation. Future generations from the homodominant and homorecessive could wind up with gilled offspring. There's a freakshow that I'd pay to see.


As for being able to form solid opinions and reasons--obviously we are far from perfect. I don't immediately assume that the church knows best, though. The churches archaic views on homosexuality clash with my own sense of right and wrong. Same thing with their refusal to allow female priests. But then what do I know? I'm just a savage, right? Oh, Brave New World! '


my post in response: 'and you follow that anti-religious sentiment blindly, as axiomatic, and with as much if not more faith than a lot of people participating in organized religion today. so how does that make you better? how does that NOT qualify as a religion of its own? we have this completely misguided sentiment in intellectual communities that any sort of religion or god is a cop out because *I* didn't personally come up with the idea, somebody else did, and to believe it would be to allow someone else to think for me, and dictate what i think, do, believe, say, feel, etc. all simply based on the notion that thinking for ourselves is good. maybe it is, but that doesn't mean we have to reject EVERYTHING that has come before. there comes a point where the deconstruction can go on no longer, and we must rebuild or we become stagnant and stale. there is a point where we take all the questioning that has gone on, look at the answers and decide where to go from there. questioning things and analyzing them is great, i wouldn't argue against that. but if that's all you do, you're nothing but a reactionary, which in itself is just another form of following blindly. it is still a direction that is determined by outside influences. until you decide on a direction to go and push forth, and explore, and rebuild, you are doing nothing more than continually responding and reacting. are you saying im an idiot because i believe in god? that all the time ive spent thinking about the subject has been a waste? that i am somehow weak because i believe? kind of a cop-out approach to the idea, don't you think? you haven't asked me anything about how or why i believe. unless i've read your posts wrong (which maybe i did, since im an idiot) you assume that im an idiot because i believe without exploring the idea further. seems kind of close-minded and shallow, don't you think? '

You're absolutely correct. I was replying to my nemesis in this particular post, not bothering to point out the positive aspects of religion. To take the position that all religious people are idiots would certainly make me a narrow minded fool. When I read your response to a different post below, I told you that I was puzzled by your reaction to it. I wasn't. I guessed that you were offended by my anti-religion/anti-God post, as you had every right to be, and were reacting to that.


I look back at history and see that mankind has used religion as an excuse to wage bloody wars and to discriminate against others. That way, when we have to face ourselves in the mirror, we can blame God. That is a cop out. Does it apply to anyone who chooses to practice religion? Absolutely not. I object to the mis-use of religion. In its pure form, I think religion is good. Who would argue that the Ten Commandments are evil? Not me.


I think that religion IS a crutch. It's what you choose to do with that crutch that I question. Do you use it to help guide yourself along? Good. Do you use it to justify the status quo? Bad. That is the portion of religion that I despise. In my original post I failed to bring that point up.


I don't summarily dismiss every ideology of every religion. Perhaps the ideologies are what "God" really is. If that is true, then maybe I do believe in God. I don't believe that there is some omnipotent deity quietly orchestrating what takes place on earth. Has anyone flashed to that scene in Pulp Fiction where Travolta and Jackson are discussing why they survived the shootout?


Please accept my apology for lumping everyone who chooses to believe in God into one narrow category. The past few weeks on this forum have been charged with hateful posts, and I took part in them. I'm just embarassed that it took so long for me to wash my hands of it.

if by 'crutch' you mean 'tool', well, i suppose that case could be argued as such. i will agree that religious endeavors in our history have not always been beyond reproach. for that i am sorry, and it is always a problem with good ideas that some people want to use them for something they should not be used for. but i think that god and religion are more than just tools. faith is not merely a safety net. the political and social aspects of 'religion' and faith are only the face that society sees. unfortunately, society rarely gets to see the rest. there is a lot of good happening in religion and faith. a lot of social reform (and revival if you will) happening. the role of the church in our contemporary society is still being defined, and has a lot of ground left to cover. being privy to all this, and seeing and understanding the picture of all this from where i stand makes it hard to hear religion called a crutch(a negatively connotated idea in a majority of its figurative uses) and dismissed as something a bunch of weak-willed, morally-confused morons need to help them get along in their lives while the rest of humanity has gone beyond its need for anything like that. this sentiment is becoming status quo in contemporary society, and it is dangerous.


i understand that you were responding to eLROY in this post. things have been blown way out of proportion here lately on all sides. i still felt the need to respond.