Re: Sklansky has it backwards
The reason why you are, for the most part wrong, is because you make an assumption about most non believers that is, I am almost sure, not the case. Namely that their non belief is a big deal to them. You think it is because you think most non believers have a lot at stake in their non belief. Serial sinners and anthropologists being two examples.
You don't seem to understand that the great majority of non believers got that way gradually and with no feelings of revelation as they read, studied, and thought about what makes the world tick. This is especially true if you include in the non believers camp those who are unsure about God in general, but simply believe strongly that any individual religion is a big underdog to be correct even if there is a God. That last statement requires an IQ of 45 to understand and even BluffThis reluctantly admits he can't refute it.
Bootom line: Non belief in a specific organized religion requires no psychological component, especially if the non belief is in the brain of someone versed in physics, logic and probability.
|