Subject: Re: The Religion of Self-Reliance In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, mangoe@mimsy.
From: AIN14922@merrimack.edu (Doug Linder)
Subject: Re: The Religion of Self-Reliance
In article <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org (Charley Wingate) writes:
> Doug Linder writes:
>> The reason your religion is harmful is because it promotes something other
>>than self-reliance. IMO, people should not need a god to lean on.
> And when you find that your self is not sufficient?
When I find that my self is not sufficient, I strive to improve, not
whimper to the stars that I need some help. Sometimes I ask one of my friends
for assistance. They are tangible. I, unlike you, have the sheer satisfaction
of looking upon something I have done successfully and well, and knowing that I
did it entirely myself, with no assitance from supernatural agencies.
Conversely, when something I do turns out poorly, I have only myself to blame,
and this helps me improve myself by learning and not making the same mistake
twice. Maybe YOUR "self" is not sufficient, buddy, but don't imply that I
share your failings.
> Your feelings are quite irrelevant, not to mention a bit egocentric. The
> world is as it is, and as it is, self-reliance is largely a pipe-dream.
"Irrelevant?" Are you just at a loss for words here? Irrelevant to what?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this group is titled talk.religion.misc, n'est-ce
pas? My comments, having to do with religion, are therefore "relevant."
Perhaps I am a bit "egocentric," but I don't see it as a negative thing - only
being directed towards self-improvement rather than groveling to an imaginary
being. I gave up "imaginary friends" when I was five. Did you? I believe
that your attitude is very defeatist. Instead of saying "I can't do it without
god," why don't you try? You might be surprised what you can do all by
yourself. I believe in the supremacy of the human being - "A mighty god is a
living man!" If you're too chicken to believe in yourself, don't blame me.
> On the other hand, I see no wars between Lutherans and Methodists. Or
> between Baptodisterians Bing Buddhists, for that matter.
Big deal. This does not disprove my assrtion that religions give men yet
another articficial reason to divide themselves. Do you deny that if there
were no christians or moslems there would be no war in the mideast? Besides,
how many people know what a "Baptodisterian" is or what they are doing? Here
you are comitting the fallacy of Converse Accident: by presenting one or two
cases, generalizing that this is true for all cases. Not so, mon frere.
>> Religion also is harmful to children. If you are religious, then at least
>>spare your children nazistic indoctrination until they are old enough to be
>>not quite as impressionable.
> Obviously, this means that you are going to spare your children the
> naturalistic/ideological cant to are feeding us about religion, and are not
> going to object when half of them become Roman Catholics.
I'm not sure what you are attempting to say here. I am going to spare my
children any superstitions at all, and that includes gods of all shapes and
sizes. However, I am not necessarily going to teach Atheism, either - I am
just going to keep them away from any thought about religion at all until they
are old enough to reasonably analyze it. I believe that if anyone
reasonably and impartially analyzes religion, without the psychological bias
so often imparted in childhood, they will reject it. If you think that by
saying "when" one of my children becomes roman catholic (yicch!) you are
assuming that it will happen, you are sadly mistaken. You cannot presuppose
that. If, by some fluke, one of them becomes a roman catholic (yicch!) I might
not approve, but I would not stop them, either, as long as I felt they had
give due consideration to every side of the matter and weren't just the usual
brainwash cases. I am not an ogre, and unlike most religionists, I will not
force ANY belief system on my children (apart from standard morals). I will
merely be available if they wish to discuss these things.
>>If your religion is so obviously the correct one, then wouldn't the child see
>>it just as well when he/she is 18 than 3?
> "Obviously" is your word; I am not so foolish.
Then I rephrase my question. Since you seem to believe that your religion is
the best one (otherwise you presumably wouldn't be a part of it), then
shouldn't you give your children enough credit for intelligence to assume that
they will come to the same conclusions concerning religion as you? You avoided
my question: is your religion so weak that it needs the impressionable mind of
a child to begin with, or can it stand up to to scrutiny of a reasoning adult?
Douglas D. Linder, Merrimack College, N. Andover, MA
Atheist and proud.
I speak & think for myself. I don't care what Merrimack thinks.
"By the cold and religious we were taken in hand -
shown how to feel good, and told to feel bad."
- Roger Waters
E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank