Bliss

ignorance is bliss

But that requires a below average IQ, as it means you can’t comprehend the world around you and the implications. It’s why the smarter you are, the less happy you can be.

Perhaps this is the heart of the battle between godbots and everyone else.

Few people will admit to being ignorant, so have to convince themselves that they have special knowledge (usually referred to as “revealed knowledge” – because they aren’t putting effort into actually learning and educating themselves, they have to claim knowledge from somewhere)

So, as possessors of revealed knowledge, they then insist that everyone who doesn’t share that “revealed” knowledge are the ignorant ones.

And ignore that if the knowledge that was revealed, would then be known by everyone. So the comeback is that you must accept Jesus and a whole store of “knowledge” will magically download into your brain

The response to this then is that free will isn’t possible despite the godbots insisting that we have it – of course, only so long as we don’t use it to not believe in the skydaddy.

So, in a way we’re being treated equal – godbots embrace revealed knowledge and consider that an expression of free will, but those of us who use our free will to embrace actual knowledge

Somehow have it wrong, because we reject the revealed knowledge that we could have if we gave up our free will.

Which shows that free will, like a free lunch, isn’t free

Giving up your free will costs your brain and using your free will costs your “soul”

On the balance, I’d rather have a brain in my head than two souls on a cloud.

why beleive

Why do so many people believe in God if there isn’t one?

Because people who get to be powerful enough to run the religion ensure that not being in the religion means death or social exile.

This is why any group that a religion doesn’t like is characterized as immoral, criminal, stupid and willful children.

People are herd animals, so we follow the leader for the most part.

Plus, accepting a claim because many other people do or it’s traditional, is a fallacy of false authority – either by the masses or so called “ancient wisdom”

Just because a belief is long held, doesn’t make it true. You can in fact, eat and go swimming.

I would rather believe as not to believe.

I’d rather eat chocolate than not, but you can’t spend your life eating chocolate and you shouldn’t put at the center of your life a collection of stories that bear no resemblance to reality. Instead, put that effort into giving yourself value and meaning in your actual cultural context.

We left stone age and bronze age technology and cultures behind, so should these lingering ideas that are religion.

I agree that there is a lot of unanswered questions, but there has to be a higher power.

We don’t know the answer, so it’s left blank.

We do not need to insert evil skydaddies who cause so much pain and suffering by their retarding scientific and social progress as well as messing people up around sex and other natural behaviours.

The cost of believing is too high to be decided on a shallow comfort level and personal preference

The false comfort of thinking someone’s awake at the switch is not as comforting as understanding there’s not only no one at the switch, but there’s not even a switch.

Life is what we make it – as a group and individually. That’s not a bad thing.

Just because we don’t have the answer, doesn’t mean that there “has to” be any higher power or even an answer.

To call that higher power God is acceptable.

That is a slippery slope fallacy – because the believers are not finding a middle ground by insisting on a higher power that we’ve happened to name god.

The answer, if there is even one,  is blank.  Not higher power for the sake of conversation, we’ll call god.

There’s also no reason to assume that any “higher power” exists, is aware of us and really, if there is a higher power – then the obsession with worship and what people do with their genitals make it a rather egotistic and immature power – and that seems rather below humans – not above us.

I would become depressed if I had to believe
in no God.

Take control and responsibility for your own life, how you are, what you do and what kind of person you are.

If you don’t think you can do that without an invisible friend watching over, think about swimming. At some point the water wings have to come off and you have to be responsible for your own buoyancy in the water.

I expect that if people really sat down and thought about how the “holy” text describe the various gods – they are all pretty violent, petty, egotistical, judgemental, blood thrity and impossible to please. If you were raised by a parent like that, you’d run away at best or kill them in their sleep at worst.

Why worship a god who would be a rally crappy person?

I find it depressing that there’s an idea of a god, but all the characteristics are so terrible. Is that really the best we can do to make up a god?

Take a day and try to pretend that there’s no god. The world didn’t change, the sky didn’t fall. Keep trying it, a little longer each day.

Accepting things as they are, rather than how you would like them to be, is a lot less stressful and that makes for a happier life.

Trying to please someone who can’t be pleased, always finding yourself lacking and not good enough – there’s already too many people in each of our lives telling us we can’t do things or aren’t good enough – why be one of that chorus – and worse, give it authority by adding god to the naysayer roster.

Best religion?

It’s always funny to me when a believer wants atheists to rank religions in terms of what the atheist thinks them acceptable or more believable.

Because when the broadest stroke – a deity/supernatural – is ridiculous on it’s own, the details of worshiping said skydaddy aren’t even considerations in ranking them.

That some religions are worse than others in their violence levels (historic and current), their oppression of women and their attitudes towards minorities and non-/other believers, doesn’t make the least offender acceptable or more beleivable.

Worse, that these believers don’t realize that their attempt to create a slippery slope where if this religion is okay, then why not the next most similar one, is such a clumsy and obvious strategy that is easily sidestepped by answering none of them are acceptable or at all beleiveable.

Well, maybe they don’t realize or more likely, that they don’t respect the atheist as an intelligent person so dishonestly expect that we won’t see through their sad attempt to get a concession.

In any event, I’d rather be the worst of a good thing than the best of a bad thing.