Never have I regretted turning atheist at age sixteen! Never have I wanted a future state. I prefer reality.
Despite even some atheists, atheism inspires no forlornness for me. I only wanted to know were there the Deity? Once, I discovered that no, I just wanted to know how to overcome theistic twaddle! I found argumentation that felt wrong and found out why it was wrong.
Why would any rational person ever want to accept Muhammad as the Prophet or Yeshua as the Lord when we reality proffers enjoyable knowledge rather than woo. Why would any rational person want to find their barbaric notions of salvation?
Why would any rational person ever want to join errantists in their error of accepting any of their fables as meaningful when we can find better sources of inspiration elsewhere than in the bowels of that twaddle?
Why would I need the myth of the future state when ti's impossible for one to exist? Where would Heaven and Hell exist anyway? Mere barbarians just made them up. How could either exist when like the unicorn, men just made them up?
"Life is its own validation and reward and ultimate meaning to which neither God nor the future state can further validate.' Inquiring Lynn
Haughty John Haught, Francisco Jose Ayala, William Lane Craig and Augustine can whine all they will, but no need for us to be restless when we're not in the Deity's bosom? That unsubstantiated Augustine's argument from angst betrays our need to be rational by seeking help with existential problems- those of why me, etc. The unsubstantiated argument from happiness-purpose says the same twaddle, only positively. No Deity helps others when the help themselves- just their own inner resources comes to the fore. Why take ones own efforts as divine related? One should take inspiration from rational resource to get those inner resources going.
Haught claims that earlier atheists were more honest in seeing existential despair with atheism. No evidence exists for that insult. Those atheists had their own problems.
Ayala claims that the supernatural supports our values. Again, why reify that twaddle? Reality supports them. He, without substantiation, claims that we need Him to overcome angst and have divine love and divine purpose for our lives and the future state. No, human love and our own meanings and purposes and this one life suffice.
We are not any divine potter's pottery! What a tremendous transvaluation and travesty of our lives! Why should we be mere things, which they project onto us as our naturalist view.
No Deity has rights over us or to even judge us or punish us!
Per Lamberth's argument from autonomy, we derive our rights from our level of consciousness so that neither the state nor the Deity grants us rights. That is a false dilemma that theocons use to con their sheep to accept their twaddle for the Deity and a tirade against the justified Nanny State.
Theism then lacks any moral suasion for us to recognize Deity as having influence over us. We should rather- and no false dilemma- follow " The Reason-based Life" and practice self -and other acceptance as Robert Price advises us in that book and Albert Ellis in " The Myth of Self-Esteem, respectively."
Then this cuts off theistic pragmatic arguments for belief in the supernatural.
Therefore, why, the previous article peddlucidly also affirms this.
What do you maintain?
No comments:
Post a Comment