The Baseline of Atheistic Thinking
I am childfree, hypoinstinctive, atheist. But why do I have to define and label myself by the absence of other people's afflictions? It seems strange to have to define myself in comparison with a distorted baseline of others.
A- as a prefix in Greek words just means without. A-theos means without a good. Since the existence of a god is a delusion, atheism means to be without the deity delusion. Do I need to call myself a-paranoid for having no paranoia or non-insane instead of sane?
I am also a-xxxxx, where xxxxx replaces countless other things, that I am without, that I do not even imagine to exist. A-xxxxx could for example mean to live without appeasing an invisible pink dragon in my garage to stop him from burning the house down. A-xxxxx means, that I am not bothered about even imagining the existence of xxxxx. A-theos means not to be bothered about the possibility of the existence of a deity.
I am puzzled, why so many atheists show a fervent anti-theism, that is so out of proportion compared with the obvious absurdity of all religions. But reading the discussions on atheist forums and websites, those fervent anti-theists are giving an amazing amount of energy and time to fight a weird belief system, that is just not worth it. It seems to make no sense to fight rationally against a delusion.
If someone has the delusion, that the CIA has planted a chip into his brain, and he writes a book about coping with it, some people might read the book with amusement, if it is well written. Nobody would even think about pointing out the contradictions and inconsistencies in an obvious delusion.
A book full of delusions, that was written thousands of years ago, is not any better, just because the delusions are collective, shared by many persons.
It is an important task to refute and debunk pseudo-science and woo-woo, that superficially cannot be distinguished from real science and is misleading people. But the bible is nothing even near to pseudo-science.
Therefore it is beyond me, why some anti-theists are so obsessed about the bible.
Considering the bible a book of fairy tales, then who would attempt to proof Grimm's fairy tales as wrong or to find contradictions and inconsistencies? Fairy tales are not supposed to be true. The tales of the bible are very boring, Grimm's tales are much more fun to read.
Considering the bible as a legend concerning the history of Palestine and Israel, like Homer's Iliad, then the task is comparing it with scientific evidence, like they did by excavating Troy.
Considering the bible as a historical novel about someone with the name of Jesus, then one can interpret it as a character study. Someone did a good job in this, it is worth while to read:
Sam Vaknin: Jesus Christ, narcissist? http://www.authorsden.com/visit/viewArticle.asp?id=34640
I am childfree, hypoinstinctive, atheist. But why do I have to define and label myself by the absence of other people's afflictions? It seems strange to have to define myself in comparison with a distorted baseline of others.
A- as a prefix in Greek words just means without. A-theos means without a good. Since the existence of a god is a delusion, atheism means to be without the deity delusion. Do I need to call myself a-paranoid for having no paranoia or non-insane instead of sane?
I am also a-xxxxx, where xxxxx replaces countless other things, that I am without, that I do not even imagine to exist. A-xxxxx could for example mean to live without appeasing an invisible pink dragon in my garage to stop him from burning the house down. A-xxxxx means, that I am not bothered about even imagining the existence of xxxxx. A-theos means not to be bothered about the possibility of the existence of a deity.
I am puzzled, why so many atheists show a fervent anti-theism, that is so out of proportion compared with the obvious absurdity of all religions. But reading the discussions on atheist forums and websites, those fervent anti-theists are giving an amazing amount of energy and time to fight a weird belief system, that is just not worth it. It seems to make no sense to fight rationally against a delusion.
If someone has the delusion, that the CIA has planted a chip into his brain, and he writes a book about coping with it, some people might read the book with amusement, if it is well written. Nobody would even think about pointing out the contradictions and inconsistencies in an obvious delusion.
A book full of delusions, that was written thousands of years ago, is not any better, just because the delusions are collective, shared by many persons.
It is an important task to refute and debunk pseudo-science and woo-woo, that superficially cannot be distinguished from real science and is misleading people. But the bible is nothing even near to pseudo-science.
Therefore it is beyond me, why some anti-theists are so obsessed about the bible.
Considering the bible a book of fairy tales, then who would attempt to proof Grimm's fairy tales as wrong or to find contradictions and inconsistencies? Fairy tales are not supposed to be true. The tales of the bible are very boring, Grimm's tales are much more fun to read.
Considering the bible as a legend concerning the history of Palestine and Israel, like Homer's Iliad, then the task is comparing it with scientific evidence, like they did by excavating Troy.
Considering the bible as a historical novel about someone with the name of Jesus, then one can interpret it as a character study. Someone did a good job in this, it is worth while to read:
Sam Vaknin: Jesus Christ, narcissist? http://www.authorsden.com/visit/viewArticle.asp?id=34640
