Literally NO ONE Ever "Rejects" A "God'.

Literally no one ever decides to "reject" a real "God". 






Beliefs aren't formed that way.

Perceptions for 'standards of evidence' vary from person to person.

Every truly-believing Jehovah's Witness honestly perceives that religion's narrative is "the truth" .

Same with every Catholic, Baptist, Mormon, Muslim, Wiccan, Native American/Indigenous "spiritualist", etc..

They aren't rebelling against any "God".
They aren't secretly aware of being wrong.
They aren't in those fabled belief systems due to a lack of virtue.

For all the Bad Press Atheists get for being unfairly judgmental about believers,
they can't hold a candle to how harsh believers are about each other.

I say that because:
At least atheists aren't saying or thinking that whoever is getting it "wrong" deserves eternal discard (like trash), or worse.
Nor do they normally assume that whoever is getting it 'wrong' is only pretending to believe the wrong thing.

Everyone is earnestly trying to "get it right".

The same is true of all agnostic-nonbelievers,
confident disbelievers,
deists,
pantheists,
etc..

---
I'm honestly not trying to goad anyone here, with this.

I'm not trying to steal your peace, or test your Stoic resolve, or make something personal.

I just want to people to be less harsh,
and more fair
about the nature of the human experience.

This is, as it happens, one of the biggest problems I have with almost-all versions of Abrahamic "faiths".

Their narratives necessitate the assumption of bad character, and bad motives
for everyone who has had a chance to hear and reflect upon their version of "the message"
and then not fallen to their knees, crying "teacher, teach me more!".

Biology
is the reason why person-X responds one way to your religion,
while person-Y responds another.

No one gets to freely choose how their brain gets chemically wired.

Prior life experience,
sleep,
nutrition,
comfort levels,
etc..

So many psychological reflexes they aren't even consciously aware of ...
all factor in to how "true" any faith's message sounds when they hear it, and when/if they think more about it later.

No one
is knowingly "rejecting" a real "God";
EVEN IF there may be a real God.

https://youtu.be/-j8ZMMuu7MU

https://www.openculture.com/2014/12/robert-sapolsky-explains-the-biological-basis-of-religiosity.html

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Gods Exist; As A Way Of Thinking And Speaking That We Can Grow Past

Image
[Version 3.0 Please pardon the typos and other "wonk". This is a work in progress. Feedback would be greatly appreciated. But even if all you do is read it, I'll still be very grateful.  Thanks] ====== Some people worship actually-existing things; like the Sun.  Some Sun worshippers proceed without assuming the Sun is sentient.  They have that relationship to the Sun, as a brilliant, live-giving, and sometimes punishing power.  It's a humbling awe. It's also an idea that informs them of who they are. They are a recipient of life from a personified life-giver.  They are a subject to the threat that anyone who dares stare too long at the Sun may be struck blind. They are subject to limits and consequences, if they spend too much or too little time in the Sun's presence.  The Sun blesses us caretakers and sharers of the abundant life that the Sun imparts.  The Sun makes sure the lakes and sky share their life giving waters. It directly helps ~shape~ ever Sun-wors
Read more

Responding to "HOW DO YOU KNOW?" that (any) historical issue is a settled issue(?)

Image
This blog was inspired by a discussion happening in a forum on Facebook. Specifically, the issue on the table was: "Did the writers of Matthew, Mark, and Luke/Acts think that Jesus was either part of a Triune-Godhead, or at least the same "God" as the patriarchal deity of 2nd Temple Judaism?" Predictably, a Trinitarian religious fundamentalist said "yes". Predictably, an enabler of unspecified background has rushed in to support that fundamentalist. In context, it's really obvious to me that the enabler was raised in that same ideological culture; no matter how religious they may-or-may-not-be currently. So when I pointed out what actual scholars say about it, I also pointed out that this is a settled issue. In reply, he insisted: There are never any truly settled issues among qualified scholars. Both a real scholar and an honest (and minimally intelligent) laymen would realize this. [Note: this is just a variation of the stunt being
Read more

Christian-Fundamentalism's Relationship To Racism

Image
For now, I'll just start with a few key issues; in no particular order. 1. Atheism isn't a worldview or a values system. It's like being a non-astrologist, or a non-Leprechaun-ist. If someone doesn't believe in leprechauns in general, or if they more specifically don't believe in "The Eternal King of the Leprechauns", this really doesn't inform their personal views and values. 2. For context, I don't identify as an "atheist". The term "atheist" means "not a theist". The term "theist" means "believes in a god". The term "god" means: whatever the invoker wants it to mean. Therefore, the term "atheist" fails to make any meaningful distinction, because the term "god" fails to provide its own meaning. However, ... 3. Once a god-word-invoker does clarify their meaning, then (in that context) the term "atheist" can be contextually meaningfu
Read more