Originally posted by carpedm9587
View Post
But yet there is a strong theme of "if you require evidence, you lack faith," is there not. The entire Thomas story conveys exactly that message, does it not? As I noted, theism does not abandon reason, it circumscribes it to what is acceptable - and requiring evidence for beliefs is considered a "lesser" form of faith, encouraging, at least to some degree, "blind" faith.
So we come back again to, God has to do something. Apparently, I will "lack capacity" until that happens. Do you see how convenient it is for a religion to put forward this position. It immediately identifies all of those outside of the faith as "other," and "other" very quickly becomes "lesser." Indeed, defining individuals as "other" is the first step on the path to some pretty ugly things.
No. Your beliefs are your business. I am merely pointing out their inconsistency. It was those inconsistencies that eventually led me away from Catholicism, Christianity, and ultimately theism. When I had an experience that taught me how easily we can be self-deceived, I set out (as I think I mentioned) to root out those deceptions, believing them to be a possible obstacle in my relationship with god. Eventually, I began to see and pay attention to inconsistencies like the one we have been discussing. It was in exploring those inconsistencies that I uncovered more and more of them, and began to see a pattern. That pattern eventually led me away from those beliefs to the ones I hold now. It was not an easy journey. It was one I often found myself feeling regret about. 30 years later, I think I probaably feel the same way about my beliefs that you do: comfortable and at peace. I do not stop questioning/challenging, and I do not stop listening to people who hold different beliefs. But I am certainly not the "angry atheist" I was when I first realized I was one.
Comment