Quote:
Originally Posted by David E
Why do you present Elle Mc Pherson as the absurd alternative to no afterlife when you know there are other plausible belief systems such as karma and reincarnation that reflect the cycles seen observed by science in nature and present a rich and compelling understanding of the universe for millions of people?
|
Odd use of the word plausible.
That's my point with the absurd examples. To me, they are equally absurd as what your so-called "good religions" have come up with. And you seem to be arguing (though I must admit I'm exactly committing each post to permanent memory) that regardless of the reality of the facts behind teh beliefs it is valuable to hold the beliefs because it makes the trodden masses behave better and gives them reason to pretend their lives don't suck as badly as it would appear.
My point is that disregarding the fact that I consider this stupid, if that is what is important, then why is it
these particular unfounded beliefs that must be the ones providing those services as opposed to the equally unfounded beliefs that result in me expecting to see Elle MacPherson naked in my living room. I assure you that would be more effective behavior control (for me anyway, perhaps Cheryl Tiegs would be better for you but that is why I'd offer up a pantheon) than getting wings and a harp when I'm dead.
You don't seem to view religion as an honest organic belief but rather a tool such that even if people don't believe it on their own someone should lead them there. I to belief that is what religion is. I just think that regardless of whether the tool produces good things, it is a malignancy. Kind of like sandpaper.