Religion

thucythucy

(9,175 posts)

43. The post was deleted before I had the chance to see it

Sat Dec 27, 2014, 11:02 PM

Dec 2014

but I will denounce blatant (and not so blatant) homophobia every chance I get, no matter what the faith or lack thereof of the bigot in question.

But I wonder how "staunch supporters" of atheism feel about your characterization of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s deep religious conviction being "in the first category" of "smart" believers who feel some emotional need for their faith--as opposed to having an intelligent belief system arrived at through study, discussion, and contemplation.

When Dr. King asked his supporters to risk their lives, citing his faith in "the moral arc of the universe"--that was just a con? Or self-delusion derived from some "emotional need"?

I think you've already answered the question, but I want to be sure I understood you correctly. Folks such as Dr. King, Mahatma Gandhi... I could list others... they believed as they did because they were somehow emotionally dependent on their faith? An emotional dependence you and, presumably your fellow atheists, have grown out of? And if those folks were alive today (having been murdered for their social justice activism) you would classify them as, in a sense, emotionally stunted?

This seems to be the thrust of your OP, is it not?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

66 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Religion�s smart-people problem: [View all] Warren Stupidity Dec 2014 OP

How interesting. John Messerly, advocate for transhumanism, received his doctorate from the Jesuits. rug Dec 2014 #1

I think you mean "strained." okasha Dec 2014 #2

. hrmjustin Dec 2014 #3

First, that isn't Warren's choice of words. Click the link. trotsky Dec 2014 #4

I thought he might have meant "tenuous". nt No Vested Interest Dec 2014 #7

Maybe the author was trying... 3catwoman3 Dec 2014 #26

Good one Sweeney Dec 2014 #32

I'm flattered that you seem to think I wrote this. Warren Stupidity Dec 2014 #8

Only the intro before the article. okasha Dec 2014 #10

Not a word. Perhaps you ought to contact the author. Warren Stupidity Dec 2014 #13

And spoil his amusememt value? okasha Dec 2014 #14

If you are going to nit pick grammar use a spell checker. Warren Stupidity Dec 2014 #15

Yes, I'd like an answer to the question. rug Dec 2014 #16

It's not a matter of grammar al all. okasha Dec 2014 #19

Do you actually have anything to say about the content of the OP? Seems not. mr blur Dec 2014 #22

You forgot to say "Bah, humbug!" okasha Dec 2014 #24

I like how this article thucythucy Dec 2014 #5

Gaudeamus igitur. Let us rejoice okasha Dec 2014 #6

That is not what the author said about sophisticated believers. Warren Stupidity Dec 2014 #9

No, I don't disagree. But so what? thucythucy Dec 2014 #17

King and Carter likely fit into his first category Warren Stupidity Dec 2014 #18

You can break the cycle, Warren! okasha Dec 2014 #20

I've got a great idea: start an OP on transhumanism. Warren Stupidity Dec 2014 #23

Or you could respond to my question or to my post immediately following. okasha Dec 2014 #25

If you are afraid to start your own thread on the subject I'd be happy to start one for you. Warren Stupidity Dec 2014 #27

You're not a terribly artful dodger, are you? okasha Dec 2014 #28

Seriously? I'll take that as a "yes". Warren Stupidity Dec 2014 #29

So, do you agree with it or do you think it's woo? rug Dec 2014 #30

Or maybe they've had some kind of religious or transcendental experience, thucythucy Dec 2014 #31

The other problem okasha Dec 2014 #21

Well-said. There's a common position which goes something like this: ... Beartracks Dec 2014 #58

Being smart doesn't mean you care for the truth... MellowDem Dec 2014 #11

And what, in your epistemology, is "the truth"? n/t LTX Dec 2014 #34

Being in accordance with reality... MellowDem Dec 2014 #46

I am sure you must want to rephrase that. Sweeney Dec 2014 #49

Depends on the definition of "smart" MellowDem Dec 2014 #59

You are correct in most of what you say. Sweeney Dec 2014 #65

Article is very good.... MellowDem Dec 2014 #12

You know Sweeney Dec 2014 #33

TL;DR Warren Stupidity Dec 2014 #36

Read this post a couple of days ago and thought it was brilliant ucrdem Dec 2014 #57

Thank you. Sweeney Dec 2014 #64

Base logic WovenGems Dec 2014 #35

Post removed Post removed Dec 2014 #37

And now you are just a homophobic bigot. Warren Stupidity Dec 2014 #38

And the results are in. Warren Stupidity Dec 2014 #40

Why of course not, Warren. LTX Dec 2014 #41

The problem with religious people is Sweeney Dec 2014 #50

People DO because of what they believe. AtheistCrusader Dec 2014 #55

I agree with you A C. Sweeney Dec 2014 #63

This message was self-deleted by its author thucythucy Dec 2014 #42

The post was deleted before I had the chance to see it thucythucy Dec 2014 #43

Self delusion derived from an emotional need to believe in his religion. Warren Stupidity Dec 2014 #44

For someone who believes "we are just a flicker of light, a moment of time, and of no consequence", rug Dec 2014 #45

No doubt. Sweeney Dec 2014 #52

Wow! thucythucy Dec 2014 #47

I'm glad to be "pegged", I hope it was as good for you as it was for me. Warren Stupidity Dec 2014 #48

I'm not slamming you "for giving an opinion." thucythucy Dec 2014 #62

If you look at the course of religion through the middle ages Sweeney Dec 2014 #53

Our universe is society, and society has a morality. Sweeney Dec 2014 #51

"Our universe is society" - sure and by "fish" I of course mean "Goat". Warren Stupidity Dec 2014 #60

Yes; Society is our bubble; Sweeney Dec 2014 #66

Poster's been banned. pinto Dec 2014 #39

I'm not gay; but I might pretend to be. Sweeney Dec 2014 #54

I'd edit or delete that. AtheistCrusader Dec 2014 #56

Indeed and with the alert trolling going on, somebody might just fire away. Warren Stupidity Dec 2014 #61