The Joy of Bigotry

Hitchens brothersAll my life I have tried desperately to be clever and taken seriously. But much to my own social demise, I am also a bit silly at times and can often fool my far more intellectual counterparts, that enjoy nothing more than to correct my Terr’s and Ferr’s, instantly, to think that I am one of those fellas that enjoys nothing more, than my own good arrogant opinion. They of course couldn’t be more wrong; as debate is something that I both love and despise. More often than not, we have two extremely arrogant in their opinions, doing battle, both fast to refer at the other as a bigot for not seeing their side of the story, and thus with sweet hidden irony are in fact bigots themselves. And this ladies and gentleman, is never more present than that of the debate of an agnostic vs atheist.

The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an agnostic. Charles Darwin

giant spaghetti monsterMuch to the highly enjoyable ignorance of atheists, Charles Darwin was agnostic. When you look at the debate of agnostic vs atheist from a completely non basis but logical standpoint, you begin to instantly notice cracks. Now, these cracks are in fact formed on both sides. On one side we have the agnostic; humbly they stand on the fence, they don’t accept that god exists nor do they allow for themselves to realise that he definitely doesn’t. This standpoint for an atheist, is altogether infuriating; because surely if their is no evidence than how can a god exist? Or even a giant spaghetti monster? I firm favorite of Richard Dawkins. However, the agnostic is also furious at the atheists; how can you so arrogantly with all but your five senses believe to understand that a creator definitely doesn’t exist? Without doubt, the agnostic vs atheist debate is a challenging one, nevertheless It does have a surprising solution.

Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

One of our civilizations biggest problems is that we don’t accept the fact that we are all different. within our own heads each of us is subjectively experiencing their own reality. Another mans god is another mans spaghetti monster etc. Some people find that its important to believe in a god because they were raised to believe so, and others were cast to a life where there was clearly no such evidence of a god and thus find these other people odd in the fact that they think some divine power is looking over them. One thing is certain, my universe where I live and breath and experience is completely different to Richard Dawkins. Our minds although are both human, his is for whatever reason different to mine and thus is able to look at a larger picture and be confidant with the applicability of the human mind. Myself due to my own experiences and my romantic nature cant accept a world of definition. To believe that the universe came from nothing yet is governed by laws, and that forces as complex as time, mathematics and psychics came from nothing, and were instantly there, without an evolutionary process of their own, to me is incredible; how can something as complex as time, just show up? The answer is beyond science, and ironically I myself am bigoted for thinking so. Thus we should all just accept that we don’t know, and simply get naked, move to Hawaii, dance and fuck, wearing ridiculously large grins and drinking cocktails.

About these ads

15 Comments

Filed under Articles, Philosophy, Religon, Science, Sociology

15 responses to “The Joy of Bigotry

  1. When you set up a system that allows us to accept what we don’t know, please start a company and issue stock. I like the idea of a large grin (and all that it takes to get one)

  2. There’s a great quote on the subject, which damn I can’t find, about respecting a man’s beliefs. That also includes his beliefs that his wife is beautiful and his children perfect.

  3. I do love a sectarian debate and thought you presented an impartial starting point. Have to disagree with the lack of individuality being a problem though. Do we not live in a society where most explicity express their individuality? These are indeed strange days for society as a whole.:)

    • Only in secular groups, or that of trying to be different, nevertheless I thing you may have missed my point that, your world is a subject to have you view it and all the lessons that have been put in place throughout your life etc.. make you different, without the need to try.

      • Apologies, I should have said theological (rather than secular) ah blame the heat scattering logical thought. So are you saying that it’s less about the individual and more to do with the individual as part of a whole society?

  4. Don

    Nowadays I’m far more comfortable with “not knowing” than “knowing.” Great post thank you.

  5. You reach a well-researched and argued conclusion in the last line that, at least, logical thinkers should have no problem accepting :-)

  6. Good advice! Perhaps there is no such thing as nothing. But I always found physicists’ attempts to find smaller and smaller particles with “nothing” as an asymptote, while spending greater and greater amounts of money in their efforts, rather amusing. Thanks for your thoughts.

  7. “Once in a while it really hits people that they don’t have to experience the world in the way they have been told to” – Alan Keightley

  8. I’m agnostic, but I am also extremely anti all forms of theism. Whether a god/gods/godesses/godlets exist or not is irrelevant to the money-and-power garnering schemes that milk the innocent and skin the gullible; I don’t like that. I was force-fed the stuff as a kid (grew up to be a bonny scrapper~!) and now try to level the field a bit for new generations.

  9. One small problem with how you have characterised atheists: on a scale of 1 to 10, 1 being belief in God, 10 being absolute non-belief, atheists are a 9. Refer to Dawkins and Hitchens who both say very clearly and consistently that one cannot be absolutely sure of the existence or non-existence of God. They argue that the evidence and the logic just stacks heavily in their favour. Therefore these men do accept what they don’t know, but what they don’t know excites them fuels their imaginations and quests for knowledge to reach into obscure and lesser understood areas. Perhaps we should take more time on clear and consistent thinking and less time worrying about relativism. As for time, it didn’t just show up. It is in a constant state of change as the conditions of the universe change. Humans just happen to have invented a clock that reflects the patterns of nature as governed by the sun in this particular, very slight, moment in the history of the universe. How can one man’s god be another man’s spaghetti monster when one is claimed to be real and omnipotent and the other false and not real in any sense?

    • Your religion is a flavour picked mostly by circumstance out of a box holding a vast number of flavours. Enjoy.
      True, one cannot be sure either way about God—but evidence weights the scales heavily against; at least against as described/defined by (say) Christianity.
      Time? Doesn’t exist. But the explanation for that statement fills volumes, I just ask you to take it on faith.

  10. Absolutely, lets all chill out about the whole thing. And maybe read “The Science Delusion” by Rupert Sheldrake (published under the title “Science Set Free” in the States). His talk about it was banned by TED Talk, apparently. Who is the bigot in this, I wonder…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s