He estado analizando las discusiones presentadas en mi articulo previo sober Obama y el homosexualismo. Ese capitulo quedo cerrado, pero considere prudente romper mi propia regla y discutir un poco sobre religion e intolerancia. Esto porque realmente no entiendo que objetivo tenian estos paladines en llevar todo al argumento de Dios no existe.
Para el que le interese aqui les dejo mi articulo previo y el comentario original de Manolo. Los de Luis, pues, el los borro. Una verdadera lastima porque la mejor parte de este blog son los diferentes puntos de vista que se esbozan en los comentarios y de donde saco material para temas nuevos.
http://alcantarillaalquimica.blogspot.com/2012/05/265-repost-obama-se-equivoca.html
http://loquemedicenlasvoces.blogspot.com/2012/05/matrimonio-homosexual-y-la-estrategia.html
El tintero es grande, cerre en mi ultimo comentario. Hay tantos problemas apremiantes en el mundo que la existencia o no existencia de Dios es completamente irrelevante. Tenia discusiones similares con mi ex relacionados a que consideraba irrelevante todas sus discusiones de civilizaciones pasadas, metafisicas o el nuevo orden mundial, los ni/nos indigos, quinta raza, etc.
La razon: lo que ocurra, ocurrira, independiente de si yo tengo o no conocimiento de ello. Mi funcion es vivir el presente siguiendo lo que moralmente entiendo como correcto. En mi caso mi Norte moral lo dictan los principios cristicos del amor al projimo y ayudar el necesitado. Para otros sera llevar la palabra de Dios a los demas, en otros casos que las mujeres usen burkas. Puedo o debo controlar yo eso? No. Yo controlo mi respuesta, con mi actitud, y enfrento las consecuencias.
Por tal razon me molesta de sobremanera cuando comienzan las cruzadas de cambiar mi opinion. Lo dije previamente, ahora refraseo: 'Las opiniones son como los ombligos, todos tenemos uno'. Traje dos analogias que se perdieron en los comentarios. La primera, el espiritismo cientifico y el otro, si huele a religion y habla como religion y haces cosas que los religiosos hacen entonces es religion.
Primer Caso: Espiritismo Cientifico
En cierta epoca de mi vida perteneci a un grupo de espiristas kardecianos, de esos de mesa blanca y espiritismo cientifico. Este grupo tenia todas las mejores intenciones del mundo y querian desligar todo lo que oliera a ritual o religion de su credo. Entendian que la comunicacion espiritual era posible y que podiamos comunicarnos con espiritus desencarnados del pasado para progresar la comunicacion entre planos.
Y todos creian en esas ideas, y dabamos clases y leiamos muchos libros metafisicos y teosoficos. Pero saben que? La manada se quedaba con las manifestaciones espiritistas, que llegaba un momento eran trilladas y repetitivas. Era como un bachillerato en matematicas donde tus textos eran un monton de libros de segundo grado. No progresaba.
Entonces coemnzaban los corillos. Estaban los metafisicos puros, los teosoficos, los folkloricos, etc. Perdian horas muertas discutiendo trivialidades. A fin de cuentas no se progresaba, y se veia que en el fondo todo eran palabras huecas.
Le tiraban constantemente a la Iglesia. Maldecian su carpeteo, se burlaban de la Virgen Maria o de los monjes y monjas de clausura. Y se quedaban en el insulto, no en emular la caridad de la que habla tanto el Buen Libro.
Segundo Caso: El Neo Ateismo
La duda y la secularidad tienen una poblacion que no es que no crea en Dios es que simplemente lo consideran irrelevante. Lo sustituyen con cosas materiales o con el ajetreo de vida. Entiendo muchas de las premisas por las cuales los ateos y agnosticos no creen en las Iglesias. Admito el monton de muertes causadas por la religion. Por eso tolero sus planteamientos, de igual manera que tolero la de las demas religiones. La verdad no se encierra en una sola fuente. Pero nuestro corazon siempre nos dirigira por el lugar correcto. Somos seres racionales.
Sin embargo debo definir el neo ateismo. Lo uso como un despectivo por la siguiente razon. Este nuevo movimiento toma los peores elementos de fanatismo religioso y los lleva a cabo. Intenta atosigarnos por ojo, boca y nariz que Dios no existe y que somos unas bestias ignorantes por no pensar como ellos.
Como decia, utilizan las mismas tecnicas de los mormones, los atalayas, los pentecostales, mitas o el mismo islamismo para convertirnos a su creencia, asi sea a la fuerza. Es mas, reprimirlos a tal punto que no podamos ni hablar no decir nuestros credos. Se quejan de la esclavitud, la homofobia o los derechos de las mujeres pero pretenden que no se pueda tan siquiera andar con una cruz en la calle.
Invaden como hordes las paginas que los denuncian usando retoricas huecas que ni siquiera ellos aprenden. Simplemente se sienten eruditos porque leyeron a Hitchens o a Dawkins. Esos libros son su evangelio. Huele a religioso, actua como religioso...mmm debe ser religioso.
En realidad, en vez de fomentar el ateismo lo que estan haciendo es exactamente lo contrario. Atrasan el movimiento ateista y lo hacen antipatico. Como dije, es mas productivo buscar lo que nos une que lo que nos separa. Solo es cuestion de tolerancia de ideologias y religiones. Como seres racionales ese debe ser nuestro Norte.
Para cerrar, hasta los mismos ateistas tienen mi misma queja. Lean este articulo como muestra:
http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_4_oh_to_be.html
The thinness of the new atheism is evident in its approach to our civilization, which until recently was religious to its core. To regret religion is, in fact, to regret our civilization and its monuments, its achievements, and its legacy. And in my own view, the absence of religious faith, provided that such faith is not murderously intolerant, can have a deleterious effect upon human character and personality. If you empty the world of purpose, make it one of brute fact alone, you empty it (for many people, at any rate) of reasons for gratitude, and a sense of gratitude is necessary for both happiness and decency. For what can soon, and all too easily, replace gratitude is a sense of entitlement. Without gratitude, it is hard to appreciate, or be satisfied with, what you have: and life will become an existential shopping spree that no product satisfies.
A few years back, the National Gallery held an exhibition of Spanish still-life paintings. One of these paintings had a physical effect on the people who sauntered in, stopping them in their tracks; some even gasped. I have never seen an image have such an impact on people. The painting, by Juan Sánchez Cotán, now hangs in the San Diego Museum of Art. It showed four fruits and vegetables, two suspended by string, forming a parabola in a gray stone window.
[para los curiosos como yo - aqui el cuadro discutido
http://www.estatevaults.com/bol/archives/2009/01/11/religious_faith.html
]
Even if you did not know that Sánchez Cotán was a seventeenth-century Spanish priest, you could know that the painter was religious: for this picture is a visual testimony of gratitude for the beauty of those things that sustain us. Once you have seen it, and concentrated your attention on it, you will never take the existence of the humble cabbage—or of anything else—quite so much for granted, but will see its beauty and be thankful for it. The painting is a permanent call to contemplation of the meaning of human life, and as such it arrested people who ordinarily were not, I suspect, much given to quiet contemplation.
The same holds true with the work of the great Dutch still-life painters. On the neo-atheist view, the religious connection between Catholic Spain and Protestant Holland is one of conflict, war, and massacre only: and certainly one cannot deny this history. And yet something more exists. As with Sánchez Cotán, only a deep reverence, an ability not to take existence for granted, could turn a representation of a herring on a pewter plate into an object of transcendent beauty, worthy of serious reflection.
I recently had occasion to compare the writings of the neo-atheists with those of Anglican divines of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. I was visiting some friends at their country house in England, which had a library of old volumes; since the family of the previous owners had a churchman in every generation, many of the books were religious. In my own neo-atheist days, I would have scorned these works as pertaining to a nonexistent entity and containing nothing of value. I would have considered the authors deluded men, who probably sought to delude others for reasons that Marx might have enumerated.
But looking, say, into the works of Joseph Hall, D.D., I found myself moved: much more moved, it goes without saying, than by any of the books of the new atheists. Hall was bishop of Exeter and then of Norwich; though a moderate Puritan, he took the Royalist side in the English civil war and lost his see, dying in 1656 while Cromwell was still Lord Protector.
Lo mismo, mas crudo, por ateistas sure/nos:
http://www.datehookup.com/Thread-866989.htm
To regret religion is, in fact, to regret our civilization and its monuments, its achievements, and its legacy. -- Theodore Dalrymple
The one thing neo-atheists are seemingly unable to comprehend is the level of raw disgust and revulsion they provoke in other people with their obnoxious, boorish, revolting behavior that brings to mind less the ambiance of libraries and discussion halls than of raw sewage running underneath the streets. "SCIENCE!" they scream at all passers-by - as if anybody really gave a damn what they think in the first place. My reply - "Who do you think GIVES a s**t????"
But no matter how good a job I might do at the task of articulating my level of disgust at these people, whose most compelling evidence of evolution is the sheer disgusting subhuman level of their own speech and conduct, I would not be able to do as good a job as this atheist - a rare thinking atheist - whom I am about to cite and quote extensively. The man is Theodore Dalrymple, an atheist himself, and a writer for City Journal. With clear incisive prose, without any of the self-pitying caterwauling neo-atheists have taught us to expect from them, Dalrymple writes about the so-called "Four Horsemen" whose books inspired the neo-atheist movement. Then he systematically decimates it, detailing the neo-atheist leaders' own fantasy worlds, their puerile lack of decent manners, their emotionally disturbed core, their cultural shallowness, and finally, the pure apocalyptic evil visible in the one of the "Horseman" who dared openly tell the truth about the desire to murder the religious - and if you haven't already seen Christopher Hitchen's statement of chutzpah, you'll have to see to believe. Here he is - atheist Theodore Dalrymple.
THE ATHEISTS' FANTASY WORLD:
The curious thing about these books is that the authors often appear to think that they are saying something new and brave. They imagine themselves to be like the intrepid explorer Sir Richard Burton, who in 1853 disguised himself as a Muslim merchant, went to Mecca, and then wrote a book about his unprecedented feat. The public appears to agree, for the neo-atheist books have sold by the hundred thousand. Yet with the possible exception of Dennett’s, they advance no argument that I, the village atheist, could not have made by the age of 14.
THE ATHEISTS' PETTY LACK OF DECENT MANNERS:
This sloppiness and lack of intellectual scruple, with the assumption of certainty where there is none, combined with adolescent shrillness and intolerance, reach an apogee in Sam Harris’s book The End of Faith. It is not easy to do justice to the book’s nastiness.
THE CORE OF EMOTIONAL DISTURBANCE UNDERLYING ATHEIST 'BELIEFS':
Lying not far beneath the surface of all the neo-atheist books is the kind of historiography that many of us adopted in our hormone-disturbed adolescence, furious at the discovery that our parents sometimes told lies and violated their own precepts and rules. It can be summed up in Christopher Hitchens’s drumbeat in God Is Not Great: “Religion spoils everything.”
NEO-ATHEISM'S INCREDIBLE CULTURAL SHALLOWNESS AND AMAZING INTELLECTUAL IGNORANCE:
The thinness of the new atheism is evident in its approach to our civilization, which until recently was religious to its core. To regret religion is, in fact, to regret our civilization and its monuments, its achievements, and its legacy.
FINALLY, THE APOCALYPTIC EVIL AT ITS CORE, EXPRESSED BY CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS:
“The link between belief and behavior raises the stakes considerably. Some propositions are so dangerous that it may be ethical to kill people for believing them. This may seem an extraordinary claim, but it merely enunciates an ordinary fact about the world in which we live.”
Y com siempre, las cosas evolucionan, mientras que los libretos de Hitchens y Dawkins siguen repitiendo los actos de fe de muchas denominaciones cristianas, judias y catolicas siguen su cruzada silenciosa por el bien:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/09/responding_to_neoatheism.html
All three of these books exhibit a quality that is largely missing from the volumes by the neo-atheists: a sense that there is wisdom in all points of view, and that wisdom is not exclusively found in one. It is ironic that what ultimately makes neo-atheism not only unconvincing but off-putting is the fact that it often exhibits the very fundamentalism it purports to find in religion: an absolute certainty in its views, an uncritical worship of its god -- science -- as a saving force, and a denigration of those who refuse to be saved. Berlinski, Novak and Wolpe, in their divergent ways, demonstrate that a religious outlook that does not deny doubt, values humility, and appreciates the implications of the miracle of our existence, is the more reasonable approach to life.
Cierro aqui y repito el planteamiento que expuse en mis comentarios:
Pondre 100 respuestas a sus premisas y en consecuencia me pondran 50 mas
La intencion no es llegar a una conclusion, sino simplemente quedarse patinando en la unica que qieren probar: Dios no existe y tu eres un moron por creer en ilusiones.
