Wishful Thinking | Atheism-EN

Archive for 'Wishful thinking'

Anne Rice: the saga continues

Friday, July 30, 2010

I mentioned yesterday updates Anne Rice on her page on Facebook, and unfortunately, I have suggested is confirmed: it continues to be as faithful as it was in recent years, is as prey to superstition and "wishful thinking" as before, simply wants to distance himself from the ultra-conservatism (especially but not only in the U.S.) features both Christianity.

You can see that after the two updates mentioned in the previous post, the following were simply quoting the Bible .... Not exactly a sign of rationality or mental clarity ...

And it continues to be "Christian" - "follower of Christ" means exactly that. And here I agree to Hemant : What she did is equivalent to a known atheist say something like: "I was an atheist, but I do not agree with the attitudes and social and political positions of most atheists (eg, I think they are too liberal , and I am against gay rights, not because of religious reasons, but only because they make me sick and why deny them basic rights makes me feel powerful) ... soon, starting today, I am no atheist. But I still do not have any kind of belief in a god or gods. "Hmm, no. Not believing in God, then you are an atheist. That is the definition of the term. You can be an atheist irrational, homophobic, ultra-conservative ... in short, a complete moron. But it is still an atheist.

The latest (at the time of this post) update it also reveals much (emphasis mine):

My faith in Christ is central to my life. My conversion from a pessimistic atheist lost in a world I did not Understand, to an optimistic believer in a universe created and Sustained by a loving God is crucial to me. But Following Christ does not Following mean His followers. Christ is infinitely more important than Christianity and always will be, no matter what Christianity is, Has Been, or Might Become.

Here, ladies and gentlemen, we have a classic example of "wishful thinking". She believes because he wants it to be true, not because I have evidence that (probably) is. The belief it was an unhappy, the belief two makes it feel good, so this is for her more than enough reason to have the belief 2. The question of which is more likely that corresponds to the reality does not interest him. The reality of "what the hell." She believes what makes you feel good and ready - a dulling of the mind and sense of reality not much different than an alcoholic or an addict, you drink or drugs for not having to deal with "the world I didn ' t Understand. "

And for a very sophisticated religion is, however sophisticated the words of an apologist, it is not religion. There is no religion, no one is religious, without the intellectual dishonesty that is "wishful thinking".

Labels: Anne Rice
In the category News , Atheism , Christianity , Rationality , Religion , Wishful thinking | No Comments »

Realism as an alternative to "positive thinking"

Friday, July 16, 2010

It is worth seeing. After doing so, consider the following:

On the question of "positive thinking", I guess some people think something like "but you're telling me to think positive, be optimistic, etc.. Are not good ideas? We should go pessimistic and depressed? "Of course this is not the idea (and the video mentions it in passing). The question here, in my view, is that there are two very different interpretations of the meaning of "positive thinking" and the "new agers" in general do everything possible to mix the two, treating them as inseparable.

"Positive thinking" that is, living life optimistically and without a paralyzing fear, trying whenever possible to see the good side of things, so as to avoid the problems / stresses of day-to-day we lie down, is a good idea, and makes a difference in our lives, in terms of our psychological well-being, our attitude towards other people and problems, and the like. It makes us who are less stressed and more enjoyable - and therefore more "popular", which not only tends to further increase our well-being, such as help for the success in life - that is, turns out to be, in a way, a virtuous circle: optimism leads to success that causes more optimism that causes that causes more success ...

But that's not what the "New Agers" promoting (albeit dishonestly, retreat to the most basic meaning when the critics). What they advertise, with books like the stupid best-seller "The Secret", mentioned in the video, is the idea that our thoughts and our emotions directly affect the universe, including fitness and distance learning, the reality is fluid and subjective, constructed by each one of us in our heads (and a tree falling in a forest with no one beside you can not make sound , precisely because the reality is subjective), that to be successful and lucky enough to "believe" this success and luck and thus attract them. To get something that just "want a lot."

And, therefore, that those who fail, those who suffer some catastrophe (even a natural disaster), you do not want enough success, and thus attracted the misfortunes. That is, the blame is always the victim. More obscene than the "everyone gets what he deserves," the idea here is "everyone has what he wants." The poor are poor because they want to (or do not want enough wealth), patients are ill because they "do not believe" in your health, and victims of an earthquake or volcano have to blame because their "negative thoughts" attracted catastrophe.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is the most that can be unhealthy.

Labels: Barbara Ehrenreich
In the category of New Age , Rationality , Wishful thinking | No Comments »

FAQ: "I am also an atheist, but people * need * a religion! Where do you go to turn in bad times? "

Friday, February 19, 2010

I could respond by saying that much of the supposed comfort from religion is not really part of the religious / metaphysical the same: most of the believers use religion as a source of community, giving you access to a group with common interests in general, meetings regular rituals, the sense of "belonging," and, presumably, group support in difficult times. Obviously this can be found in a nonreligious group.

Could also argue against living in an illusion, against "wishful thinking" and appeal to a world view as clear as possible for our capabilities. That is, the fact that doing the right thing be difficult or less comfortable should not be reason not to do this thing. And education is "miracles." And yes, you can deal with the loss (eg loved ones) staying in the real world - that's part of being an adult in a way.

But I think my answer is to focus on another point: that tremendous condescension! By making this question, you are basically saying the following:

"Oh, it's clear that you and I, as members of the elite, we are too sophisticated, intelligent and educated to need religion, but the rabble, rabble stupid, the" herd "? Obviously they need! How would hold the little lives of misery without having to believe that one day (even after death) things will get better? Intelligent, educated people go to a psychologist, but the little people go to church! And how they would be in place if they had not the authority of priests / pastors, and the fear of divine punishment? Do you think everyone will study ethics and morality? "

I do not want it to be "wishful thinking" on my part - time will tell, though probably not in my lifetime - but I believe that humanity is capable of being better than this, that people are not stupid and irrational reasons "genetic," but only of ignorance, an almost universally anti-intellectualism in society, and lack of education. I believe that critical thinking can be taught, and can be learned by anyone. I believe that the fate of religion is the same as slavery or institutionalized racism and sexism: a shame in the history of mankind, rejected in civilized countries in general (again, do not expect this in my lifetime, unfortunately). In short, do not accept that it is assumed that most people are ignorant and eternal and inevitable need of living under an illusion, a lie.

(Note: please restrict any comment that you make to the previous question and answer, and not to other matters as the existence or nonexistence of God. Thank you.)

Labels: Atheism FAQ , you need religion
In the category FAQ Atheism , Religion , Wishful thinking | No Comments »

FAQ: "I do not care all your arguments, believing in God makes me feel good, so I believe!"

Friday, February 19, 2010

Be. If you admit that you are not even minimally interested in what's real and what is not, to choose your beliefs just for the comfort that they give you, and you do not see any problem in believing something just because you want it to be true ...

... So I have nothing more to tell you. I'm sorry. Good rest of life.

(Note: please restrict any comment that you make to the previous question and answer, and not to other matters as the existence or nonexistence of God. Thank you.)

Labels: Atheism FAQ
In the category Stupidity , FAQ Atheism , Religion , Wishful thinking | 1 Comment »

FAQ: "God must exist, otherwise what is the meaning of life, once we die and it's over?"

Thursday, February 18, 2010

Note: this answer does not address the question of the consequences or not correct (that is, whether, without a god, life (single, finite) makes sense or not, and so on). This is for a future entry in the FAQ.

Instead, this part of the FAQ is intended to demonstrate how the question itself implies a logic error, and therefore, an argument is completely invalid.

In short it to its essence, the implicit assumption in question is the following:

- God does not exist, <algo mau>. Therefore, God must exist.

What's wrong with that? Just this: even if the consequences are absolutely correct (they are not, as I will demonstrate the future in this FAQ), ie, even if the result of "God does not exist" was really bad, it does not in any way affect the validity of the proposition. In other words, the "desirability" of a chance has no influence on it is true or not. Things either are or are not, regardless of consequences.

Even if it was absolutely 100% true that "God does not exist" means "life makes no sense," it would have zero effect on the existence or nonexistence of God.

The mistake of believing that something is true just because "otherwise it would be bad" is a logical fallacy called appeal to consequences , a common form of "wishful thinking". Our beliefs should be formed trying to see and understand reality within the limits of our capabilities - and not just believing what they want to be true, we are comfortable.

Again, I'm not in any way agree with the premise that the alleged consequences are true. Life does not cease to make sense because there are no gods, there is one on the same basis for morality, and so on. The point here is that even if these consequences were true (and there are other consequences that actually are, as "we are just evolved animals" or "there is no life after death", or "we are not special in the universe"), this has no influence on the existence or nonexistence of a god or gods.

(Note: please restrict any comment that you make to the previous question and answer, and not to other matters as the existence or nonexistence of God. Thank you.)

Labels: Atheism FAQ
In the category of Atheism FAQ , Logic , Wishful thinking | No Comments »