Today we talk about religion, faith, atheism, karma, and destiny of souls, a topic that I will try to deal with due respect for those who believe in a deity. From time to time we will come back to if I want to.
I found myself many times to talk with people about religion and God thought differently from me. Like all discussions, heated or not, with people of different views even this has proved very informative and useful. Let me explain. I always started my discussion by asking how he could turn to religious belief in an invisible being who lives in the clouds, which evidence - apart from a book - could show to prove its existence or how he believe those that, in my opinion, were little more than fables. It is obvious that with such questions as the discussion switched on and, despite all the effort spent in the cut and thrust, always come into conflict with the usual glass ceiling: the faith. Hours and hours of discussion leading up to the usual dead end: "I just believe, I believe in God, what's wrong? I do not care and I can not prove that there is. As you can not prove that there is. "Okay, you win. When it comes to religion, in fact, the arguments "against" are over, exhausted, unnecessary, redundant. Think about it, if I say I believe in flying cows, though not if they have ever seen, and even if the testimony of one who claims to have seen them are remote in space and time are highly sporadic, it can not contradict in any way I think because we just closed the topic. I do not care to prove the existence of winged animals. Are now at a higher level. Try to raise some objections: no bird has the rumen? There is always a first time. Why do you only see Codest animals? I do not know. In fact, I know, because I'm the chosen one, you can not know the divine will and design of the flying cow. And so on. For this reason, for my clash with the professions of faith, even my atheism began to falter, I started going to church or mosque, mind you, but I thought that, yes, I could never prove the non-existence of God, Allah, Ganesh and Vishnu, the immortal souls, and so on. Then my theology has become "softer" to the believers and also I have started thinking that maybe, just maybe, something or someone in the vast infinity could, I also say, exist. Okay, but who to choose? Who to believe? Allah? Yahweh? The Trinity? One of my personal god (oh yeah, do not I told you, this is the new fashion, believing in a personal god, nature, earth, the sun, a soul collective. Every believer in a personal god has its own model or idea. A sort of personal god, a bit 'like going to the tailor and get the tailor-made suit after being disappointed by the tailoring industry. But here are not talking about clothes. Let's talk about suggests the existence of an entity / thing / being / nonsocosa higher, eternal, immortal. There is talk of afterlife, and reincarnation of souls. Only now, also, I understand the atheist Communist believe in God was an admission that the owners have always existed, that they are immortal and that we have it all. End of engraved)?
summary, then, we can not refute the religious faith with rational arguments, not religion. Consequently possiamo e dobbiamo affermare che tutte le religioni sono meritevoli del medesimo rispetto. Perché dovrei ritenere più vera la fede cristiana cattolica rispetto alle altre? Dal momento che non ci sono vere e proprie basi scientifiche sulle quali dimostrare l'esistenza di una divinità, non è possibile nemmeno dimostrarne la non esistenza, quindi non posso falsificare nessuna tesi di nessuna religione, per quanto io la possa ritenere ridicola. Tornando all'esempio delle mucche volanti, come dovrei comportarmi se fossi di fronte a cinque persone che affermano che:
 | |
| Questa immagine è di proprietà di Holy Cows, Inc. | |
sum up: I can not refute the religious beliefs of using rational arguments and I have no rational basis for saying that a religion is more or less valid than any other, but still, how can I have the presumption to believe in god just as when other I claim to own the truth themselves? At this point, the religions should be more rational than politeiste, poiché contemplano l'esistenza di molte e differenti divinità e questo spiega anche l'apertura di certi popoli alle conversioni: i tuoi dei ti hanno appena fatto perdere tutto il raccolto, il Dio giaguaro ha appena mangiato tua moglie, il Dio scimmia urlatrice non ti lascia dormire e vedi arrivare uomini in armatura che governano enormi navi e vanno a spasso a dorso di mostri a quattro zampe, hanno bastoni tonanti che sputano fuoco e piombo; bé, meglio cambiare religione, così se il Dio scimmia torna di notte urlando gli si spara con l'archibugio.
Per concludere questo piccolo excursus sulla fede religiosa vorrei raccontare un aneddoto. Alla scuola materna ho assistito, giuro che è vero, a un fatto curioso. Un child steals a toy car-robot to another. This child tries desperately and suspecting the thief began to pressure him. The thief, who was not stupid, tells him to know that the cars and buried in the courtyard of the school and that only has to dig to find it at some point. The port where to dig, and help you find the toy. Obviously, spend their days and the stolen goods is not found. How is it possible? Then you told a lie? asks the robbed. No, replies the thief, the possibilities are three: you're digging in the wrong place, you have not dug enough, or you're questioning what I say, do not believe me. The stolen what can be done to prove his suspicions? Can not search the house of the thief, who stole it can not prove and can not prove that the car is not buried in the courtyard of the school (if not completely overturned, but it would end its first year of kindergarten). If another child had told him that he saw the thief take home the loot, the poor wretch would have believed it, but not on the basis of a rational argument but on the basis of what was easy for him at the moment It is easier to convince a thief to return the stolen goods that hunted dig until you find the. I do not know if I explained. How can you prove the falsity of an argument if you can not prove the truth of its opposite? How do I prove that is not true that Bernadette saw the Virgin, where there is no way to prove otherwise? How can I prove that the Bible and the Qur'an were inspired by God in person if I can not verify it? How can I prove that the events are the result of chance or of others' actions and are not the result of a divine plan, of poetic justice, karma, voodoo, the evil eye or fate? If I decide to delete this sentence, just after writing it, how can I prove that someone had not expected or, worse, decided? Impossible, as it is impossible to prove that somewhere there is someone who had decided for me. If I write "shit" is a literary act already decided? Possible? Had already decided the extermination of the Jews (for more, a people who believe God's chosen), the Roma, homosexuals and political criminals in the twentieth century? Now, you could make a cut through with the famous Occam's Razor: the simplest solution is also preferable that, things happen by chance or as a result of actions of others. But even here you could respond with faith, and Occam would be worth less than two sticks with a trump money.
The beauty, however, it is now. If I, a human being just like you and biologically, I tell you that God does not exist, which are all lies, why should you believe me? How can I get on a pulpit and raised to the prophet of atheism? What would di me un testimone più credibile di Mosè o degli evangelisti? Niente, assolutamente niente. Esattamente come niente rende più credibile la testimonianza dei profeti rispetto a quella del divino mago Otelma. Insomma, un essere umano non dovrebbe cambiare idea perché uno che sta più in alto di lui gli comunica il suo pensiero. È come se, andando a votare, vedeste Antonello Venditti in televisione che dice di preferire il Partito Democratico e voi votereste il PD perché il vostro cantante preferito dice che voterà per il PD. Niente rende Antonello Venditti in grado di scegliere chi votare meglio di chiunque altro. La sua scelta potrebbe influenzare la vostra soltanto se le vostre aspettative politiche fossero molto simili. Per cui, penso che no one can ever claim to be religious truth in your pocket, unless you can prove that the flying cow spotted there and is very angry with you while flying cow drinking red lambrusco is an invention of the Consortium Modenese Lambrusco DOC to sell a few bottles in the box at Christmas and Easter. There is nothing to laugh about! You could never prove that there is the flying cow drinking red Lambrusco, and, what is worse is that this is just a stupid example. Imagine if I told you I saw a beautiful woman with blue veil that crushed a snake with bare feet, imagine if I told you that showed me hell, told me that three predictions I can not reveal until it came true. Still laugh now?
0 comments:
Post a Comment