Religion
Related: About this forumWho said it? Einstein or Russell?
I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms.
Follow up question:
Is this statement an example of intolerance?
msongs
(70,104 posts)Major Nikon
(36,899 posts)Which has been done in this very forum by some our our vocal religionists both past and present.
MarvinGardens
(779 posts)But I don't think it's intolerant. It never made sense to me that God would condemn me to hell for using the brain He gave me, if my observations contradict religious doctrine.
Voltaire2
(14,657 posts)Major Nikon
(36,899 posts)Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)According to the privileged majority.
Major Nikon
(36,899 posts)Also funny how atheists who hurt believers feelings are irredeemable while theists who advocate for laws that discriminate against LGBT and women are still commendable. According to the privileged majority.
MineralMan
(147,386 posts)Love it!
MineralMan
(147,386 posts)Permanut
(6,610 posts)I know the answer to this one. Saw it on the innertubes years ago while searching for something else.
The statement may well be an example of intolerance, but in a kind of clinical sense, like if I'm intolerant of strawberries or tobacco smoke. Nothing inherently evil there unless the speaker has some authority and uses it to cause distress to another human being.
Major Nikon
(36,899 posts)As opposed to extremely intolerant to the point of actually denying others basic human rights which is inherent to virtually all organized religions.