“Don’t force a religion on a child. Don’t deny the questions of his active mind. Don’t destroy his/her dreams or convictions. Don’t show the child that violence is acceptable sometimes. Don’t be lazy: a child is a big responsibility.”—Give the child a good framework to live with.
“I have a big regret: You want to do something, a lot. You had the chance (two) to do so. But you didn’t because - A) Too scared or B) Drunk enough to not think clearly. Darn! It was just a kiss that would’ve made me the happiest man on the earth.”—Too bad. Next time I’ll simply do it.
Yesterday I was arguing, really, with a religious (or so she seemed to be) person. She claimed that since I have no faith, since I don’t believe in a “spirit” or “soul”, I was unable to understand what all those religious and metaphysical aspect that the Bible… the religion says.
I must say that both of us (and anyone reading this) has the most advanced means of survival in this world: reason. She said that “there are things unable to understand with reason” and “faith is the certainty of the invisible”. Both of those ideas are the basis of people-religion relationship. The first sentence is a claim of the inferiority of our mind, meaning there’s something superior that it’s unable for us to know. That’s a denial of our means of survival. That’s a denial of this reality. That’s a claim that there’s something superior, omniscient that “exists” separated from our existence (since He created it) and that only faith is the way to be morally accepted by that being, and, basically, the only way to claim that He exist.
How do you know that a God exists? The Bible? What are the basis of the Bible? A God? How do you know that a God exists? Your faith? What are the basis of your faith?
I’ll quote Ayn Rand:
Faith, as such, is extremely detrimental to human life: it is the negation of reason. But you must remember that religion is an early form of philosophy, that the first attempts to explain the universe, to give a coherent frame of reference to man’s life and a code of moral values, were made by religion, before men graduated or developed enough to have philosophy. And, as philosophies, some religions have very valuable moral points. They may have a good influence or proper principles to inculcate, but in a very contradictory context and, on a very—how should I say it?—dangerous or malevolent base: on the ground of faith.
What that girl was saying is clearly a contradiction itself. I mean, I can understand the what those religions are talking about, and I don’t need faith to do so, but, thanks to my ability to think, I simply deny it as completely true (and useful) because religion lacks premises, lacks evidence.
Religion itself is useful for those lazy-thinkers, because it gives a context to live with. But I rather be a dumb than a robot following orders. Rather live eternity in hell than waste this wonderful life and world being a brute.
The first thing she said (“there are things unable to understand with reason”) it’s actually true. That makes it a contradiction with faith. Why? Well, because there are many things unable to understand with reason because they’re, simply, a bunch of fallacies.
Now I leave you, the reader, with this quote from Galt’s Speech:
You are an indivisible entity of matter and consciousness. Renounce your consciousness and you become a brute. Renounce your body and you become a fake. Renounce the material world and you surrender it to evil.