Is it really so unusual, Thomas, that I might be a non-religious person fascinated by the phenomenon of religion? As a Catholic unfamiliar with the term "papacy" and a boy who couldn't wrap his mind around the fact that Baptists are a sect of Christians, you are in no position to so much as fathom such a contemplation, let alone pass judgement upon it. But I'll leave the specifics of your ignorance out of this for now and only straighten out your general confusion towards atheism and my personal obsession.
It is a statistical truth that a thorough reading and understanding of religious texts like the Christian Bible is a sure path to atheism, or opposition to the established church at the very least. It is a statistical truth that devotion to the study of human religion is a sure path to atheism. At the same time, however, studying history, sociology, psychology, any of the social sciences, will reveal the distinct fact that man has always had an intrinsic and apparently necessary obsession with what is beyond his worldly perception. The very existence of religion itself, whether or not a word of his is true or even relevent, makes spirituality and religion unavoidable aspects of the human condition. This fact, in a way, brings some legitimacy to religion as a concept, and proves that it is necessary to our psychological and social functioning. So how does one approach such a situation, knowing there is not and cannot be a God, but also knowing that there are and have to be religions? The easiest answer is to look at traditions like Buddhism or Voodoo, in which there is no intety worshipped as a God, but the nature of the practices are distinctly characteristic of religion. But by that token, all religions, theistic or not, show the same effects on a society. Therefore it is not a God which inspires men to take to religion, but rather the social function having religion serves to a group. Malinowsky and Maslow both discuss this functionalist theory and depth, as I'm sure I've mentioned, and not to sound unprofessional, but I just plain really like it. So where am I going with this?
Atheism is generally assumed to be the result of a cold, calculating, scientific intellectual who has eliminated the metaphysical possibility of the existence of a God. While this is true of many atheists, this is not my brand of atheism. This may suprise a number of you, but I am essentially and by definition emotional. It is my emotional intelligence, not analytic or sensory or whatever else, but emotional intelligence, which drives my decisions and my personality, and it follows naturally that this is the source of my atheism as well. I have never devoted much thought to whether there is or is not a God, because the existence of God is not at the core of religion. Religion lies in the hearts of men. It uses emotional arguments - promises, threats, and abstract emotional concepts like faith and love - to gain followers because it assumes that the opposition, like I said, is going to use analytic arguments - scientific fact and solid sensory perception - to argue against religion. I, however, am certainly God's loyal opposition, but I use emotional arguments, often with the very same rhetoric as my religious counterparts. By using the same faith-based, emotional logic, I eliminate the primary weapon of aggressive evangelists. By talking in terms of morality, faith, sin, power, and passion, I take away the one drawing point religion has over the alternative. The so-called moral high ground becomes mine, the fear of wrath disappears, the passionate testimony of a man who's "seen the light" now testifies for me, and it doesn't hurt that all intelligent scientific and metaphysical theories are on my side, though I never use them in my arguments.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
