Having thoughts come into your head by a long chain of incidental contact, can give one the strangest ideas, sometimes harmful, sometimes brilliant. It is then our responsibility to either foster the idea, or reject it. How do we do that if free will is at such a premium?
Is it a good idea to foster an idea that has no proof in reality, but is seen by many as an overall benefit to the species?
Religion is the idea that keeps giving (and taking) with unintended outcomes, that, not only don’t work for the skeptic, but they don’t work for the believer either.
- There are no miracles
- Prayer is never answered by a god
- The idea of peace on earth has never materialized even with a majority citizenry and leadership.
- Love is still at a premium
- Where’s the bliss? Isn’t it time to show me the money, after taking so much of mine for so long?
Collaboration outside of your circle of belief is critical to sound reasoning. Occasionally I’ll throw out an idea to the group to get validation. Sometimes the post gets a lot of comment, but nothing directed at the idea itself (you’re all too kind sometimes) but when that happens I go back to the drawing board to adjust my thinking.
We may not have the free will to generate our own ideas, but do we (I hope) have the ability to foster them, or filter them? Do we have that choice? Is this filtering ability the difference between a skeptic and a true believer—or psychopath?
Recalling, computing, pondering, is overwhelmed by the datas you foster. Those conscious choices, what you read and watch, have a profound impact on our output. One can rarely consider something they’ve never heard of. Choose wisely my fiends.
TheCommonAtheist 