Dear Ipso Fatso,

You wrote: "So a religious view is not part of the natural world.
It is an aberrant view."

I don't believe anything exists besides the natural world. Human thoughts including religious views are part of the natural world.

The word, aberrant, means departing from an accepted standard.

Since many people accept a religious view, a religious view is part of an accepted standard.

I believe there is nothing but the natural world. However, in order for a religious view to be aberrant a religious view would have to be a view that most people don't accept. I am an atheist. At this time that is an aberrant view.

Dear David F.,

«I am an atheist. At this time that is an aberrant view.»

I am really surprised that you feel that way - I think that the vast majority of Australians accept atheism, which is also the dominant view in Australian intellectual circles.

Since I see no conflict between religion and atheism, I find it difficult to understand why anyone should not approve of atheism.

Here are quotes by Swami Vivekananda (from March 1900) to cheer you up:

"He is an atheist who does not believe in himself."

"As certain religions of the world say that a man who does not believe in a Personal God outside of himself is an atheist, so the Vedanta says, a man who does not believe in himself is an atheist. Not believing in the glory of our own soul is what the Vedanta calls atheism."

"There is some hope for the atheists, because though they differ from others, they think for themselves. The people who never think anything for themselves are not yet born into the world of religion; they have a mere jelly-fish existence. They will not think; they do not care for religion. But the disbeliever, the atheist, cares, and he is struggling. So think something! Struggle Godward! Never mind if you fail, never mind if you get hold of a queer theory. If you are afraid to be called queer, keep it in your own mind — you need not go and preach it to others. But do something! Struggle Godward! Light must come."

---

Dear Ipso Fatso,

Belief in a god is only one religious technique among many.
Many people benefit from such belief (and I could describe the benefits if you are interested), but if that particular technique is not for you, then no problems, religion has many other methods to offer.

Also, many religious people, even those with faith in God, myself included, do not think of God as a supernatural entity, in fact as an entity of any kind.

BTW, attending a church is also not required for being religious.

Opinions can differ widely.
It is not so much individual opinions which matter, but an 'averaged out' version. A consensus.
Having different ideas is just that. Having different ideas.
We are not rejecting another person's point of view.
We are giving an alternative.

I don't see it as productive to be overly critical of another person's text.
Ask for clarification by all means.
But don't use difference as an excuse to be scathing.
We don't need to 'light-up' the conversation.
This is not a combat zone.

I enjoy reading the opinions of others.
I don't agree with all of them.
I see merit when logical points are made.
But now and then points are inaccurate, and the 'story' just won't 'hang together'.
The 'framework' collapses as one reads.

I note that the word 'religion' is taking on new shades of meaning in modern times.
This happens with many words.
A religious view is being seen as an intense and consuming interest in something.
Sport is in this category for many persons.
It controls and directs life for them, as a religion would normally do.

True atheism and religion are both personal belief systems.
They have that in common.
But in all other ways they are worlds apart.
And it is modern religions which should be of concern?
Not what was said and done thousands of years ago?
We live today, and must deal with life as it is today.
Learn from yesterday by all means, and use that knowledge to assist with planning for the future.

Those who say that atheism deviates from religion are wrong.
Atheism came first, and religion is the deviant.
Some try to 'muddy the waters', to create confusion and uncertainty, by saying otherwise.
This is not at all a worthwhile ploy.
It smacks of desperation.
Anyway, religion doesn't enter my thoughts any more than the stories I was told when I was four years old.
Unless for some reason I am obliged to turn my attention to it.

Dear Ipso Fatso,

«True atheism and religion are both personal belief systems.»

Only the former.

«Atheism came first, and religion is the deviant.»

First was natural unconscious religion.
Then as language developed, people started formulating their religious practices consciously, handing them down orally, eventually writing them down too, giving them names and adding stories to make them more memorable.

Thereafter the origin and purpose of these stories were, partially or wholly, forgotten.
Then came people who read these stories and mistakenly thought that they were meant to be objective.
- some of them believed these stories to be objectively true.
- some of them could not tell whether or not these stories were objectively true.
- some of them believed that these stories are objectively false.

Thus believers, agnostics and atheists, are all on a par, having no clue about the original purpose these stories served.

Regardless of what they think of these stories, people of all three categories continue to practice religion, some naturally, some out of habit and a few consciously accelerate their practices.

A national Service scheme would go a long way towards not needing a death penalty for years to come !
Why ? Because a responsible & caring mentality out-performs a selfish one any day and, that's proven !
Punish crime & the crime rate will reduce ! Gyms, three different meals/day, internet rooms, Uni studies etc aren't prisons, they're Motels with barbed wire fences ! i.e. hardly a deterrent !