Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
Quote Originally Posted by Masamune View Post
I think Sufis and Zen Buddhists at least would wholeheartedly disagree with you on this, though perhaps the term enlightened would need to be substituted for righteous.

You rail against religions that use their powerful influence to forward agendas, yet you seem to be doing the same thing, albeit on a minute scale. Many of your statements seem rather self-righteous. Do you see any of this in yourself and how you present your agenda? How are you different? How are you wiser, more righteous, less ignorant?


You rail against religions that use their powerful influence to forward agendas, yet you seem to be doing the same thing, albeit on a minute scale
I do not criticize religions for forwarding an agenda. I criticize those who blindly accept everything that an organization dictates without applying critical thinking. I criticize those who purposefully put forth untested, unproven, and patently false information in the form of lies and propaganda. I criticize those who teach that even though they cannot prove it, their ideology is the only correct one, and all other ideologies are false and heretical. I criticize organized faith for hypocritically demanding that none question or debate their philosophies, yet over time they themselves change their own holy doctrine. (See the Catholic church and it's position on the concept of Limbo, Papal decrees being overturned by later Papal decrees)

If only those at the head of a religion are allowed to alter its message or criticize it, then it is an elitist organization. If rational people are not allowed to openly challenge the tenets of a faith, then the faith is unreasonable, closed, and intolerant of free speech. This can lead to violence against those who simply call things as they see them, and opine that certain faiths are unreasonable.

I have an agenda, it is true. However, I never once asked anyone to blindly accept what I believe. I do not fear being challenged in open debate. I do not knock on anyone's doors offering to convert them. I do not ask for tithes or charity or worship or ritual. I do not knowingly put forth false propaganda regarding my political adversaries, I invite others to challenge the veracity of my allegations, decide for themselves, and indeed correct me if I am wrong. I do not teach that only my ideology is the only correct one, and that everyone must convert to my belief system. I do not ask anyone to refrain from questioning me, debating me, and I allow everyone to contribute to the ideas I put forward. I do not hold secret meetings with elitists in order to change the tenets of my opinions, I allow rational minds of all people to have the oppurtunity to challenge my bad ideas and offer good ideas.

When I see that I have made an error, I correct it with an apology. And I welcome the idea that I am fallible, and that I am ignorant, and that I need improvement.

You cannot say any of these things about certain religious organizations. Indeed, I put forward my ideas in the public arena, however that is where the comparison between myself and organized religion ends.

Many of your statements seem rather self-righteous
Interesting. Can you point out which ones, and why you feel that way?

There is a difference in my mind between righteousness and self-righteousness; between being correct and merely thinking one is always correct. Although I do believe that the philosophy I subscribe to is more rational than the ones I criticize, I never once claimed to be a holy prophet, nor have I claimed to have all the answers.

I am not stubborn in belief that I am correct about things. Prove me wrong and I will change my mind. That is not self-righteousness, that is an honest attempt at rationalism. I am honestly attempting to be righteous, but I admit that I may fail at it. I do believe there is a clear difference between rational criticism and self-righteousness. You may feel free to disagree or debate the point.

Do you see any of this in yourself and how you present your agenda?
Yes, there was a time when I was younger when I was far more closed minded and stubborn, arrogant even when condemning those I disagreed with. Time and experience have shown me this is not the way.

However, passionately railing against blind trust and ignorance is something I will always do, even if I remove some of the errors of my thinking, it is still the kind of work that should be done. In my opinion, people must be more consciously aware of the dark side of ignorance, of untruths, of lies. In my nation and in modern culture ignorance, untruths, and lies are tolerated and even encouraged by the less scrupulous types who seek to appeal to the lowest common denominator in their quest for power, fame, and riches.

I still heavily criticize myself and the way I present my agenda, and invite criticism thereof. No one is a harsher critic of myself than I am. I also realise that I will never be perfect, and the message will always be spread by a fallible person. Yet the message itself is sound, in my opinion.

How are you wiser, more righteous, less ignorant?
I am not.

I am inexperienced, unjust, and ignorant, just as everyone else is. However, I am not the issue, nor do I present my agenda as a cult of personality, nor do I make myself the center of attention. The issue is whether or not ignorance, blind faith, superstition, unfounded hatreds, propaganda, lies, and other irrational practices have any place in the public discourse, whether these things should be the basis of religion, of government, of societal law.

The message is more important than the man, by leaps and bounds. I am nothing, truth is everything.

___________________

To rail against ignorance and blind obedience and blind faith is my cause. If I were to do so with blindness and ignorance of my own failings, that would be hypocritical.

I do not present myself as holier than thou, nor infallible, nor immune from my own criticism. That is why the message is more important than the man.