If you enjoy what you read here you will also enjoy my novel
21 days in May
Please be aware this blog may be considered Illegal almost anywhere!

Your Point Is Not Valid

I think we've probably all heard the phrase

"Looking through rose-tinted spectacles"
but for those who haven't, it's a English idiom meaning

Perceiving with an unduly cheerful, optimistic,
or favourable view of reality.
One could describe the rose-tinted spectacle wearer as Panglossian, being
blindly or naively optimistic.
(Dr Pangloss is the character in Voltaire's satire Candide who embodies Leibniz' view that THIS is the best of all possible worlds.)

However, these meanings are somewhat conceptual; one can say, or read, "unduly cheerful" or "naively optimistic" without really considering the full meaning of the idiom.
so I have been...
considering it I mean...

Would you ask someone wearing rose-tinted spectacles
to tell you the precise colour of something?

I'm pretty sure I wouldn't!

What I mean is, with the greatest efforts to provide accurate information, the rose-tinted spectacle wearer can never truly see the actual colour without removing the spectacles.
I wouldn't go all fascist and tell everybody to remove their spectacles

You want everything looking pink?
That's okay by me!
What I would expect though, is that ALL pink-spectacle wearers would then be responsible enough to accept that they cannot give an accurate description of coloured objects, and agree to remove their glasses as and when required.
Further though, it would not be unreasonable to expect spectacle wearers, upon realising they cannot see 'properly' with the spectacles on, to henceforth, whilst wearing them, avoid offering descriptions where colour is involved, or offering opinions on whether colours or tones match, or any aspect which would fall within the colour spectrum.

Seem reasonable? Sensible?
All well and good so far?

But what about a situation where the wearer
has been told, from birth,
that removal of the spectacles would mean


Understandably, it would take a huge amount of convincing for the fearful wearer to remove them. Most likely the wearer would refuse, saying...
"Discerning the colour of something is insufficient grounds for risking one's life! Does knowing the true colour of things really matter?"
They may even argue that there is no distortion, and why should they prove to you, that what they see is not reality?

Whereas the individual rose-coloured spectacle wearer, may have a temporary, psychological need to believe the best of someone, to overlook another's faults, to achieve a work contract for example, the rose-tinted spectacles worn by the religious, are enforced by the religion too which they are bound!

Under threat of immortal damnation!

As an atheist, I am free to consider the mythical supernatural landscapes objectively, free from fear of reprisal, but religious doctrine often prohibits the faithful the same freedom. The moment a religious person psychologically steps away from the god figure to, freely, critically assess the concept, they have instantly committed the "worst" sin and are condemned to the hell conjured by their doctrine.

Under the beady eye of an all-seeing god and his partner in crime Satan riding Shotgun, a religious person's thoughts are constantly

hindered by the very doctrine they promote!

This is obvious but,

It is not possible
to properly question a subject
that you are mortally prohibited
from questioning properly.

Faith shackles the religious person to off-the-peg Rose-tinted spectacles, limiting their view of reality to what can be seen through their doctrine's brand of lenses.
As such,

Is any point a religious person makes valid?

I pity those trapped in the superstition soup.
Remove the spectacles friends and
"Let's think about God"
Alternatively, what happens if we apply this reasoning to our Justice system? 
"Trial by Jury on Trial"

This is one of the Too many questions

Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,

Back to the Core TMQ"


If you enjoy what you read here
you will also enjoy my novel
21 days in May

Please be aware this blog may be considered Illegal almost anywhere!

Get TMQ on your Kindle

Copyright Crispy Sea

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher.

All blog posts copyright http://atheist.diatribes.co.uk

TMQCrispySea 2009-2014