[Merged]All religions are idiocy

[DanishDynamite]

It boggles my mind that anyone could believe in any religion anywhere.

Could a believer please explain why and what he/she believes in?

[Tricky]

I'm not a believer, but I recognize that I am in the vast minority.

But humans are very fearful organisms with this big brain that keeps thinking up all sorts of scary and very creative scenarios. It may be quite natural that they also think up some protection against these scenarios. There is some evidence that susceptibility to religious thought may even be part of our biological makeup.

No, it is not logical. Logic is a fairly recent addition to our mental arsenal.

[Ryokan]

Well, I'm a Buddhist. Thank you for calling me an idiot. Is there anything else you'd like to call me?

If you want to know what I believe in, that's a pretty insulting way to ask. Go look it up on Wikipedia instead, or check out www.4truths.com.

[Hokulele]

Well, I'm a Buddhist. Thank you for calling me an idiot. Is there anything else you'd like to call me?

If you want to know what I believe in, that's a pretty insulting way to ask. Go look it up on Wikipedia instead, or check out www.4truths.com. (http://www.4truths.com.)


This is an interesting response, as The Atheist and I had an argument a disagreement about a year ago as to whether or not Buddhism (and Taoism) is (are) religion(s). :)

[Tricky]

Well, I'm a Buddhist. Thank you for calling me an idiot. Is there anything else you'd like to call me?

If you want to know what I believe in, that's a pretty insulting way to ask. Go look it up on Wikipedia instead, or check out www.4truths.com (http://www.4truths.com).
LOL. I thought Buddhism wasn't a religion? No gods, right? So it's just a philosophy. Yeah, I know it gets called a religion, but so does atheism, so don't get your toga in a wad.:D

***
ETA:
And damn Hokulele for beating me to the punch.

[Ryokan]

This is an interesting response, as The Atheist and I had an argument a disagreement about a year ago as to whether or not Buddhism (and Taoism) is (are) religion(s). :)

Well, yes, it could be argued that they are philosophies rather than religions, although some forms of Buddhism, like Tibetan Buddhism and Pure Land Buddhism are quite clearly religions.

However, if asked what my religion is, I will answer Buddhism.

LOL. I thought Buddhism wasn't a religion? No gods, right? So it's just a philosophy. Yeah, I know it gets called a religion, but so does atheism, so don't get your toga in a wad.:D

Well, a lot of religions don't have gods, especially eastern ones. I think. At least, the consensus is that they're religion. But I have never seen a definition of religion that will fit with both Christianity and Buddhism.

Anyway, many forms of Buddhism do have gods or other supernatural elements.

My point? I have no idea. It's all off topic, anyway.

Back to DanishDynamite telling people they are idiots and then explain to him what they believe.

[Smackety]

I believe in religions, there is ample evidence that they exist. Do you mean belief in God is idiocy? Because that does not include all religions.
If you really do mean 'religions' - I believe that they are a powerful force in the world, and whether they are clever or idiotic depends on what side you are on, like patriotism.

If you mean god: it depends on the individual, but if thinking that there is someone watching over you lowers your stress level and helps you function in society, it would not be idiotic to believe. I would argue that we believe lots of crazy things because it makes us feel better. For example, I am certain that many of us are in denial about how dangerous driving a car really is. Since we have to drive, it would not be helpful to be freaking out and updating our will everytime we went anywhere.

[Hokulele]

I can't really remember what the final verdict was, but the two methods of determining religion vs. philosophy that were proposed were whether or not it was listed as a religion on a government census form (which would technically make atheism a religion in the USA), or how the practitioner felt about it.

I wonder how DD views this question . . .

ETA: This was addressed to Ryokan and the OP, I didn't notice Smackety posting while I was composing, and Tricky is not deserving of a response.

[DanishDynamite]

Well, I'm a Buddhist. Thank you for calling me an idiot. Is there anything else you'd like to call me?
If you are religious, you are an idiot. My understanding of Buddishm is that it isn't a religion, though. Perhaps I'm wrong?
If you want to know what I believe in, that's a pretty insulting way to ask. Go look it up on Wikipedia instead, or check out www.4truths.com.
Do you believe in any form of God?

[DanishDynamite]

Well, yes, it could be argued that they are philosophies rather than religions, although some forms of Buddhism, like Tibetan Buddhism and Pure Land Buddhism are quite clearly religions.

However, if asked what my religion is, I will answer Buddhism.



Well, a lot of religions don't have gods, especially eastern ones. I think. At least, the consensus is that they're religion. But I have never seen a definition of religion that will fit with both Christianity and Buddhism.

Anyway, many forms of Buddhism do have gods or other supernatural elements.

My point? I have no idea. It's all off topic, anyway.

Back to DanishDynamite telling people they are idiots and then explain to him what they believe.
Do you believe in some form of God? Simple question.

[DanishDynamite]

I believe in religions, there is ample evidence that they exist. Do you mean belief in God is idiocy?
Yes, in any form at all.
Because that does not include all religions.
Name one.
If you really do mean 'religions' - I believe that they are a powerful force in the world, and whether they are clever or idiotic depends on what side you are on, like patriotism.

If you mean god: it depends on the individual, but if thinking that there is someone watching over you lowers your stress level and helps you function in society, it would not be idiotic to believe. I would argue that we believe lots of crazy things because it makes us feel better. For example, I am certain that many of us are in denial about how dangerous driving a car really is. Since we have to drive, it would not be helpful to be freaking out and updating our will everytime we went anywhere.
I mean believing in any form of god. Which is of course idiocy.

[steverino]

If you are religious, you are an idiot.

No, YOU are the idiot.

[DanishDynamite]

I can't really remember what the final verdict was, but the two methods of determining religion vs. philosophy that were proposed were whether or not it was listed as a religion on a government census form (which would technically make atheism a religion in the USA), or how the practitioner felt about it.

I wonder how DD views this question . . .

ETA: This was addressed to Ryokan and the OP, I didn't notice Smackety posting while I was composing, and Tricky is not deserving of a response.
If any form of God is involved, with "God" defined as it is in any dictionary, then it is pure idiocy.

[DanishDynamite]

No, YOU are the idiot.
When you have something relevant to contribute, please do so.

[Ryokan]

Do you believe in any form of God?

No. I'm an atheist.

Many religions don't have any gods. If it's the theists you're after, then by all means.

If any form of God is involved, with "God" defined as it is in any dictionary, then it is pure idiocy.

Now that you've insulted believers again, do you still want them to politely explain to you exactly what they believe?

[Normal Dude]

You know, I have NEVER been able to figure out why so many people have such a poor impression of skeptics and atheists.

Nope, never been able to figure it out.

[Hokulele]

If any form of God is involved, with "God" defined as it is in any dictionary, then it is pure idiocy.


Hmm, so you appear to be more concerned with theism than religion. Got it. It would have been helpful if you had worded your OP to indicate such.

BTW, many practicing Shinto priests would be very surprised to find out they are not religious by your definition, as would many practicing animists . . .

ETA: OK, Ryokan beat me to it this time.

[Ryokan]

ETA: OK, Ryokan beat me to it this time.

Maybe you should just get out of the thread :D

[DanishDynamite]

No. I'm an atheist.

Many religions don't have any gods. If it's the theists you're after, then by all means.
If you are an atheist you are not religious. So what is your beef?
Now that you've insulted believers again, do you still want them to politely explain to you exactly what they believe?
I want them to explain, yes. Whether they are insulted or not isn't relevant.

[DanishDynamite]

You know, I have NEVER been able to figure out why so many people have such a poor impression of skeptics and atheists.

Nope, never been able to figure it out.
And I have never understood why believers are believers. I hope they can explain here.

[Hokulele]

Maybe you should just get out of the thread :D


What?! And miss out on yet another chance to redefine "religion"? Not on your life. :p

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I think that your religion comprises of your core beliefs and values pertaining to the world and your place in it that effect the way you live your life. For me, Agnostic Zen Humanism is my religion. I don't think belief in the existence of a god determines whether or not something is a religion.

[Smackety]

Yes, in any form at all.

Name one.

I mean believing in any form of god. Which is of course idiocy.

A religion with no god? How about Taoism, or Buddhism?

I don't understand why you think it is idiocy to believe in something when the benefit derived from doing so outweighs the costs?

[Ryokan]

If you are an atheist you are not religious. So what is your beef?

I want them to explain, yes. Whether they are insulted or not isn't relevant.

....

[DanishDynamite]

Hmm, so you appear to be more concerned with theism than religion. Got it. It would have been helpful if you had worded your OP to indicate such.
Its the same thing, so I don't understand your concern.
BTW, many practicing Shinto priests would be very surprised to find out they are not religious by your definition, as would many practicing animists . . .
I would be surprised too as they are included. And in what sense do you feel they don't belive in some form of god?
ETA: OK, Ryokan beat me to it this time.
Beat you to what?

[Normal Dude]

And I have never understood why believers are believers. I hope they can explain here.

Well, after the OP, I'm sure they will be just tickled to explain.

[DanishDynamite]

I think that your religion comprises of your core beliefs and values pertaining to the world and your place in it that effect the way you live your life. For me, Agnostic Zen Humanism is my religion. I don't think belief in the existence of a god determines whether or not something is a religion.
It does in this thread.

[thaiboxerken]

Well, I'm a Buddhist. Thank you for calling me an idiot...

He's calling religion idiotic. That doesn't mean he's calling you an idiot.

Oops. I spoke too soon.

I'm of the opinion that religion is idiotic while the religious can be intelligent.

[DanishDynamite]

A religion with no god? How about Taoism, or Buddhism?
Yes, there are several.
I don't understand why you think it is idiocy to believe in something when the benefit derived from doing so outweighs the costs?
It never does, so that was an easy question.

[Ryokan]

It does in this thread.

If you can change definitions to whatever suits you, then discussion is pointless.

Danes and Norwegians should really be in bed right now. Have a good night.

[DanishDynamite]

Well, after the OP, I'm sure they will be just tickled to explain.
I hope they will too.

[DanishDynamite]

If you can change definitions to whatever suits you, then discussion is pointless.
Where have I changed definitions?
Danes and Norwegians should really be in bed right now. Have a good night.
You too.

[Smackety]

Yes, there are several.

It never does, so that was an easy question.

Never? Are you saying that there is no possibility that for some person somewhere, believing in god is a net positive for their mental state?

[DanishDynamite]

Never? Are you saying that there is no possibility that for some person somewhere, believing in god is a net positive for their mental state?
No, that might be possible. His(her) belief would still be pure idiocy, of course.

[skeptifem]

lolocaust

[Smackety]

No, that might be possible. His(her) belief would still be pure idiocy, of course.

I see, this is semantic. I thought you were using the word idiocy because you really didn't understand why someone would believe, but now I see it is just used as an insult.

[DanishDynamite]

I see, this is semantic. I thought you were using the word idiocy because you really didn't understand why someone would believe, but now I see it is just used as an insult.
Whether it is idiotic or not has little to do with whether it would be "a net positive for their mental state" or not.

It is idiotic, period.

[Hokulele]

Its the same thing, so I don't understand your concern.


To you, maybe. To them, unlikely.

I would be surprised too as they are included. And in what sense do you feel they don't belive in some form of god?


In the sense that kami translates more to spirit than god.

Beat you to what?


Pointing out that you are redefining religion to suit yourself.

[DanishDynamite]

To you, maybe. To them, unlikely.
Let them explain the subtle difference then.
In the sense that kami translates more to spirit than god.
If this spirit can in some way be reached by humans and can in some way affect their lives, then it is God as I define it in this thread.
Pointing out that you are redefining religion to suit yourself.
I'm defining it as I understand most God believers minimum define it.

[steverino]

When you have something relevant to contribute, please do so.

What can be less relevant than starting a post, then calling people idiots. And I thought the Danes were supposed to be a tolerant people.:rolleyes:

[DanishDynamite]

What can be less relevant than starting a post, then calling people idiots. And I thought the Danes were supposed to be a tolerant people.:rolleyes:
When you something relevant to add, please do so.

[Hokulele]

Let them explain the subtle difference then.


Even more unlikely, given the tone of your OP.

If this spirit can in some way be reached by humans and can in some way affect their lives, then it is God as I define it in this thread.

I'm defining it as I understand most God believers minimum define it.


See, now you are making some progress.

[DanishDynamite]

Even more unlikely, given the tone of your OP.
I'll be saddened if they won't explain.
See, now you are making some progress.
I'm not making progress. Perhaps you are, though.

[Hokulele]

I'll be saddened if they won't explain.


You can borrow my hankie.

I'm not making progress. Perhaps you are, though.


I wonder why that is?

[DanishDynamite]

You can borrow my hankie.




I wonder why that is?
When you have something relevant to the OP to add, please do so.

[dglas]

Defining religion is so notoriously slippery that it is almost impossible to do so, which is, of course, welcome by the religious since it always allows moving them there goalposts in the desperate evasion of legitimate critique.

If it is mindset that does any of:
(1) Uses self-affirmation with no external referents as "evidence" for its claims;
(2) Involves supernatural entities, properties or spiritualism;
(3) Presents itself as Truth(TM);
(4) Suggests that humans are evil and need to be controlled with internalized normative structures;
(5) Posits humans as its servants instead of the other way around,

Then I call it religion and I oppose it.
Does Buddhism do any of that?

As far as Buddhism being offended (offended? Hahahaha!) by being derided as a religion, well who chose to call it a religion? If anyone wishes to clarify that it is not a religion (and has none of the properties above), then I'll be only too happy to take it off my list of enemies of humanity. Even if it doesn't share any of the properties above, if it refers to itself as a religion, it is lending "legitimacy" to those malignant, viral mindsets that go by that name.

And, yes, I rue the idea that secular humanism had itself declared a religion. That was a major loss for humanism. That's why I wouldn't even consider calling myself one.


They'll never...
Win Powerball!!!
...that way.

[El Greco]

If we call an idiot soemone who doesn't realize there's no God, then how should we call someone who doesn't realize how important a role the environment plays in whether logic will manage to rise above insecurity ? How do we call someone who doesn't see that the human brain hasn't changed for tens of thousands of years and so logic is not hardwired in it anymore now than what it was 100,000 years ago ? How do we call someone who doesn't realize that the most important traits of humans are not critical thinking and reason, but rather compassion, adaptability, willingness to judge based on intentions much more than beliefs, acceptance of differences and ability to communicate instead of insult ? Because, with the current preponderance of theism, I can still see humanity progressing, and perhaps even progressing towards an atheistic world. But without compassion and understanding our future seems gloomy. Realizing this is much more intelligent than the mere realization that there is no God.

[Egg]

If you are religious, you are an idiot.

I don't understand why you are asking others to defend themselves here.

You've started a thread with a bold (and fairly offensive) claim and the ball is firmly in your court to provide the evidence and reasoning to support it.

Please present your case that all religions are idiocy and that if you are religious, you are an idiot.

[CFLarsen]

No. I'm an atheist.

Many religions don't have any gods.

OK, that one you gotta explain.

[lionking]

When you have something relevant to the OP to add, please do so.
Just because you started this thread it does not mean you own it. You start a deliberately provocative thread and get righteous when others do not respond in a way you deem appropriate.

[Undesired Walrus]

Am I the only one sensing the wiff of a troll? If you are saying those who believe in God are idiotic DanishD, you aren't a shining example of the alternative.

It's true!

[lionking]

No not a troll as such, but close. Just deliberately provocative. There can be no serious debate when someone starts a thread like this one.

[lupus_in_fabula]

There can be no serious debate when someone starts a thread like this one.

I suppose that was the point: “See how it’s impossible to discuss religion in any reasonable manner." Looks like a bully trick. On the other hand, maybe the whole business with the Mohammed cartoons and the after play therein might have provoked such a provocative post in the first place. Who knows?

[Gazpacho]

Am I the only one sensing the wiff of a troll?
It is quite formulaic and repetitive.

I'm an atheist. Angry atheists, however, irritate me.

[Mobyseven]

Angry atheists don't irritate me. Morons, however...

[Undesired Walrus]

It is quite formulaic and repetitive.

I'm an atheist. Angry atheists, however, irritate me.

I often believe the main thing us Atheists should be working on is to stop religion recieving special treatment and be treated the same as any other belief system like Marxism, Liberalism, or Pacifism.

Which is why it pisses me off when any person goes 'Liberalism is pure idiocy' (Even though I am not a liberal). Likewise here.

[CFLarsen]

I often believe the main thing us Atheists should be working on is to stop religion recieving special treatment and be treated the same as any other belief system like Marxism, Liberalism, or Pacifism.

Which is why it pisses me off when any person goes 'Liberalism is pure idiocy' (Even though I am not a liberal). Likewise here.

Yeah, but then, you agree that Libertarianism is pure idiocy.

Right? ;)

[gumboot]

If you look up religion (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=religion) on Dictionary.com you will get quite a collection of different definitions for "religion". What is most notable is how few of them actually make any mention whatsoever about belief in a deity.

What they tend to have in common is a set of beliefs and practices agreed upon by a collective group of people, and typically some sort of significant devotion to said beliefs and practices. Often some sort of moral code by which members live is included.

Thus religion would appear to be quite possible absent a deity, and belief in a deity would appear to be quite possible absent religion.

[CFLarsen]

If you look up religion (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=religion) on Dictionary.com you will get quite a collection of different definitions for "religion". What is most notable is how few of them actually make any mention whatsoever about belief in a deity.

What they tend to have in common is a set of beliefs and practices agreed upon by a collective group of people, and typically some sort of significant devotion to said beliefs and practices. Often some sort of moral code by which members live is included.

Thus religion would appear to be quite possible absent a deity, and belief in a deity would appear to be quite possible absent religion.

If that is "religion", then I am religious because I am moral.

And I'm not.

(Religious, that is. :))

[Damien Evans]

This thread is a great argument for apatheism

[Mobyseven]

This thread is a great argument for apatheism

This thread is a great argument for reconsidering travel plans to Denmark... :p

[Ryokan]

OK, that one you gotta explain.

Not sure how to explain that further. Maybe if you asked questions?

Which part were you wondering about?

1. I'm an atheist.

2. There are religions without gods.

[steverino]

If we call an idiot soemone who doesn't realize there's no God, then how should we call someone who doesn't realize how important a role the environment plays in whether logic will manage to rise above insecurity ? How do we call someone who doesn't see that the human brain hasn't changed for tens of thousands of years and so logic is not hardwired in it anymore now than what it was 100,000 years ago ? How do we call someone who doesn't realize that the most important traits of humans are not critical thinking and reason, but rather compassion, adaptability, willingness to judge based on intentions much more than beliefs, acceptance of differences and ability to communicate instead of insult ? Because, with the current preponderance of theism, I can still see humanity progressing, and perhaps even progressing towards an atheistic world. But without compassion and understanding our future seems gloomy. Realizing this is much more intelligent than the mere realization that there is no God.

NOMINATED!

Wow. I am impressed how something so beautiful can emerge from an OP so vile.- Steve

[thaiboxerken]

I can see humanity progressing despite religion. All religions are idiocy, I agree. All religious people aren't, though.

[CFLarsen]

Not sure how to explain that further. Maybe if you asked questions?

Which part were you wondering about?

1. I'm an atheist.

Well, you say that you are an atheist, yet you also thank DD for calling you an idiot for being a religious believer.

2. There are religions without gods.

Which ones? How?

[Ryokan]

Well, you say that you are an atheist, yet you also thank DD for calling you an idiot for being a religious believer.

I'm a Buddhist, so I'm religious. I don't believe in any gods, so I'm an atheist.



Which ones? How?

Most forms of Buddhism acknowledge no gods. Taoism acknowledges no gods. Confucianism acknowledges no gods. Scientology acknowledges no gods. Modern Asatru. acknowledges no gods. And as Hokulele mentioned, depending on your definition of 'god', the same goes for Shintoism.

I'm sure there are more.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I can see humanity progressing despite religion. All religions are idiocy, I agree. All religious people aren't, though.Ding ding ding....first post to notice the OP called religions idiocy, and didn't call believers idiots.

I realize if one believes in something idiotic, we are tempted to interpret that action as implying someone is an idiot. And the OP was idiotically worded because it invited an attack on the messenger rather than a discussion of the message.

But I would wager we all have or at least have had a belief in something idiotic (like that my ex would be different this time after 2 previous divorces ;)) and that does not make us idiots.

[Hokulele]

Ding ding ding....first post to notice the OP called religions idiocy, and didn't call believers idiots.

I realize if one believes in something idiotic, we are tempted to interpret that action as implying someone is an idiot. And the OP was idiotically worded because it invited an attack on the messenger rather than a discussion of the message.

But I would wager we all have or at least have had a belief in something idiotic (like that my ex would be different this time after 2 previous divorces ;)) and that does not make us idiots.


I completely disagree. Sure, the title of the thread is worded such a way, but DD immediately undermined this fair position with his first sentence in the OP itself. By stating that he cannot understand why anyone would believe what they do, he is doing more than implying believers are idiots.

It has been mentioned at least once in this thread prior to TBK's observance that an idiotic belief does not have to indicate an idiotic believer, but DD was more interested in playing catfight than discussing what he meant by the OP.

[CFLarsen]

I'm a Buddhist, so I'm religious. I don't believe in any gods, so I'm an atheist.

I'm confused about your definition of "religion", then.

Do you believe in anything paranormal, supernatural or miraculous?

Most forms of Buddhism acknowledge no gods. Taoism acknowledges no gods. Confucianism acknowledges no gods. Scientology acknowledges no gods. Modern Asatru. acknowledges no gods.

Not if you are thinking of the Norwegian Asatru(ters).

Åsatrufellesskapet Bifrost har tatt mål av seg til å samle alle som ønsker å dyrke de gamle norrøne guder og holde den hedenske sed i hevd.
Bifrost.no (http://www.bifrost.no/)

Foreningen Forn Sed is a religious society for those who believe in the Norwegian folklore, the spirits and entities the folklore represents, in addition to gods and other beings from the Norse pantheon. The purpose of the society is keeping alive the old traditions, beliefs and ways, and making interest for the popular faith and the Norse cultural heritage.
Forn Sed (http://www.forn-sed.no/main/english/english.htm)

And as Hokulele mentioned, depending on your definition of 'god', the same goes for Shintoism.

I'm sure there are more.

I think it has a lot to do with the definition of "god".

[Skeptic Ginger]

As for Buddhists not believing in deities, there sure is a lot of ritualistic worship occurring at Buddhist temples (http://philtar.ucsm.ac.uk/encyclopedia/shinto/budtemp.html)In practice however, a Buddhist temple may be regarded by devotees very much in the same ay as a Shinto shrine, as a seat of sacred power or energy whose resident deity is able to bestow benefits on the supplicant or worshipper who visits the temple.And it is my understanding that ancestor worship and belief in an existence after death, whether it be an afterworld or reincarnation would still constitute religious beliefs. Since when is a religion required to contain a specific definition of a god? And how can one claim belief ancestors and/or the Buddha is/are alive and well in some afterworld not belief in a deity? If there is a ritual of either worship or a ritual requesting the being in the other world bestow some favor on the person preforming a ritual communicating with or revering that ancestor and/or Buddha, then it isn't too much of a stretch to define those beings as a version of a god.The main function of a Buddhist temple in Japan is to conduct memorial rites for the dead. Such rites are performed over a period of many years in order to secure the passing of the ancestral spirit from this world to the realm of Buddha.

The syncretic approach of the Japanese to Buddhist and Shinto divinities was reflected throughout Japanese history in a close institutional association, to the point of merger, of Buddhist temples and Shinto shrines. They hosted common festivals and rituals, displayed common iconography and were often administered by Buddhist monks who served also as Shinto priests until the 'separation' of Buddhas and kami (shinbutsu bunri) in 1868. Since then people have continued to visit both shrines and temples but on separate occasions; Buddhist temples typically to carry out funeral and memorial rites, and Shinto shrines rituals of purification and renewal.

Depending on its size and function, a Buddhist temple may contain a worship hall with altar and statue of the Buddha/bodhisattva, a meditation hall, a pagoda, and various other smaller shrines and buildings including shrines to 'Shinto' kami.

I see some sources claiming these rituals are not really worshiping The Buddha. I think that is open to interpretation.

The above source focused on Buddhism in Japan. Here's on with more on Buddhism in India. (http://atheism.about.com/library/world/AJ/bl_IndiaBuddhism.htm)the Four Noble Truths: all of life is suffering; the cause of suffering is desire; the end of desire leads to the end of suffering; and the means to end desire is a path of discipline and meditation. Gautama was now the Buddha, or the awakened one, and he spent the remainder of his life traveling about northeast India converting large numbers of disciples. At the age of eighty, the Buddha achieved his final passing away (parinirvana ) and died, leaving a thriving monastic order and a dedicated lay community to continue his work...

...The forms of Buddhism practiced by Himalayan communities and Tibetan refugees are part of the Vajrayana, or "Way of the Lightning Bolt," that developed after the seventh century A.D. as part of Mahayana (Great Path) Buddhism. Although retaining the fundamental importance of individual spiritual advancement, the Vajrayana stresses the intercession of bodhisattvas, or enlightened beings, who remain in this world to aid others on the path. ...

...Most other Buddhists in India follow Theravada Buddhism, the "Doctrine of the Elders," which traces its origin through Sri Lankan and Burmese traditions to scriptures in the Pali language, a Sanskritic dialect in eastern India. Although replete with miraculous events and legends, these scriptures stress a more human Buddha and a democratic path toward enlightenment for everyone.I suppose leaving out the supernatural being interventions and claiming the rituals are merely respect for the dead is still a reasonable interpretation of the religion. There sure are a lot of rituals performed at Buddhist temples that involve thanking and or asking for guidance. I've not been to any which didn't have such rituals being performed by a continual stream of worshipers. They take off their shoes, plant their incense in the pot and sometimes leave other offerings. Sure looks like they expect the ritual to accomplish something besides just being a tool to better meditation.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I completely disagree. Sure, the title of the thread is worded such a way, but DD immediately undermined this fair position with his first sentence in the OP itself. By stating that he cannot understand why anyone would believe what they do, he is doing more than implying believers are idiots.

It has been mentioned at least once in this thread prior to TBK's observance that an idiotic belief does not have to indicate an idiotic believer, but DD was more interested in playing catfight than discussing what he meant by the OP.I didn't mean for my post to defend the OP. I was hoping my comment about the OP being idiotically worded conveyed that.

I was just commenting on the fact all religions are pretty much irrational belief systems, clarifying that to not include someone's belief which merely adopts the philosophical ideas of a religion and leaves out the afterlife beliefs and worship/praying to the dead rituals.

[Hokulele]

As for Buddhists not believing in deities, there sure is a lot of ritualistic worship occurring at Buddhist temples (http://philtar.ucsm.ac.uk/encyclopedia/shinto/budtemp.html).

<snipped to save space>


You have to be a little careful about taking one source from the web and treating it as a definition of a particular belief. Focusing just on Japan for a minute, there is as much of a discrepency between what Buddhist individuals believe as there is between Christians in the USA. I was lucky enough to spend a night at a Shingon Buddhist monastary (yes, I know) at Koyasan in Japan almost 10 years ago, and none of the services focused on deities. Respect for the buddhas can be interpreted as worship (state Buddhism does this), and I suppose you could consider certain aspects of meditation as being prayer, but the way I understood the point of calling upon Buddha during meditation was to help focus on the perceived goal (attaining buddhahood for oneself), rather than a specific request for someone (or something else) to grant a wish. For example, if I want to attain enlightenment, I have to do the work. I cannot appeal to a magical being to enlighten me. To me, a god implies that it can magically grant favors.

I would also take a closer look at the Zen sect of Buddhism. Those temples I have visited (albeit, only in Japan), have focused strictly on the personal aspects of the practice.

Shintoism is even more kooky in terms of variance in practice.

[Skeptic Ginger]

You have to be a little careful about taking one source from the web and treating it as a definition of a particular belief. Focusing just on Japan for a minute, there is as much of a discrepency between what Buddhist individuals believe as there is between Christians in the USA. I was lucky enough to spend a night at a Shingon Buddhist monastary (yes, I know) at Koyasan in Japan almost 10 years ago, and none of the services focused on deities. Respect for the buddhas can be interpreted as worship (state Buddhism does this), and I suppose you could consider certain aspects of meditation as being prayer, but the way I understood the point of calling upon Buddha during meditation was to help focus on the perceived goal (attaining buddhahood for oneself), rather than a specific request for someone (or something else) to grant a wish. For example, if I want to attain enlightenment, I have to do the work. I cannot appeal to a magical being to enlighten me. To me, a god implies that it can magically grant favors.

I would also take a closer look at the Zen sect of Buddhism. Those temples I have visited (albeit, only in Japan), have focused strictly on the personal aspects of the practice.

Shintoism is even more kooky in terms of variance in practice.You also have to be careful assuming that posting a source to support what I know about Buddhism and Shintoism means what I know came from the links.

I've been to many temples. There's a big Buddhist temple and community only a few miles from here. I've been to many temples of both religions in Japan. I've also been interested in religion in general for decades. I am quite familiar with Buddhism. I'd even go so far as to say the "meditation/philosophy only" version was quite rare.

The Japanese don't have an issue believing both Shintoism and Buddhism. They seem to take these religions rather lightly as opposed to a fundie. But I did see them performing rituals that at least superficially indicated they believed the dead person being addressed had some existence and influence. I'm not sure where you draw the line between just performing a superstitious ritual and actually believing in an existence of dead people in an afterlife.

[Rufo]

DanishDynamite, you reside in one of the least religious parts of the world, in one of the least religious times in history. I know, because I do as well. This makes me very surprised at how quickly you judge those who have been subjected to a far different upbringing and indoctrination than you, which frankly suggests a complete lack of self-insight.

I suppose it hasn't occured to you that the society you live in has given you amazingly good opportunities to develop a philosophy and attitude critical of religion? That the vast, vast majority of the people you call idiots have not been given any such opportunity? That the thinking of human beings is not just a matter of logic, and has never been, and will never be, but is rather subjected to numerous enviromental factors?

Did you think of any of these things before you declared all those who believe in God idiots?

I could list all the geniuses of the past who have been religious, and quite a few today who are, but there's no need, because you know who I'm talking about well enough. Many of these people were indoctrinated to think the way they did - and some might have been able to see through this indoctrination, but did not, because they spent their time understanding other things. Does that make them idiots?

Are you actually curious about how religious people think? Take a few minutes to put yourself in their shoes, and if you are not satisfied with your new understanding, this should at least give you some idea on how to adress the question.

NOMINATED!

Wow. I am impressed how something so beautiful can emerge from an OP so vile.- Steve
I second this. But there's no reason to nominate it twice, or is there? I'm not sure how that system works.

I didn't mean for my post to defend the OP. I was hoping my comment about the op being idiotically worded conveyed that.

I was just commenting on the fact all religions are pretty much irrational belief systems, clarifying that to not include someone's belief which merely adopts the philosophical ideas of a religion and leaves out the afterlife beliefs and worship/praying to the dead rituals.
Yes, but DanishDynamite clarified that he considers all religious to be idiots here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3466229#post3466229). So while this is an important distiction, it's appearently not one he seems to make in this question. Which is sad, since it would actually have made his position somewhat reasonable.

[Hokulele]

You also have to be careful assuming that posting a source to support what I know about Buddhism and Shintoism means what I know came from the links.

I've been to many temples. There's a big Buddhist temple and community only a few miles from here. I've been to many temples of both religions in Japan. I've also been interested in religion in general for decades. I am quite familiar with Buddhism. I'd even go so far as to say the "meditation/philosophy only" version was quite rare.


Fair enough. I will admit the versions I have seen practiced here, and the selection of the temples I have attended in Japan were at least partly influenced by my family (my great-grandmother's monument sits behind the Daibutsu in Kamakura). I would say that the belief in either an afterlife or reincarnation is rampant, but I would not go so far to say that the respect for one's ancestors is worship, or that the sense of spiritualism is rooted in a sense of entitlement. The obligations are all on the part of the practitioner, not on the ancestor/spirit/buddha/what-have-you.

I think that Buddhism is a religion (including all sects), but it is the deity aspect that I have problems with. I do not think that one can state with certainty that all Buddhists believe in one or more gods in the sense that Claus and DD seem to be working with. The Buddhists that call upon Kannon for mercy, yes. Those that revere their ancestors, not so much.

[Skeptic Ginger]

See my edited comments also Hokulele.

As for the OP, OK, I give...it was terrible.

[D'rok]

Ding ding ding....first post to notice the OP called religions idiocy, and didn't call believers idiots.

Hmmm...not so much:

If you are religious, you are an idiot

To DD: If this is truly your position, you are a jackass of monumental proportions. If you are merely trolling, you are a jackass of moderate proportions. Either way, the only valid point for consideration in this thread is the degree of your jackassery.

And yes, I am an atheist.

I vote for AAH.

[Hokulele]

See my edited comments also Hokulele.

As for the OP, OK, I give...it was terrible.


OK, we really are more in agreement than not. And the next time I am in your area, beverage of choice on me. :)

[Macoy]

So, agnostics win, then.

[thaiboxerken]

So, agnostics win, then.

I guess that depends on if they are theists or not. Then again, I'm guessing you think agnostic means "sort of, kind of, but not really, believes in a god" which is certainly not the definition given by the person who created the term.

[Macoy]

I guess that depends on if they are theists or not. Then again, I'm guessing you think agnostic means "sort of, kind of, but not really, believes in a god" which is certainly not the definition given by the person who created the term.

It certainly is someone who doesn't believe in what you just said.

[rocketdodger]

I can see humanity progressing despite religion. All religions are idiocy, I agree. All religious people aren't, though.

Yes.

Although to be fair "idiocy" is a pretty loosely defined term.

[PBTree]

I think that the main question was "why" someone believes. I have asked this question myself a few times on this forum but never seem to get a reasonable answer.

Surely people don't believe just because a few illiterate, superstitious old goat farmers/fishermen wrote some words (lots of them hateful and vicious). Belief because of written words would be sheer lunacy.

And surely they don't believe just because mum and dad told them it was so, or took them to church.

There has to be a reason. Did they wake up one morning and go "I believe in <place name of god here>.

I would never say "idiocy" to explain belief but unless someone can give me a response that makes some sort of logical or factual sense, I am going to continue thinking, "very strange people".

[sinclairmcevoy]

I'll try to explain what I believe. Any idiot should be able to read it, since an idiot is writing it.
I believe in helping others.
I believe in being a good person.
I believe in the fact that the church I belong to does a great deal in both of these areas.
I believe in the Big Bang and evolution.
I believe in God.
I believe in respecting the beliefs and opinions of others.
I believe that to insult someone based solely on their beliefs is rude, arrogant, ignorant and uncalled for. Only idiots engage in such behaviour.
I believe that we all should be able to believe what we choose.
I believe that this is a great place for discussion of belief.
I believe that the OP is a reflection of the thread starter. Good luck to DD, you come across as a real compassionate, caring individual.

[rocketdodger]

I believe in helping others.

What if they ask you for help in doing something you think is wrong?

I believe in being a good person.

Define good.

I believe in the fact that the church I belong to does a great deal in both of these areas.

According to you and them. <insert Godwin argument as counterpoint>

I believe in the Big Bang and evolution. ... and the great juju who magically made both work...

I believe in God.

Provide a coherent definition of God, and I will buy that. Until then, I assert you believe in nonsense.

I believe in respecting the beliefs and opinions of others.
Even if their belief/opinion is that you should be killed?

I believe that to insult someone based solely on their beliefs is rude, arrogant, ignorant and uncalled for. Only idiots engage in such behaviour.

<insert Godwin argument as counterpoint>

I believe that we all should be able to believe what we choose.

Dynamite didn't say anything to the contrary. In fact, it is a hallmark of organized religion that members aren't supposed to believe what they choose.

[Beth]

Based on what I read from theists who post here:

What if they ask you for help in doing something you think is wrong? Then they would say "No". Depending on how insistent they were and how strongly the person felt about it, they might disassociate from the group.

Define good.

According to you and them.
You know, he's basically just saying that in whatever way he defines 'good', this church does it. Perhaps they collect and distribute food to those in need locally. Perhaps they organize voluteers to deliver meals on wheels. How do you define 'good' in this context?

<insert Godwin argument as counterpoint>

... and the great juju who magically made both work...

Provide a coherent definition of God, and I will buy that. Until then, I assert you believe in nonsense.


Even if their belief/opinion is that you should be killed?

I think tolerance is extremely important and I think beliefs that involve killing others that aren't part of the group is a belief structure that cannot be tolerated. But short of that, there really isn't much that can't be tolerated if we can just work out some general society rules that everybody can live with.


<insert Godwin argument as counterpoint>



Dynamite didn't say anything to the contrary. In fact, it is a hallmark of organized religion that members aren't supposed to believe what they choose.

I don't think it's a hallmark sign. Yes, some are like that. But freedom of thought and critical analysis is valued in many churches. For hundreds of years there have been Christian denominations that value and encourage questioning of their belief system and maintain the individual's automony in interpretation of their religious texts and understanding of god.

I suspect that every major religion has branches that encourage members in that way. Hmmm. Since human beings can, at least in our society, choose their religion, it seems reasonable that those who enjoy thinking things through for themselves will be drawn to liberal churches while those who prefer to simply trust in others and believe will be drawn to the fundamentalist types.

[thaiboxerken]

It certainly is someone who doesn't believe in what you just said.

That is exactly my point. The agnostic position is that the existence of "god" cannot be known. It doesn't address the question "do you believe in a god?"

[thaiboxerken]

I think that the main question was "why" someone believes.

I'm certain that most people believe because they are conditioned to believe by their family, peers and society.

[sinclairmcevoy]

What if they ask you for help in doing something you think is wrong?
Define wrong.



Define good.
You gotta be jokimg.

According to you and them. <insert Godwin argument as counterpoint>
According to what I see being done. What have you done lately?
... and the great juju who magically made both work...
I didn't say that.


Provide a coherent definition of God, and I will buy that. Until then, I assert you believe in nonsense.
Sorry, don't have one. You have the right to your own beliefs.

Even if their belief/opinion is that you should be killed?

What difference? You too would be on the hit list.

<insert Godwin argument as counterpoint>



Dynamite didn't say anything to the contrary. In fact, it is a hallmark of organized religion that members aren't supposed to believe what they choose.
If you choose to believe in a religion, then you choose to believe in what it teaches.

[devnull]

It boggles my mind that anyone could believe in any religion anywhere.

Could a believer please explain why and what he/she believes in?

Im not a believer. I do not fundamentally disagree with anything you've said, but your approach is, errr, questionable :)

[steverino]

I believe in respecting the beliefs and opinions of others.
I believe that to insult someone based solely on their beliefs is rude, arrogant, ignorant and uncalled for. Only idiots engage in such behaviour.

Exactly. DD disrespects those who believe in God. DD insults someone solely on their beliefs, and is rude, arrogant, ignorant and his behavior is uncalled for. So I agree with you that only idiots engage in the behavior DD engages in.

[PBTree]

I suspect that every major religion has branches that encourage members in that way. Hmmm. Since human beings can, at least in our society, choose their religion, it seems reasonable that those who enjoy thinking things through for themselves will be drawn to liberal churches while those who prefer to simply trust in others and believe will be drawn to the fundamentalist types.

I would have to think Beth, that your 'bold' sentence is the archetypal oxymoron. :)

Would it not be that anyone who thinks the whole thing through, should find it all completely non-sensical.

[JoeEllison]

Yeah, religions are pretty idiotic. It doesn't make believers idiots, it just makes them wrong. There's plenty of people who we know for a fact aren't idiots, who still believe in all sorts of idiotic things: astrology, homeopathy, all manner of nonsense. We mostly agree around here that those other things are pretty idiotic, but religion normally gets a pass from being categorized correctly.

[Beth]

I would have to think Beth, that your 'bold' sentence is the archetypal oxymoron. :)

Would it not be that anyone who thinks the whole thing through, should find it all completely non-sensical.

Given the many intelligent people who have given the matter a great deal of thought and still believe, it's pretty clear to me that people can think the whole thing through and NOT arrive at that conclusion.

[rocketdodger]

If you choose to believe in a religion, then you choose to believe in what it teaches.

What if you believe in a religion but never made the choice?

I am always amazed by how the religious who indoctrinate their children from birth can tell me with a straight face that everyone "chooses" religion of their own volition.

I am always amazed by how the religious who are clearly aware of religious states on this planet can tell me with a straight face that everyone "chooses" religion of their own volition.

ETA -- thank you for responding to all of my points with a single cryptic and inapplicable answer.

[rocketdodger]

But short of that, there really isn't much that can't be tolerated if we can just work out some general society rules that everybody can live with.

Which is exactly the problem... there are very few society rules that everyone can live with.

What you seem to fail to grasp is that there are no religions that I know of that do not preach the conversion of others ('showing them the truth,' of course) and when the religious agree to "rules that everybody can live with" they are in fact agreeing to simply "bide their time until conditions are right for the spread of their word."

Think about it -- thats what religion is. Its a worldview that by definition considers itself to be the one truth among many lies. It is inevitable that members think everyone else is wrong. Will they let everyone else go about their lives, being wrong, or will they try to "help" them be right?

[dglas]

If the religious really wanted to test the power of their thinking, and provide choice, they would wait until children reach adulthood before preaching their stuff. Let's see how many adults buy into it after the impressionable years. But, of course, they know otherwise and target the very young and impressionable.

Religion
Genre: Horror/Fantasy.
Rating: A.
Warning - these teachings may have dogmatic content, scenes of sex, violence and mature themes not suitable for children.

If they watch this your children will forever wait to...
Win Powerball!!!

[Beth]

Which is exactly the problem... there are very few society rules that everyone can live with.
Why is that a problem? I'm pretty much okay with having relatively few rules - the basics of having penalties when individuals cause harm to others or the property of others, trials to establish guilt, etc.

What you seem to fail to grasp is that there are no religions that I know of that do not preach the conversion of others ('showing them the truth,' of course) and when the religious agree to "rules that everybody can live with" they are in fact agreeing to simply "bide their time until conditions are right for the spread of their word."

I think you have a rather narrow and biased view of religion. For example, I don't think the Jewish religion spends much effort trying to convert others. As far as what religious people might 'really mean' if they were to agree to such a thing, I don't think I could say with confidence who would be sincere and who wouldn't. What gives you such confidence regarding what they 'really mean'? Particularly when 'they' is such a large and diverse group?

Think about it -- thats what religion is. Its a worldview that by definition considers itself to be the one truth among many lies. Oh I don't know. Plenty of atheists posting here seem to have that attitude about their worldview too.

It is inevitable that members think everyone else is wrong. Will they let everyone else go about their lives, being wrong, or will they try to "help" them be right?

That would be the general idea. They let everyone else go about their lives and in return, they get to go about their own lives in peace. After all, when people don't have the right to make choices that others consider 'wrong', they aren't living in a free society.

[dglas]

Why is that a problem? I'm pretty much okay with having relatively few rules - the basics of having penalties when individuals cause harm to others or the property of others, trials to establish guilt, etc.

The matter gets muddled when questions of what constitutes harm come into play. The devil, as they say, is in the details. Some have been burned alive for causing "harm" to the souls (in that self, or property?) of others.


I think you have a rather narrow and biased view of religion. For example, I don't think the Jewish religion spends much effort trying to convert others.

Last I heard (I could be out of date on this one, but somehow I doubt it), one had to be born Jewish or one is SOL. Sounds rather exclusivist to me. If there is one bit of credit I'll give Christianity, it is that you aren't kept out by accidents of birth. They actively recruit - wait, does this have some sort of bearing on something you say later on...?


As far as what religious people might 'really mean' if they were to agree to such a thing, I don't think I could say with confidence who would be sincere and who wouldn't.

Hence we don't rely on sincerity (or estimations thereof) to establish fact.


What gives you such confidence regarding what they 'really mean'? Particularly when 'they' is such a large and diverse group?

Partly, you are correct here, partly you are not. Mostly you are shifting the goalposts and loosening the dirt so they can be shifted again and again and again and again...


Oh I don't know. Plenty of atheists posting here seem to have that attitude about their worldview too.

I am not seeking tax-exempt status for my worldview.


That would be the general idea. They let everyone else go about their lives and in return, they get to go about their own lives in peace.

History does not seem to bear this statement up.
Politically, religion has been used to polarize people specifically to overwhelm this idea, something it seems almost perfectly designed to be used for.


After all, when people don't have the right to make choices that others consider 'wrong', they aren't living in a free society.

Not precisely, but pretty close. I would use the term mistaken. "Wrong" has an alien and strange meaning, in a religious context.


Am I not free because I cannot choose to...
Win Powerball!!!
...even if it is "wrong" to do so?

[DanishDynamite]

If we call an idiot soemone who doesn't realize there's no God, then how should we call someone who doesn't realize how important a role the environment plays in whether logic will manage to rise above insecurity ?
Call them "unable to understand what you mean".
How do we call someone who doesn't see that the human brain hasn't changed for tens of thousands of years and so logic is not hardwired in it anymore now than what it was 100,000 years ago ?
Call them "ignorant".
How do we call someone who doesn't realize that the most important traits of humans are not critical thinking and reason, but rather compassion, adaptability, willingness to judge based on intentions much more than beliefs, acceptance of differences and ability to communicate instead of insult ?
Call them "differs on values".
Because, with the current preponderance of theism, I can still see humanity progressing, and perhaps even progressing towards an atheistic world. But without compassion and understanding our future seems gloomy. Realizing this is much more intelligent than the mere realization that there is no God.
I too see humanity progressing. I still dispair at the many individuals who believe in magic sky-daddies.

[DanishDynamite]

I don't understand why you are asking others to defend themselves here.
I'm asking anyone of a religious mind to defend themselves because it is obvious lunacy to believe in any god as there is no reason to do so.
You've started a thread with a bold (and fairly offensive) claim and the ball is firmly in your court to provide the evidence and reasoning to support it.

Please present your case that all religions are idiocy and that if you are religious, you are an idiot.
All religions are idiocy and anyone religious is an idiot because they believe some greater being or beings or thing exists which has usually had a hand in creating the Universe or at least the Earth and which has magic powers and which can be affected to help individuals if you ask it in certain ritual ways.

Absolute craziness.

[DanishDynamite]

Just because you started this thread it does not mean you own it. You start a deliberately provocative thread and get righteous when others do not respond in a way you deem appropriate.
In what sense is it provocative?

[DanishDynamite]

No not a troll as such, but close. Just deliberately provocative. There can be no serious debate when someone starts a thread like this one.
Why not? If there is even the slightest reason to think a magic sky-being exists, let me know.

[DanishDynamite]

I completely disagree. Sure, the title of the thread is worded such a way, but DD immediately undermined this fair position with his first sentence in the OP itself. By stating that he cannot understand why anyone would believe what they do, he is doing more than implying believers are idiots.

It has been mentioned at least once in this thread prior to TBK's observance that an idiotic belief does not have to indicate an idiotic believer, but DD was more interested in playing catfight than discussing what he meant by the OP.
Yes, it is often the case that only religion as such is discussed as being idiotic, and there can be many mitigating circumstances for an individual to be religious, as there may be mitigating circumstances for any crime, but seriously, the perpetrator is still a criminal.

[DanishDynamite]

DanishDynamite, you reside in one of the least religious parts of the world, in one of the least religious times in history. I know, because I do as well. This makes me very surprised at how quickly you judge those who have been subjected to a far different upbringing and indoctrination than you, which frankly suggests a complete lack of self-insight.
There are mitigating circumstances for someone in the year 1000 thinking that the Earth was flat. There are no mitigating circumstances for someone, with access to a library, thinking so today. Same thing goes for religion.
I suppose it hasn't occured to you that the society you live in has given you amazingly good opportunities to develop a philosophy and attitude critical of religion? That the vast, vast majority of the people you call idiots have not been given any such opportunity? That the thinking of human beings is not just a matter of logic, and has never been, and will never be, but is rather subjected to numerous enviromental factors?
See above.
Did you think of any of these things before you declared all those who believe in God idiots?
Yes.
I could list all the geniuses of the past who have been religious, and quite a few today who are, but there's no need, because you know who I'm talking about well enough. Many of these people were indoctrinated to think the way they did - and some might have been able to see through this indoctrination, but did not, because they spent their time understanding other things. Does that make them idiots?
If, despite the evidence they had access to, they continued to believe in magic sky-daddies, yes.

Are you actually curious about how religious people think? Take a few minutes to put yourself in their shoes, and if you are not satisfied with your new understanding, this should at least give you some idea on how to adress the question.
I'm very curious why religious people think as they do. A genetic flaw, perhaps?
I second this. But there's no reason to nominate it twice, or is there? I'm not sure how that system works.


Yes, but DanishDynamite clarified that he considers all religious to be idiots here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3466229#post3466229). So while this is an important distiction, it's appearently not one he seems to make in this question. Which is sad, since it would actually have made his position somewhat reasonable.
Would you agree that it is idiotic on the face of it to believe that a china teapot orbits Alpha Centaury? There is no reason at all to think this is the case, is there? Same thing goes for religions.

[DanishDynamite]

To DD: If this is truly your position, you are a jackass of monumental proportions. If you are merely trolling, you are a jackass of moderate proportions. Either way, the only valid point for consideration in this thread is the degree of your jackassery.

And yes, I am an atheist.

I vote for AAH.
Why don't you believe in china teapots orbiting Alpha Centaury? You seem like a reasonable person, afterall. So why?

[Undesired Walrus]

It's interesting that so certain of your belief in the idiocy of the teapotters, you still feel the need to return to this thread defending yourself in post after post.

When I'm convinced of the ugly presentation of a film, I don't feel the need to spend much time defending myself. Unless, of course, I phrased my dislike in such a moronic and childish manner that I need to expand on it to people who rightfully take curiousity in my spitting insults.

The Life Of Brian made a compelling case for the fascinating and clueless ego-centricity of religion. But it was sophisticated, and because of this, got up the noses of the religous groups. You, DD, are not.

[Mobyseven]

Last I heard (I could be out of date on this one, but somehow I doubt it), one had to be born Jewish or one is SOL. Sounds rather exclusivist to me.

Not so, but a common misunderstanding. In Judaism there is no evangelism, no command to preach and convert people. If one comes to Judaism and wishes to convert, however, most divisions will recognise the right of that person to convert (with differing levels of commitment to the process required). It's only the super-orthodox who rule out any and all conversions.

[DanishDynamite]

It's interesting that so certain of your belief in the idiocy of the teapotters, you still feel the need to return to this thread defending yourself in post after post.

When I'm convinced of the ugly presentation of a film, I don't feel the need to spend much time defending myself. Unless, of course, I phrased my dislike in such a moronic and childish manner that I need to expand on it to people who rightfully take curiousity in my spitting insults.

The Life Of Brian made a compelling case for the fascinating and clueless ego-centricity of religion. But it was sophisticated, and because of this, got up the noses of the religous groups. You, DD, are not.
I don't intend to be. I'm just so tired of the idiocy of believers.

[Undesired Walrus]

I don't intend to be. I'm just so tired of the idiocy of believers.

Fine, so go out and have a walk and some fresh air. The sound of the keyboard thumping out pointless, and most importantly, meaningless insults (As these kind of attacks will more firmly entrench the teapot thoughts that enrage you so) does no good whatsoever.

I don't mean you any harm DD, but couldn't you be doing something better with this time right now? This is far from your finest moment.

[AkuManiMani]

It boggles my mind that anyone could believe in any religion anywhere.

Could a believer please explain why and what he/she believes in?

Which religion would you rank the most "idiotic" and which would you rank the least? Please explain the criteria for your rankings.

[DanishDynamite]

Fine, so go out and have a walk and some fresh air. The sound of the keyboard thumping out pointless, and most importantly, meaningless insults (As these kind of attacks will more firmly entrench the teapot thoughts that enrage you so) does no good whatsoever.
I know you mean well, UW, but I've taken all the long walks possible and somehow their efficacy has plummeted.
I don't mean you any harm DD, but couldn't you be doing something better with this time right now? This is far from your finest moment.
I'm sure you and I both could be doing "better" things. But hey, I enjoy debating.

As to whether this is my finest moment, I started a similar thread back when I joined this place. It was oddly a big hit back then.

[DanishDynamite]

Which religion would you rank the most "idiotic" and which would you rank the least? Please explain the criteria for your rankings.
All religions are idiotic as they all assume belief in something supernatural.

[Egg]

I'm asking anyone of a religious mind to defend themselves because it is obvious lunacy to believe in any god as there is no reason to do so.

All religions are idiocy and anyone religious is an idiot because they believe some greater being or beings or thing exists which has usually had a hand in creating the Universe or at least the Earth and which has magic powers and which can be affected to help individuals if you ask it in certain ritual ways.

Absolute craziness.

Without any further explanation, that follows about as much as if I was to argue that you must be an idiot because you're called DanishDynamite.

[Rufo]

There are mitigating circumstances for someone in the year 1000 thinking that the Earth was flat. There are no mitigating circumstances for someone, with access to a library, thinking so today. Same thing goes for religion.
Do you mean that because information which encourages critical thinking is more readily available today, no one is excused not having studied it and reached the same conclusion as you?

It is interesting that you seem to assume that all religious people in the world have access to a library, and that said library have the information that gave you the opportunity to develop your worldview. It is also wrong. Not everyone has access to a library, not all libraries are completely free for anyone to use, and some books are banned in some parts of the world.

See above.
I don't think that that covers it. It is not only about the opportunity to get the necessary information, it's about the motivations you have been given and what behavior has been encouraged in you. You do not only have access to a library - you live in a culture where secularism and atheism are very widespread views, and even if you were brought up by religious people (I know nothing about that) you've likely had more influence from atheism than the vast, vast majority of theists, and that has had impact on how you think.

You might fancy that you have reached this conclusion solely based on your own interest and intelligence - those things which differentiates someone from an 'idiot', I suppose - but you have to consider your influences.

Yes.
Then think about them more. If you have come to the conclusion that there is no God based on some kind of process of thought, then you should not have to consider these factors for long before retracting your statement that all religious are idiots.

If, despite the evidence they had access to, they continued to believe in magic sky-daddies, yes.
There is no evidence against magic sky-daddies. What there is, is lack of evidence for them. What exactly is the information that you would think someone should have access to before you declare them an idiot for believing in God? Can no other factors, such as display of extremely high intelligence and imagination in other areas, change your opinion that they are all idiots?

I'm very curious why religious people think as they do. A genetic flaw, perhaps?
I'll take that as a no. I suggest you try to imagine you are a religious person, unless you wish to remain curious. It is kind of an extremely basic way to understand someone else. If you did not master it, you would probably be a sociopath, so I'm sure you can.

Would you agree that it is idiotic on the face of it to believe that a china teapot orbits Alpha Centaury? There is no reason at all to think this is the case, is there? Same thing goes for religions.
Of course, it can get a little confusing if every single person you've asked in your entire life answers that there most certainly is, and that it has been seen, and that it's well documented, and then show you the documents describing sights of the teapot - which are considered as the most trustable sources possible by everyone you know - and present you to people who have seen it, who tell detailed stories about it.

It does not make you an idiot if you have been conditioned for it.

Thank you for responding to my contribution.

[DanishDynamite]

Without any further explanation, that follows about as much as if I was to argue that you must be an idiot because you're called DanishDynamite.
I can prove I'm DanishDynamite. No delusion there.

[sinclairmcevoy]

What if you believe in a religion but never made the choice?

I am always amazed by how the religious who indoctrinate their children from birth can tell me with a straight face that everyone "chooses" religion of their own volition.

I am always amazed by how the religious who are clearly aware of religious states on this planet can tell me with a straight face that everyone "chooses" religion of their own volition.

ETA -- thank you for responding to all of my points with a single cryptic and inapplicable answer.

You're welcome.

[DanishDynamite]

Do you mean that because information which encourages critical thinking is more readily available today, no one is excused not having studied it and reached the same conclusion as you?
No, I mean that if, despite knowledge to the contrary, you still believe in magic, you are an idiot.
It is interesting that you seem to assume that all religious people in the world have access to a library, and that said library have the information that gave you the opportunity to develop your worldview. It is also wrong. Not everyone has access to a library, not all libraries are completely free for anyone to use, and some books are banned in some parts of the world.
Those who have not had the possibility to be educated can be classed as simply ignorant.
I don't think that that covers it. It is not only about the opportunity to get the necessary information, it's about the motivations you have been given and what behavior has been encouraged in you. You do not only have access to a library - you live in a culture where secularism and atheism are very widespread views, and even if you were brought up by religious people (I know nothing about that) you've likely had more influence from atheism than the vast, vast majority of theists, and that has had impact on how you think.
Indeed. As I said there can be mitigating circumstances.
You might fancy that you have reached this conclusion solely based on your own interest and intelligence - those things which differentiates someone from an 'idiot', I suppose - but you have to consider your influences.
See above.
Then think about them more. If you have come to the conclusion that there is no God based on some kind of process of thought, then you should not have to consider these factors for long before retracting your statement that all religious are idiots.
Not understood. It is idiotic to be religious. There may, however, be mitigating circumstances regarding why you believe such that you could be just ignorant.
There is no evidence against magic sky-daddies. What there is, is lack of evidence for them. What exactly is the information that you would think someone should have access to before you declare them an idiot for believing in God? Can no other factors, such as display of extremely high intelligence and imagination in other areas, change your opinion that they are all idiots?
There is as much evidence for magic sky-daddies as there is for china tea-sets orbiting Alpha Centaury or unicorns in my garrage.

The information they might need access to is .... drumroll....the scientific method and its achievements.
I'll take that as a no. I suggest you try to imagine you are a religious person, unless you wish to remain curious. It is kind of an extremely basic way to understand someone else. If you did not master it, you would probably be a sociopath, so I'm sure you can.
Why should I try to think as a religious person? How is that even possible?
Of course, it can get a little confusing if every single person you've asked in your entire life answers that there most certainly is, and that it has been seen, and that it's well documented, and then show you the documents describing sights of the teapot - which are considered as the most trustable sources possible by everyone you know - and present you to people who have seen it, who tell detailed stories about it.
Yes, I told you that if they had no access to libraries, that would make them just ignorant.
It does not make you an idiot if you have been conditioned for it.
No, just ignorant.
Thank you for responding to my contribution.
My pleasure.

[thaiboxerken]

Without any further explanation, that follows about as much as if I was to argue that you must be an idiot because you're called DanishDynamite.

I don't agree. DD's assertion is that the beliefs themselves are idiotic, and I agree, they are. His flawed premise, however, is the implied assertion that only idiots believe idiotic things. This is where I part with DD.

He seems to fail to realize that the most intelligent, rational people can be religious. He doesn't understand the fact that these same people don't apply their intelligence and reasoning to their religious beliefs (for the most part). It's this compartmentalization that has kept religion alive and well since the age of reason. For some reason, the religious think that logic and evidence doesn't apply to their religious beliefs. It's idiotic, yes, but that doesn't mean they are idiots. Just wrong.

[DanishDynamite]

I don't agree. DD's assertion is that the beliefs themselves are idiotic, and I agree, they are. His flawed premise, however, is the implied assertion that only idiots believe idiotic things. This is where I part with DD.

He seems to fail to realize that the most intelligent, rational people can be religious. He doesn't understand the fact that these same people don't apply their intelligence and reasoning to their religious beliefs (for the most part). It's this compartmentalization that has kept religion alive and well since the age of reason. For some reason, the religious think that logic and evidence doesn't apply to their religious beliefs. It's idiotic, yes, but that doesn't mean they are idiots. Just wrong.
That has to be the finest distinction I have ever seen.

[CapelDodger]

Although to be fair "idiocy" is a pretty loosely defined term.

We know it when we see it, but then we all see things our own peculiar way. (Some more peculiar than others, obviously.) Only an idiot would disagree with that.

[Egg]

I don't agree. DD's assertion is that the beliefs themselves are idiotic, and I agree, they are. His flawed premise, however, is the implied assertion that only idiots believe idiotic things. This is where I part with DD.

He seems to fail to realize that the most intelligent, rational people can be religious. He doesn't understand the fact that these same people don't apply their intelligence and reasoning to their religious beliefs (for the most part). It's this compartmentalization that has kept religion alive and well since the age of reason. For some reason, the religious think that logic and evidence doesn't apply to their religious beliefs. It's idiotic, yes, but that doesn't mean they are idiots. Just wrong.
You may well agree with his assertion, but I'm not yet convinced he has established this as anything but opinion - obviously he's welcome to his opinions, but it looked like a claim to me.

I agree that once he has shown through evidence and reason that his assertion is correct, he must then show that it follows that being religious means you're an idiot.

[Darth Rotor]

Could a believer please explain why and what he/she believes in?
Why?

Because chicks dig it. (Oh, and for Bingo on Wednesday nights!)

[CapelDodger]

I'll try to explain what I believe. Any idiot should be able to read it, since an idiot is writing it.
I believe in helping others.
I believe in being a good person.
I believe in the fact that the church I belong to does a great deal in both of these areas.
I believe in the Big Bang and evolution.
I believe in God.
I believe in respecting the beliefs and opinions of others.
I believe that to insult someone based solely on their beliefs is rude, arrogant, ignorant and uncalled for. Only idiots engage in such behaviour.
I believe that we all should be able to believe what we choose.
I believe that this is a great place for discussion of belief.
I believe that the OP is a reflection of the thread starter. Good luck to DD, you come across as a real compassionate, caring individual.

Leaving out the god and church stuff, I'm down with that. I can't help thinling that without the god and church stuff you'd still hold all those other beliefs. But whatever, it's not an issue for me. I go by the person, not the belief.

Show me a person who's been made good by their religion, and I'll thank you and avoid them. To my mind, religions are made good by the good people in them, not vice versa.

(On reflection, I don't respect all beliefs and opinions. Some are so self-serving or downright disgusting as to be worth no respect at all. People that have chosen to adopt them are not worthy of respect.)

[DanishDynamite]

You may well agree with his assertion, but I'm not yet convinced he has established this as anything but opinion - obviously he's welcome to his opinions, but it looked like a claim to me.

I agree that once he has shown through evidence and reason that his assertion is correct, he must then show that it follows that being religious means you're an idiot.
And once you show through evidence and reason that china sets do not orbit Alpha Centaury and pink Unicorns are not contiously created in my garage and oddly remain invisible to everyone, etc, then we can again take you seriously.

[DanishDynamite]

Why?

Because chicks dig it. (Oh, and for Bingo on Wednesday nights!)
So you realize it's bunk?

[rocketdodger]

I think you have a rather narrow and biased view of religion. For example, I don't think the Jewish religion spends much effort trying to convert others.

Right, in the case of judaism, they are biding their time until the rest of the world is dead. They are the "choosen people," after all.

[thaiboxerken]

You may well agree with his assertion, but I'm not yet convinced he has established this as anything but opinion - obviously he's welcome to his opinions, but it looked like a claim to me.

You actually think someone would claim that a belief is idiotic as anything other than opinion? Do you ask people to support their assertion that chocolate is the best flavor on earth with evidence as well?

[DanishDynamite]

(On reflection, I don't respect all beliefs and opinions. Some are so self-serving or downright disgusting as to be worth no respect at all. People that have chosen to adopt them are not worthy of respect.)
Could you name one religion you respect?

[Rufo]

No, I mean that if, despite knowledge to the contrary, you still believe in magic, you are an idiot.
Is it really as simple as that? Is there really such a thing as 'knowledge of the contrary'? What is one supposed to know to be able to draw the right conclusions, from your perspective? If one has been taught not to believe in magic in the same dogmatic manner as many are taught to believe in it, is one as much of an idiot?

Those who have not had the possibility to be educated can be classed as simply ignorant.

Indeed. As I said there can be mitigating circumstances.

See above.

Not understood. It is idiotic to be religious. There may, however, be mitigating circumstances regarding why you believe such that you could be just ignorant.
Thank you. :)

What I had a problem with, as stated my original post, was that you had made the statement "If you are religious, you are an idiot." Your answer here suggests a retraction of that generalization. If you do not believe that all religious are idiots, then you already agree with most of the point I was trying to get across. I hope this was a misunderstanding and that I'm not misunderstanding you now.

There is as much evidence for magic sky-daddies as there is for china tea-sets orbiting Alpha Centaury or unicorns in my garrage.
And I never suggested otherwise. "What there is, is lack of evidence for them." I was just pointing out that nowhere in a book can you find evidence for magic sky-daddies not existing, but only evidence that alledged evidence for their existance it false. It may seem like a petty distiction, but it actually complicates the whole thing quite a bit.

The information they might need access to is .... drumroll....the scientific method and its achievements.
First - the scientific method and what of its achievments? All of them? Keep in mind, they also need to study this information to put it to use.

And I repeat why previous question about whether display of extremely high intelligence and imagination in other areas could be considered as evidence that they are not idiots, even if they do believe in God with this information at hand.

Why should I try to think as a religious person? How is that even possible?
Because you are curious how they think. Attempting to imagine you are them, utilizing your empathy, seems like a reasonable first effort to find out. It does not seem you have tried it.

Yes, I told you that if they had no access to libraries, that would make them just ignorant.
No, just ignorant.
They could have access to libraries and the information, but have been conditioned into not studying it, or not to think of it as anything but lies or a form of deception. Still migrating circumstances? Still not idiots?

My pleasure.
Then I hope it will be your pleasure to continue the debate. :)

[PBTree]

I think I have to agree with DD. Maybe not to the point of throwing insults but surely intelligent people can see that religions are all nonsense. Even forgetting about the big sky fairy and what an absolute nonsense that is, people should see that it is a monstrous fraud.

All religious workers beg for their 'supper'. All of them make their followers pay for their upkeep.
$1000 suits, free cars, free housing, free travel. What god would let this happen and then have his/her followers pay for their leaders to have their feet washed with a golden bowl. Billions of dollars being used every year to keep a select few living the life of Riley. All this while millions of followers starve?

Religious institutions already make billions, yet check out how many of them take a percentage of the donations they receive for the poor and put it towards 'administration costs'. Ha, what a joke. Its the old, throw the money up in the air and what stays up is gods and what comes down is theirs.

Yet supposed intelligent people still insist on following this cr*p.

Show me a god that insists you keep him/her in your own thoughts, with no need to try and infect others, no need for huge extravagant edifices, no need for lazy beggars (priests, parsons etc) chasing our children, no requirement to bow down fity times a day, no need to wear stupid boxes or hats on your head, no need to wear an idiotic hairdo that has to be kept inside a cloth wrap and maybe, just maybe, I will think twice about him/her.

On second thoughts, no thanks, I've got an iq above room temperature.

;)

[Egg]

You actually think someone would claim that a belief is idiotic as anything other than opinion? Do you ask people to support their assertion that chocolate is the best flavor on earth with evidence as well?
Absolutely! Everyone knows it's proven fact that strawberry is best :).

[Hokulele]

And in some cases, even intelligent people can't help themselves.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2003/godonbrain.shtml

[DanishDynamite]

Is it really as simple as that? Is there really such a thing as 'knowledge of the contrary'? What is one supposed to know to be able to draw the right conclusions, from your perspective? If one has been taught not to believe in magic in the same dogmatic manner as many are taught to believe in it, is one as much of an idiot?
It is not what you are taught but what information you are made aware of.
Thank you. :)

What I had a problem with, as stated my original post, was that you had made the statement "If you are religious, you are an idiot." Your answer here suggests a retraction of that generalization. If you do not believe that all religious are idiots, then you already agree with most of the point I was trying to get across. I hope this was a misunderstanding and that I'm not misunderstanding you now.
You are not misunderstanding. To believe in a religion is idiotic, but there may be mitigating circumstances which explain why you do.
And I never suggested otherwise. "What there is, is lack of evidence for them." I was just pointing out that nowhere in a book can you find evidence for magic sky-daddies not existing, but only evidence that alledged evidence for their existance it false. It may seem like a petty distiction, but it actually complicates the whole thing quite a bit.
In what way?
First - the scientific method and what of its achievments? All of them? Keep in mind, they also need to study this information to put it to use.
All of its achievements, if possible.
And I repeat why previous question about whether display of extremely high intelligence and imagination in other areas could be considered as evidence that they are not idiots, even if they do believe in God with this information at hand.
If they have intelligence and knowledge, this is even more damning. They have, against better knowledge, chosen to be religious. They are idiots beyond belief.
Because you are curious how they think. Attempting to imagine you are them, utilizing your empathy, seems like a reasonable first effort to find out. It does not seem you have tried it.
Because it hopeless and meaningless. You might as well as me to really accept that leperchauns abounded. It's impossible.
They could have access to libraries and the information, but have been conditioned into not studying it, or not to think of it as anything but lies or a form of deception. Still migrating circumstances? Still not idiots?
Still mitigating circumstances. Still makes them at most ignorant.
Then I hope it will be your pleasure to continue the debate. :)
It is! :)

[DanishDynamite]

And in some cases, even intelligent people can't help themselves.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2003/godonbrain.shtml
Yes, in some cases they can't help themselves.

[Hokulele]

Yes, in some cases they can't help themselves.


Would you consider those types of people idiots?

[thaiboxerken]

Would you consider those types of people idiots?

I'd consider these people mentally disabled or damaged.

[Egg]

And once you show through evidence and reason that china sets do not orbit Alpha Centaury and pink Unicorns are not contiously created in my garage and oddly remain invisible to everyone, etc, then we can again take you seriously.

If I made a claim that they did not/were not, then I don't think it would be unreasonable to expect me to back it up.

[DanishDynamite]

Would you consider those types of people idiots?If they have access to evidence against, they are simply ignorant as I've said before.

[thaiboxerken]

If I made a claim that they did not/were not, then I don't think it would be unreasonable to expect me to back it up.

It is unreasonable to expect a person to prove such a thing. How does one prove the non-existence of such absurdities? Negative claims that need to be proven are ones that contradict established facts, otherwise, they carry no burden of evidence.

[Hokulele]

I'd consider these people mentally disabled or damaged.


Sure, and that's why this type of thread is not very useful in trying to figure out why people believe what they believe (calling them idiots). It would be just as easy for a believer to call me mentally disabled or damaged simply because I do not have a "god module" in my brain.

For me, I would rather find out what they believe and why, rather than simply dismissing them altogether, because I do find that certain types of religious thinking is very dangerous to society as a whole (see any of DOC's threads for a classic example). If the root causes can be determined, there may be a way of working with the religious community rather than against it.

But hey, that's just my unsupported opinion. Anyone with a better argument could change my mind.

[DanishDynamite]

If I made a claim that they did not/were not, then I don't think it would be unreasonable to expect me to back it up.
As you would be a mental case, everything you said would be treated as very reasonable and sane. At least as long as the guys in white were inching closer to you.

[Hokulele]

If they have access to evidence against, they are simply ignorant as I've said before.


Did you read the article in the link?

[DanishDynamite]

Sure, and that's why this type of thread is not very useful in trying to figure out why people believe what they believe (calling them idiots). It would be just as easy for a believer to call me mentally disabled or damaged simply because I do not have a "god module" in my brain.
Get real. If I started a thread saying all skeptics were idiots, no skeptic would refrain from joining in to tell me why I was wrong. Are you saying the believers, aside from idiocy, also have no balls?
For me, I would rather find out what they believe and why, rather than simply dismissing them altogether, because I do find that certain types of religious thinking is very dangerous to society as a whole (see any of DOC's threads for a classic example). If the root causes can be determined, there may be a way of working with the religious community rather than against it.
Yes, it would be interesting to get the background info. But that won't happen here.
But hey, that's just my unsupported opinion. Anyone with a better argument could change my mind.
See Science for further clarification.

[thaiboxerken]

Sure, and that's why this type of thread is not very useful in trying to figure out why people believe what they believe (calling them idiots). It would be just as easy for a believer to call me mentally disabled or damaged simply because I do not have a "god module" in my brain.

They would be wrong, though. Having a brain that is missing a delusion module seems to produce more scientific/ reasoned thinking. I really can't see how a brain with a defect in it that causes delusion could not be seen as mentally disabled or damaged.

For me, I would rather find out what they believe and why, rather than simply dismissing them altogether, because I do find that certain types of religious thinking is very dangerous to society as a whole (see any of DOC's threads for a classic example). If the root causes can be determined, there may be a way of working with the religious community rather than against it.

How about curing these people of the ailment? Wouldn't that be a better answer?

[DanishDynamite]

Did you read the article in the link?
No. Was there some point of interest there?

[thaiboxerken]

Article implies that brain damage can cause religious belief, but is very PC about it, even saying that it might have evolutionary value (which is BS.)

[Hokulele]

They would be wrong, though. Having a brain that is missing a delusion module seems to produce more scientific/ reasoned thinking. I really can't see how a brain with a defect in it that causes delusion could not be seen as mentally disabled or damaged.


I agree with you, however I can see how the counter-argument could be made.

How about curing these people of the ailment? Wouldn't that be a better answer?


Short of some drastic brain surgery, I don't see how this could be accomplished. Performing drastic brain surgery without their consent would be dropping down to a level I am not comfortable with.

[DARK LORD XENU]

Yes, in any form at all.

I mean believing in any form of god. Which is of course idiocy.

I must ask what's so idiotic about believing in a higher power?

To me it is far more idiotic to go about putting others down for there beliefs!

[Egg]

Get real. If I started a thread saying all skeptics were idiots, no skeptic would refrain from joining in to tell me why I was wrong.


Would they? I guess you'd have to start one to find out. Personally, I'd probably reply with something like...
I don't understand why you are asking others to defend themselves here.

You've started a thread with a bold (and fairly offensive) claim and the ball is firmly in your court to provide the evidence and reasoning to support it.

[lionking]

I know you mean well, UW, but I've taken all the long walks possible and somehow their efficacy has plummeted.

I'm sure you and I both could be doing "better" things. But hey, I enjoy debating.

As to whether this is my finest moment, I started a similar thread back when I joined this place. It was oddly a big hit back then.
I nearly choked on a mouthful of food when I read this. If you think "debating" is calling people and their beliefs idiotic and ignorant, you are sadly mistaken. Debating calls for civility as a first principle.

[cloudshipsrule]

I must ask what's so idiotic about believing in a higher power?

To me it is far more idiotic to go about putting others down for there beliefs!

Amen brother!

[Beth]

Get real. If I started a thread saying all skeptics were idiots, no skeptic would refrain from joining in to tell me why I was wrong. Are you saying the believers, aside from idiocy, also have no balls?


Hmmm, you started a thread saying that all religions are idiocy in a skeptics forum. It seems to me that if you wanted a response from believers telling you why you are wrong, you would have started it in a religious forum.

If a thread in a religious forum was titled "Why skepticism is idiocy" and didn't get much defense from skeptics, would that be an indication that skeptics have no balls?

What comes across to me is that you are not actually interested in what religious believers might have to say in their own defense. If you were, you would have posted in a more appropriate forum with a less confrontational title.

[Darth Rotor]

So you realize it's bunk?
The term I once learned is "pulling your leg." Given your OP, I figured I'd reply in kind. I don't do Bingo on Wednesday nights. I don't expect I ever will. And as for chicks digging it, well, that's a story for another time, if you and I ever share that beer in person. :)

DR

[AkuManiMani]

All religions are idiotic as they all assume belief in something supernatural.

So they are all equally idiotic based on their belief in the "supernatural"?

"Supernatural" is just a point of view. To believe in the "supernatural" is to believe in the reality of things beyond one's conception of what constitutes "natural" law. If isolated hunter-gatherers are exposed for the first time to cutting-edge modern technology they would consider such artifacts supernatural by their understanding of the world. If we were exposed to phenomenon or technology based on principles unknown to us we to could consider them supernatural as well. But ofcourse such things would be natural in the sense that they have basic underlying rules that govern them and can -- in principle -- be understood. To claim that a group of people are "idiots" because of their belief in the "supernatural" is extremely presumptuous.

Hmmm, you started a thread saying that all religions are idiocy in a skeptics forum. It seems to me that if you wanted a response from believers telling you why you are wrong, you would have started it in a religious forum.

If a thread in a religious forum was titled "Why skepticism is idiocy" and didn't get much defense from skeptics, would that be an indication that skeptics have no balls?

What comes across to me is that you are not actually interested in what religious believers might have to say in their own defense. If you were, you would have posted in a more appropriate forum with a less confrontational title.

If Danish wants some contrary views I think there are more than enough people on these forums who are willing to provide them.

[Cuddles]

I think there has been too much focus on the definition of "religion" and not enough on the definition of "idiot". A lot of people have said that holding idiotic beliefs does not mean one is an idiot. I disagee. The problem is, there are lots of different criteria for intelligence, and being good in some does not mean you are good in all. It is entirely possible for someone to be an absolute genius in some areas are still be a complete idiot in others. Someone can be illiterate and yet able to do complex maths in their head. Someone can be a brilliant politician and yet have trouble adding 1 and 1. Is it fair to call such a person an idiot in general? No. Is it fair to call them an idiot in a specific case? Certainly. The same is true for beliefs. Someone can be as intelligent, rational and generally great in some areas and still be an idiot in others.

[AkuManiMani]

I think there has been too much focus on the definition of "religion" and not enough on the definition of "idiot". A lot of people have said that holding idiotic beliefs does not mean one is an idiot. I disagee. The problem is, there are lots of different criteria for intelligence, and being good in some does not mean you are good in all. It is entirely possible for someone to be an absolute genius in some areas are still be a complete idiot in others. Someone can be illiterate and yet able to do complex maths in their head. Someone can be a brilliant politician and yet have trouble adding 1 and 1. Is it fair to call such a person an idiot in general? No. Is it fair to call them an idiot in a specific case? Certainly. The same is true for beliefs. Someone can be as intelligent, rational and generally great in some areas and still be an idiot in others.

Hmm...

I suppose with that definition in mind would it be fair to say that the OP was philosophically "idiotic"?

[thaiboxerken]

Belief in the supernatural is idiotic.

[slingblade]

Get real. If I started a thread saying all skeptics were idiots, no skeptic would refrain from joining in to tell me why I was wrong. Are you saying the believers, aside from idiocy, also have no balls?

Why take a clear and unambiguous statement and try to make it unclear and ambiguous? She said what she was trying to say:

this type of thread is not very useful in trying to figure out why people believe what they believe

There is no reason to ask "are you saying?" She said what she was saying.

This type of thread is not very useful in trying to figure out why people believe what they believe.

[slingblade]

I must ask what's so idiotic about believing in a higher power?

No, no, it's idiocy to believe in a "higher power" that's impotent.
And aren't they all?

To me it is far more idiotic to go about putting others down for there beliefs!

Why? Do all beliefs deserve equal recognition, respect, and adherence from everyone?

Do you feel there are any idiotic beliefs? If so, which ones? If those, how do you feel about those who hold them?

[Rufo]

It is not what you are taught but what information you are made aware of.
Information can be true or false. It is what you are taught, along with your own discoveries, that effects which information you trust.

You are not misunderstanding. To believe in a religion is idiotic, but there may be mitigating circumstances which explain why you do.
If I am not misunderstanding, then you do not actually believe that all religious are idiots. That's a relief, because it means you are not as unreasonable as I originally thought.

In what way?
Pretty simple, really - it's the old you can't prove a negative. No one will open a book and find neat, logical evidence for the nonexistance of God. Stopping to believe in God (or rather, stopping to think you know God exists, which is a step in that direction) is a process of finding that the evidence you thought you had is questionable. It takes more time, effort and motivation.

All of its achievements, if possible.
No one has studied all the achievments of the scientific method. I agree that it's better to know as much as possible, but you are being too vague in what information you think is necessary.

If they have intelligence and knowledge, this is even more damning. They have, against better knowledge, chosen to be religious. They are idiots beyond belief.
This puzzles me a bit - are you using Cuddles' definition of idiot as something you can be in some areas and not in others? If so, aren't most people idiots in some way? If not, why does this specific issue make them idiots, even though they had proven their intellectual ability through other means?

Because it hopeless and meaningless. You might as well as me to really accept that leperchauns abounded. It's impossible.
You are missing my point. I'm not asking you to accept that God exists - the theological equalivent of what you suggest - but to try to understand the people who do believe in God (or leprechauns, if that's another one of your problems :p) by trying to think like them. Imagining what they think like. Imagining what made them think like that. Of course it's not possible to do it perfectly, especially since they think in different ways, but I'm asking you to try. It's not impossible for me, so why would it be for you?

Still mitigating circumstances. Still makes them at most ignorant.
So those who had a strong religious upbringing (and were thus conditioned to believe that all arguments against God were deceptive) are not idiots? That accounts for quite a few of the religious in the world, as well as quite a few of the religious who have ever existed.

It is! :)
And that's the best kind of debates!

No, no, it's idiocy to believe in a "higher power" that's impotent.
And aren't they all?
Some of them have the power to make their believers talk to them, wear funny hats, devote their lives to charity, or kill each other. In fact, quite a lot of them have.

Why? Do all beliefs deserve equal recognition, respect, and adherence from everyone?

Do you feel there are any idiotic beliefs? If so, which ones? If those, how do you feel about those who hold them?
Putting down others who you don't know for their beliefs with a broad, sweeping generalization is not very wise or tactful. There is a big difference between that and lacking respect for certain beliefs and certain people who hold them.

[DARK LORD XENU]

No, no, it's idiocy to believe in a "higher power" that's impotent.
And aren't they all?



Why? Do all beliefs deserve equal recognition, respect, and adherence from everyone?

Do you feel there are any idiotic beliefs? If so, which ones? If those, how do you feel about those who hold them?

Well fair enough if you disagree with me, and yes in my opinion all religions deserve equal respect to some point at least.

BUT to say that someone is an idiot just for believing in God to me is idiotic just because you do not share their beliefs, and just because I don't share your beliefs doesn't mean I think your an idiot I just disagree with you.

But I say if atheism works for you good luck to you!

[DanishDynamite]

I must ask what's so idiotic about believing in a higher power?
Because there is no reason at all to suspect this is the case. It is as insane as believing that my gym socks secretly control the White House. It is nonsense.
To me it is far more idiotic to go about putting others down for there beliefs!I'm not putting them down. Just explaining to them that it is idiotic to be a believer.

[DanishDynamite]

I nearly choked on a mouthful of food when I read this. If you think "debating" is calling people and their beliefs idiotic and ignorant, you are sadly mistaken. Debating calls for civility as a first principle.
It is idiotic. I'm done phrasing it in more PC terms.

[DanishDynamite]

Hmmm, you started a thread saying that all religions are idiocy in a skeptics forum. It seems to me that if you wanted a response from believers telling you why you are wrong, you would have started it in a religious forum.
My experience is that you instantly get banned from such forums.
If a thread in a religious forum was titled "Why skepticism is idiocy" and didn't get much defense from skeptics, would that be an indication that skeptics have no balls?
No, just that there either weren't any skeptics around or that they knew they would get banned in a split second.
What comes across to me is that you are not actually interested in what religious believers might have to say in their own defense. If you were, you would have posted in a more appropriate forum with a less confrontational title.
Show me an appropriate forum, and I'll post it there.

[DanishDynamite]

The term I once learned is "pulling your leg." Given your OP, I figured I'd reply in kind. I don't do Bingo on Wednesday nights. I don't expect I ever will. And as for chicks digging it, well, that's a story for another time, if you and I ever share that beer in person. :)

DR
Got it! :)

(And I do hope we get to share that beer!)

[A Christian Sceptic]

Because there is no reason at all to suspect this is the case.

Reason (and your ability to) is a reason to suspect there is more.



Of course - seeing a ghost may give you an additional reason to suspect,

Or seeing a miracle may give you a reason to suspect,

Or being awed by the unverse may give you reason to suspect,

Or experiencing unconditional love may give you reason to suspect,

Or enjoying your hobby may give you reason to suspect,

Or __________ may give you reason to suspect,

Or ...

[DanishDynamite]

So they are all equally idiotic based on their belief in the "supernatural"?

"Supernatural" is just a point of view. To believe in the "supernatural" is to believe in the reality of things beyond one's conception of what constitutes "natural" law. If isolated hunter-gatherers are exposed for the first time to cutting-edge modern technology they would consider such artifacts supernatural by their understanding of the world. If we were exposed to phenomenon or technology based on principles unknown to us we to could consider them supernatural as well. But ofcourse such things would be natural in the sense that they have basic underlying rules that govern them and can -- in principle -- be understood. To claim that a group of people are "idiots" because of their belief in the "supernatural" is extremely presumptuous.
No it isn't. There are currently no unexplained phenomena which are not thought to be crackable by scientific investigation.
If Danish wants some contrary views I think there are more than enough people on these forums who are willing to provide them.
I certainly hope so.

[DanishDynamite]

Why take a clear and unambiguous statement and try to make it unclear and ambiguous? She said what she was trying to say:



There is no reason to ask "are you saying?" She said what she was saying.

This type of thread is not very useful in trying to figure out why people believe what they believe.
Sorry for trying to clarify why she wrote as she did.

[DanishDynamite]

Information can be true or false. It is what you are taught, along with your own discoveries, that effects which information you trust.
How odd then, that I was never taught skepticism and yet was effectively a skeptic since age 14.
If I am not misunderstanding, then you do not actually believe that all religious are idiots. That's a relief, because it means you are not as unreasonable as I originally thought.
It is idiotic to be religious. But as I've said several times now, ignorance is a mitigating circumstance.
Pretty simple, really - it's the old you can't prove a negative. No one will open a book and find neat, logical evidence for the nonexistance of God. Stopping to believe in God (or rather, stopping to think you know God exists, which is a step in that direction) is a process of finding that the evidence you thought you had is questionable. It takes more time, effort and motivation.
No one will open a book and find evidence that my gym socks don't control the White House. Or that my left ear isn't actually an alien able to camouflage to an unreal degree. Or...
No one has studied all the achievments of the scientific method. I agree that it's better to know as much as possible, but you are being too vague in what information you think is necessary.
The scietific method and its achievements. If you need to limit it, just take the first 10 or 100 examples.
This puzzles me a bit - are you using Cuddles' definition of idiot as something you can be in some areas and not in others? If so, aren't most people idiots in some way? If not, why does this specific issue make them idiots, even though they had proven their intellectual ability through other means?
Religious belief is idiotic. Anyone, who against knowledge to the contrary, is still religious, is an idiot.
You are missing my point. I'm not asking you to accept that God exists - the theological equalivent of what you suggest - but to try to understand the people who do believe in God (or leprechauns, if that's another one of your problems :p) by trying to think like them. Imagining what they think like. Imagining what made them think like that. Of course it's not possible to do it perfectly, especially since they think in different ways, but I'm asking you to try. It's not impossible for me, so why would it be for you?
Because I don't know how to think as anyone else than myself. And neither do you.
So those who had a strong religious upbringing (and were thus conditioned to believe that all arguments against God were deceptive) are not idiots? That accounts for quite a few of the religious in the world, as well as quite a few of the religious who have ever existed.
No, that is not mitigating enough. It is only if they had no possibilty of learning otherwise that they are just ignorant.
And that's the best kind of debates!
Certainly!

[humber]

All religious workers beg for their 'supper'. All of them make their followers pay for their upkeep.
$1000 suits, free cars, free housing, free travel. What god would let this happen and then have his/her followers pay for their leaders to have their feet washed with a golden bowl. Billions of dollars being used every year to keep a select few living the life of Riley. All this while millions of followers starve?
;)

Quite right. Even the anodyne halfway-house of Buddhism so appealing to many Westerners has this trait.
Shiny happy monks lineup outside Bangkok's temples awaiting their supper, so that they may return to solipsistic contemplation. A revolting ideology, in my view.

[DanishDynamite]

Reason (and your ability to) is a reason to suspect there is more.
In what sense?
Of course - seeing a ghost may give you an additional reason to suspect,
Why would you think so?
Or seeing a miracle may give you a reason to suspect,
Why would you think so?
Or being awed by the unverse may give you reason to suspect,

Or experiencing unconditional love may give you reason to suspect,

Or enjoying your hobby may give you reason to suspect,

Or __________ may give you reason to suspect,

Or ...
I experience all those things and see no reason to invent China tea sets orbiting Alpha Centaury. Do you feel such need?

[DARK LORD XENU]

Because there is no reason at all to suspect this is the case. It is as insane as believing that my gym socks secretly control the White House. It is nonsense.
I'm not putting them down. Just explaining to them that it is idiotic to be a believer.

I don't think any one is here to argue as to weather or not your socks run the white house! in fact a pair of socks might do better than g.w.bush.

Also what were you trying to say about people who believe in God?

[DARK LORD XENU]

If you are religious, you are an idiot. My understanding of Buddishm is that it isn't a religion, though. Perhaps I'm wrong?

Do you believe in any form of God?

Also IF you were not trying to say those of us that have a religious belief DD please explain this post of yours mate.

[humber]

In what sense?

Why would you think so?

Why would you think so?

I experience all those things and see no reason to invent China tea sets orbiting Alpha Centaury. Do you feel such need?

I think religion is bunk, and want to see the end of it, but your last remark is really the point. People do want to believe.
It's idiocy, but then again, humans are not that smart. Perhaps in wanting to see an end to such idiocy, there is a fundamental flaw of expectation.

If you look at the world and are "awestruck" isn't that simply a reaction to your ignorance of it? The more you know, the smaller the surprise.

Recently, I talked to a creationist. The subject was Noah's ark. In answer to one of my more penetrating questions came "in those days, lions were vegetarians". What to do? Ridicule or smile? I chose the latter, but I do hold contempt for those who should know better.

[DanishDynamite]

I don't think any one is here to argue as to weather or not your socks run the white house! in fact a pair of socks might do better than g.w.bush.

Also what were you trying to say about people who believe in God?
That they are idiotic for doing so. I thought I mentioned this somewhere in this thread?

[Macoy]

If I might beg a brief sideline, why did you change your avatar back?

[DanishDynamite]

Also IF you were not trying to say those of us that have a religious belief DD please explain this post of yours mate.
Generally, if you are religious, you are an idiot for so being. It may however be possible that you are just ignorant.

Read the thread, bozo.

Keep it civil, please.

[A Christian Sceptic]

I experience all those things and see no reason to invent China tea sets orbiting Alpha Centaury. Do you feel such need?

Who's talking about inventing things - especially tea cups? I never mentioned anything like that. I thought you were talking about "reasons to suspect". Aren't those reasons I listed what many people consider "reasons to suspect"?

[DanishDynamite]

I think religion is bunk, and want to see the end of it, but your last remark is really the point. People do want to believe.
It's idiocy, but then again, humans are not that smart. Perhaps in wanting to see an end to such idiocy, there is a fundamental flaw of expectation.

If you look at the world and are "awestruck" isn't that simply a reaction to your ignorance of it? The more you know, the smaller the surprise.

Recently, I talked to a creationist. The subject was Noah's ark. In answer to one of my more penetrating questions came "in those days, lions were vegetarians". What to do? Ridicule or smile? I chose the latter, but I do hold contempt for those who should know better.
I too suspect that the degree that religion is widespread means there is more to it than just a bad idea gone wrong. I seem to recall some research which indicated that there possibly was a "god" center in some peoples brains. I look forward to more research in this area.

[thaiboxerken]

Reason (and your ability to) is a reason to suspect there is more.

Of course - seeing a ghost may give you an additional reason to suspect,

Or seeing a miracle may give you a reason to suspect,

Or being awed by the unverse may give you reason to suspect,

Or experiencing unconditional love may give you reason to suspect,

Or enjoying your hobby may give you reason to suspect,

Or __________ may give you reason to suspect,

Or ...

I'm pretty sure he meant GOOD reasons to suspect, not such silliness as you've put forth.

[DanishDynamite]

If I might beg a brief sideline, why did you change your avatar back?
Thanks for noticing. :)

It was for purely practical purposes. When replying to posts across several pages, it is an advantage to easily find your original post when scrolling through a page. The fairly distinctive Red-and-White was easier to catch than the Muhammed-with-a-bomb-turban.

[DanishDynamite]

Who's talking about inventing things - especially tea cups? I never mentioned anything like that. I thought you were talking about "reasons to suspect".
Which I was. I see little difference between feeling a need to invent a magic sky-daddy and inventing orbiting sets of China.

[Macoy]

Thanks for noticing. :)

It was for purely practical purposes. When replying to posts across several pages, it is an advantage to easily find your original post when scrolling through a page. The fairly distinctive Red-and-White was easier to catch than the Muhammed-with-a-bomb-turban.

Thanks. I was intrigued by it as those images are not so easily available in the UK.

[A Christian Sceptic]

I'm pretty sure he meant GOOD reasons to suspect, not such silliness as you've put forth.

Oh, he meant GOOD reasons. :rolleyes:

[Beth]

My experience is that you instantly get banned from such forums. I can't imagine why!
[/quote]
No, just that there either weren't any skeptics around or that they knew they would get banned in a split second.[/quote] Has it occurred to you that the lack of responses to your OP from believers is because relatively few religious believers hang out on this forum and those that do hang out here tend not to be literalist believers.

Show me an appropriate forum, and I'll post it there.
It's a big internet and the majority of the world's population believes in one religion or another. I have a hard time believing that the most appropriate forum you could find was this one, which is primarily populated by atheists.

[steverino]

Who of these two is the real idiot?

[A Christian Sceptic]

Which I was. I see little difference between feeling a need to invent a magic sky-daddy and inventing orbiting sets of China.

Right - but why are you talking about "inventing" something in reply to a post about "reasons to suspect" something?

You also do understand, don't you, that you can have a "reason to suspect" and still have what you suspect not be true. And just because it's not true doesn't mean you never had a "reason to suspect".

And in the other direction, just because you personally have never had a "reason to suspect" about something doesn't mean that thing you don't suspect about is false.

[steverino]

Choose the real idiot:

[DanishDynamite]

Thanks. I was intrigued by it as those images are not so easily available in the UK.
Here (http://digg.com/world_news/Muhammed_with_bomb_for_turban) is a random Internet site hosting it. The rest are out there as well if you search a little.

[DARK LORD XENU]

Generally, if you are religious, you are an idiot for so being. It may however be possible that you are just ignorant.

Read the thread, bozo.

So I have gone idiotic to ignorant to being a bozo! hmmmmm!

Obviously you do not like your own words being used against you at all mate, if your saying in one post those of us who are religious are idiots and ignorant then try going back on what you say then sorry to it but your just as much of an idiot than we religious folk are in your mind! if not more so!

Now do explain why did you say that some one is an idiot for believing in God in a post then try denying you think they are idiots in another post on the very same thread.

Also bozo I did read the thread you did say people like myself are idiots and then went back on it out of pure conveniance!

[DanishDynamite]

I can't imagine why!

No, just that there either weren't any skeptics around or that they knew they would get banned in a split second. Has it occurred to you that the lack of responses to your OP from believers is because relatively few religious believers hang out on this forum and those that do hang out here tend not to be literalist believers.
Yes, it has. But we still have a few fundamentalists among us, and they are free to respond.
It's a big internet and the majority of the world's population believes in one religion or another. I have a hard time believing that the most appropriate forum you could find was this one, which is primarily populated by atheists.
You encouraged me to find a better forum. At least provide an example.

[humber]

I too suspect that the degree that religion is widespread means there is more to it than just a bad idea gone wrong. I seem to recall some research which indicated that there possibly was a "god" center in some peoples brains. I look forward to more research in this area.

Perhaps there is a distinction between 'all religions are idiocy' and 'all religious people are idiots'. I certainly agree with the former statement, though
finding a god centre or meme probably would not change things much.

Knowledge of such a meme or brain function would allow you to better "think like someone else" but not be able to do anything about it.

Those with enough intelligence, knowledge or lack of the meme, may be expected to then accept a godless world, but what of the remainder?

The awe that you mentioned, and often to explain why godlessness does not mean emptiness, sounds to me to be something like religious experience.

[DanishDynamite]

Right - but why are you talking about "inventing" something in reply to a post about "reasons to suspect" something?

You also do understand, don't you, that you can have a "reason to suspect" and still have what you suspect not be true. And just because it's not true doesn't mean you never had a "reason to suspect".

And in the other direction, just because you personally have never had a "reason to suspect" about something doesn't mean that thing you don't suspect about is false.
There is no "reason to suspect" a magic sky-daddy anymore than there is a reason to suspect magic gym socks. Hence, any belief in magic gym socks or sky daddys is an invention on the side of the believer/inventor.

[DanishDynamite]

So I have gone idiotic to ignorant to being a bozo! hmmmmm!

Obviously you do not like your own words being used against you at all mate, if your saying in one post those of us who are religious are idiots and ignorant then try going back on what you say then sorry to it but your just as much of an idiot than we religious folk are in your mind! if not more so!

Now do explain why did you say that some one is an idiot for believing in God in a post then try denying you think they are idiots in another post on the very same thread.

Also bozo I did read the thread you did say people like myself are idiots and then went back on it out of pure conveniance!
I don't know how to phrase things any clearer than I have. But let me try:

The only possible reason you are not an idiot if you are religious is if you had no chance to know better, in which case you are just ignorant.

Hope this is finally clear enough.

[A Christian Sceptic]

There is no "reason to suspect" a magic sky-daddy anymore than there is a reason to suspect magic gym socks. Hence, any belief in magic gym socks or sky daddys is an invention on the side of the believer/inventor.

I can think of many situations where I may have "reasons to suspect" magic gym socks. But they're not at all similar to "reasons to suspect" there is a God or even whether there is the supernatural.

[DanishDynamite]

Perhaps there is a distinction between 'all religions are idiocy' and 'all religious people are idiots'. I certainly agree with the former statement, though
finding a god centre or meme probably would not change things much.

Knowledge of such a meme or brain function would allow you to better "think like someone else" but not be able to do anything about it.

Those with enough intelligence, knowledge or lack of the meme, may be expected to then accept a godless world, but what of the remainder?

The awe that you mentioned, and often to explain why godlessness does not mean emptiness, sounds to me to be something like religious experience.
Yes, I realize that some people wish to make the fine distinction that "believing in religion is idiocy" is distinct from "believing in something idiotic makes you an idiot".

I have to say I find it hard to make this distinction.

[Rufo]

How odd then, that I was never taught skepticism and yet was effectively a skeptic since age 14.
Were you taught anything contrary to skepticism? Many here like to say that skepticism is the default position (as well as atheism), and I'm inclined to agree. You do not have to be taught skepticism. What annoys me is that you seem to think skepticism and atheism are views which any sensible person should be easily able to attain despite being taught otherwise, simply because you have attained them without having them taught to you.

It is idiotic to be religious. But as I've said several times now, ignorance is a mitigating circumstance.
Then I hope you understand that some are confused at your previous remark about all religious being idiots, directly contradicting this.

No one will open a book and find evidence that my gym socks don't control the White House. Or that my left ear isn't actually an alien able to camouflage to an unreal degree. Or...
No one has been taught by people they trusted most that any such things are true since birth. There are no widespread philosophies encouraging people to ignore questioning them.

The scietific method and its achievements. If you need to limit it, just take the first 10 or 100 examples.
I don't understand what you mean. What 'first' 10 or 100 examples?

Religious belief is idiotic. Anyone, who against knowledge to the contrary, is still religious, is an idiot.
I should just have asked you right away - define what exactly you mean by 'idiot'.

Because I don't know how to think as anyone else than myself. And neither do you.
I do not know how to feel as anyone else feels either. Putting myself in their situation may still help me to understand how they feel.

No, that is not mitigating enough. It is only if they had no possibilty of learning otherwise that they are just ignorant.
Now you're confusing me. You considered my first description to be "at most ignorant":

They could have access to libraries and the information, but have been conditioned into not studying it, or not to think of it as anything but lies or a form of deception.
How is that different from a person with a strong religious upbringing?


Thanks. I was intrigued by it as those images are not so easily available in the UK.
Since you appear to have an Internet connection, those images are easily available to you just about anywhere. ;)

[steverino]

The only possible reason you are not an idiot if you are religious is if you had no chance to know better, in which case you are just ignorant. Hope this is finally clear enough.

This guy had no chance to "know better," according to you. So you know better than he, according to your twisted view.:D:D:D

[DanishDynamite]

I can think of many situations where I may have "reasons to suspect" magic gym socks. But they're not at all similar to "reasons to suspect" there is a God or even whether there is the supernatural.
Please explain how they differ.

And thanks for joining the debate! :) It seems we are finally able to get a discussion going as to why believers believe as they do.

[Macoy]

Perhaps there is a distinction between 'all religions are idiocy' and 'all religious people are idiots'. I certainly agree with the former statement, though


And of course, there is also the distinction between 'idiotic religions' and 'religious idiots'.

[A Christian Sceptic]

Please explain how they differ.


how about you tell me why the "reasons you suspect" water is sometimes a liquid is not different in any way then the "reasons you suspect" the sun gives of heat.


And thanks for joining the debate! :) It seems we are finally able to get a discussion going as to why believers believe as they do.

There's a debate going on here?

[DanishDynamite]

Were you taught anything contrary to skepticism? Many here like to say that skepticism is the default position (as well as atheism), and I'm inclined to agree. You do not have to be taught skepticism. What annoys me is that you seem to think skepticism and atheism are views which any sensible person should be easily able to attain despite being taught otherwise, simply because you have attained them without having them taught to you.
I don't necessarily think they are easy to arrive at when you come from an indoctrinated background, but it is possible and we have many examples on this very forum of people who have achieved enlightenment under these conditions.
Then I hope you understand that some are confused at your previous remark about all religious being idiots, directly contradicting this.
I don't think anyone was confused, but I thank you for asking questions which clarified my view for everyone.
No one has been taught by people they trusted most that any such things are true since birth. There are no widespread philosophies encouraging people to ignore questioning them.
And?
I don't understand what you mean. What 'first' 10 or 100 examples?
Examples of how the scientific method led to development of devices, procedures, planting methods, transistors, etc, etc, which obviously work and which work exactly as science predicted they would.
I should just have asked you right away - define what exactly you mean by 'idiot'.
As defined in any dictionary.
I do not know how to feel as anyone else feels either. Putting myself in their situation may still help me to understand how they feel.
Feeling empathy is not the same as "thinking as they do".
Now you're confusing me. You considered my first description to be "at most ignorant":


How is that different from a person with a strong religious upbringing?
Sorry, what is your question?

[DanishDynamite]

how about you tell me why the "reasons you suspect" water is sometimes a liquid is not different in any way then the "reasons you suspect" the sun gives of heat.
I don't "suspect" either. I can measure that both are true.
There's a debate going on here?
With you posting, yes, it would seem so. :)

[humber]

I don't know how to phrase things any clearer than I have. But let me try:

The only possible reason you are not an idiot if you are religious is if you had no chance to know better, in which case you are just ignorant.

Hope this is finally clear enough.

That's clear enough, but how (who) defines the border?
I too was a born skeptic. When about 13, I had an operation, and when I woke, it was not like waking from sleep, but like being dead. I concluded that being dead, was exactly like it was to be before I was born. Was that the chance that others missed?
Dennett says that we evolved consciousness -a virtual machine- so that we could run someone else's mind through it, so as to know what it's 'like' to be someone else.
If there can be a meme for religion, maybe there is one for 'not being able to appreciate religious ideas in others'.

[DARK LORD XENU]

I don't know how to phrase things any clearer than I have. But let me try:

The only possible reason you are not an idiot if you are religious is if you had no chance to know better, in which case you are just ignorant.

Hope this is finally clear enough.

So I would need to be from a remote village some where to have an excuse for believing in God for not to say I am an idiot do I?

Well thats nonsense.

If you think that why call the thread "All religions are idiocy" why not call it "All religions are idiocy UNLESS YOU LIVE IN A REMOTE VILLAGE SOMEWHERE"

[A Christian Sceptic]

I don't "suspect" either. I can measure that both are true.


What do you call it before you measure to find out whether it is true?

[slingblade]

Who cares? The difference is that we can measure or test whether water is a liquid or the sun gives off heat.

What are the measurements and tests for gods?

[Rufo]

I don't necessarily think they are easy to arrive at when you come from an indoctrinated background, but it is possible and we have many examples on this very forum of people who have achieved enlightenment under these conditions.
I am aware of this, but I would not go as far as to say that if you fail to do so, you are an idiot. If it's not easy, then why be so condescending to anyone who fails?

I don't think anyone was confused, but I thank you for asking questions which clarified my view for everyone.

DARK LORD XENU wondered about the post where you wrote that all religious are idiots, and in addition to that, many others have seemed to believe you still stand by this statement. I'm thankful for you clarifying your views.

And?
And this makes the comparison invalid, since I was discussing the mechanisms by which people lose their faith in God. No one has faith in any of the things you describe. You are not making any point with comparing them to God in this context.

Examples of how the scientific method led to development of devices, procedures, planting methods, transistors, etc, etc, which obviously work and which work exactly as science predicted they would.
Ah, so what you meant was that they would need to know about its achievements in order to understand the value of the method. Thanks for clarifying!

But it is not necessarily beyond debate that the scientific method should be applied to everything just because it is very useful. Even if people learn the value of the scientific method, they may choose not to apply it to certain concepts in their life. One being God.

As defined in any dictionary.
(I'll use Wiktionary (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/idiot) here because I have a soft spot for wikis - if you have any complaints, I can use another dictionary.)

1. (pejorative) A common term for a person of low general intelligence.
usage note This may be used pejoratively, as an insult. It is a weak insult, however, and between close friends, family members, or lovers, is often completely nonaggressive.
2. (obsolete) A medical or psychological term meaning a person who lacks the capacity to develop beyond the mental age of a normal four-year-old.
Feeling empathy is not the same as "thinking as they do".

So either you are just insulting intelligent people who believe in God, or you are saying that they have low intelligence (I'll ignore the second, obsolete definition). If you are insulting them, your statement is meaningless. If you are saying that they have a low intelligence, then how do you explain their displays of high intelligence in other matters? Do you consider this particular matter a more important display of intelligence than others? Why?
Sorry, what is your question?
I gave you two examples of people and asked whether you classified them as "idiots" or "ignorant". First example was:
"They could have access to libraries and the information, but have been conditioned into not studying it, or not to think of it as anything but lies or a form of deception."
You considered those people ignorant.
Second example was:
"So those who had a strong religious upbringing (and were thus conditioned to believe that all arguments against God were deceptive) are not idiots?"
In that case, you considered the mitigating circumstances insufficient there, and classified them as idiots (if I got it right).

My question is what the difference between the two is.

[A Christian Sceptic]

Who cares? The difference is that we can measure or test whether water is a liquid or the sun gives off heat.


So? It was a suspicion before it was tested - if it's never tested it stays a suspicion and if it's not testable it stays a suspicion.

DD (:)) made a ridiculously overgeneralized statement that there are no "reasons to suspect" there is a God. Why is DD the authority on deciding if someone elses "reasons for suspecting "there is a God is really a reason?, and why does a "reason" have to be testable (or even tested) in order to be a "reason"?


What are the measurements and tests for gods?

It's irrelevant to the point I was making.

[DanishDynamite]

That's clear enough, but how (who) defines the border?
I too was a born skeptic. When about 13, I had an operation, and when I woke, it was not like waking from sleep, but like being dead. I concluded that being dead, was exactly like it was to be before I was born. Was that the chance that others missed?
I doubt it, as I had no such experience and simply reasoned my way to being a skeptic.
Dennett says that we evolved consciousness -a virtual machine- so that we could run someone else's mind through it, so as to know what it's 'like' to be someone else.
If there can be a meme for religion, maybe there is one for 'not being able to appreciate religious ideas in others'.
And maybe there is one for "not being appreciative of green socks". Seriously, it is not those who would require evidence from the used-car salesmen, that need to explain why they do so, it is the ones who don't, that do.

[DanishDynamite]

So I would need to be from a remote village some where to have an excuse for believing in God for not to say I am an idiot do I?

Well thats nonsense.

If you think that why call the thread "All religions are idiocy" why not call it "All religions are idiocy UNLESS YOU LIVE IN A REMOTE VILLAGE SOMEWHERE"
When you have something of relevance to say, please do so.

[Undesired Walrus]

why does a "reason" have to be testable (or even tested) in order to be a "reason"?


It doesn't, but you have to concede that then it becomes irrational.

It may feel true, but if it has no substantive explanation it is mearly an idea that cannot be seriously legitimate.

[DanishDynamite]

What do you call it before you measure to find out whether it is true?
Theorizing? Sorry, I'm not sure I understand your question.

[Egg]

Religious belief is idiotic. Anyone, who against knowledge to the contrary, is still religious, is an idiot.



Interesting distinction. Perhaps you can lay out what you believe this "knowledge to the contrary" is?

[DanishDynamite]

I am aware of this, but I would not go as far as to say that if you fail to do so, you are an idiot. If it's not easy, then why be so condescending to anyone who fails?
I'm not being condescending. I'm just explaining that they are idiots if they don't make the connection.
DARK LORD XENU wondered about the post where you wrote that all religious are idiots, and in addition to that, many others have seemed to believe you still stand by this statement. I'm thankful for you clarifying your views.
You do understand my view, right?
And this makes the comparison invalid, since I was discussing the mechanisms by which people lose their faith in God. No one has faith in any of the things you describe. You are not making any point with comparing them to God in this context.
Not understood. The question is not why very few believe my gym socks control the White House. The question is why so many believe a magic sky-daddy controls anything, let alone exists.
Ah, so what you meant was that they would need to know about its achievements in order to understand the value of the method. Thanks for clarifying!
Thanks for understanding.
But it is not necessarily beyond debate that the scientific method should be applied to everything just because it is very useful. Even if people learn the value of the scientific method, they may choose not to apply it to certain concepts in their life. One being God.
In which case they are idiots, as previously explained.
(I'll use Wiktionary (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/idiot) here because I have a soft spot for wikis - if you have any complaints, I can use another dictionary.)

1. (pejorative) A common term for a person of low general intelligence.
usage note This may be used pejoratively, as an insult. It is a weak insult, however, and between close friends, family members, or lovers, is often completely nonaggressive.
2. (obsolete) A medical or psychological term meaning a person who lacks the capacity to develop beyond the mental age of a normal four-year-old.
A fine definition.
Feeling empathy is not the same as "thinking as they do".


So either you are just insulting intelligent people who believe in God, or you are saying that they have low intelligence (I'll ignore the second, obsolete definition). If you are insulting them, your statement is meaningless. If you are saying that they have a low intelligence, then how do you explain their displays of high intelligence in other matters? Do you consider this particular matter a more important display of intelligence than others? Why?
I'm doing both.
I gave you two examples of people and asked whether you classified them as "idiots" or "ignorant". First example was:
"They could have access to libraries and the information, but have been conditioned into not studying it, or not to think of it as anything but lies or a form of deception."
You considered those people ignorant.
Second example was:
"So those who had a strong religious upbringing (and were thus conditioned to believe that all arguments against God were deceptive) are not idiots?"
In that case, you considered the mitigating circumstances insufficient there, and classified them as idiots (if I got it right).
I don't see the discord. The second statement lacks the "access to libraries" bit.
My question is what the difference between the two is.
Just explained it.

[DanishDynamite]

Interesting distinction. Perhaps you can lay out what you believe this "knowledge to the contrary" is?
I have mentioned this many times already. The scientific method and the record of its achievements.

[Egg]

I have mentioned this many times already. The scientific method and the record of its achievements.
How are they knowledge to the contrary?

[slingblade]

DD (:)) made a ridiculously overgeneralized statement that there are no "reasons to suspect" there is a God. Why is DD the authority on deciding if someone elses "reasons for suspecting "there is a God is really a reason?, and why does a "reason" have to be testable (or even tested) in order to be a "reason"?

Oh, well, if you're going to get involved in a DD thread, you ought to have friendly warning:

Life's just better if you don't.


:D

[humber]

I doubt it, as I had no such experience and simply reasoned my way to being a skeptic.
And maybe there is one for "not being appreciative of green socks". Seriously, it is not those who would require evidence from the used-car salesmen, that need to explain why they do so, it is the ones who don't, that do.

That experience did not suddenly change my mind, but was one the I can clearly recall. You reasoned your way out; it is difficult to do otherwise, but it cannot be denied that it is easier if born (if you are Danish) in a country where religious belief is not so strong. You may not be aware of what influenced all of your reasoning.

It is not that the religious need to provide evidence; but that they can't. The cases of used car-salesmen or green socks are not the same. Religious people are often aware of the rules of evidence, and what is a fact, but they make a special case for religion. An explanation for this double-think is that it was of evolutionary advantage. It may have passed it's sell by date, but I can't agree that makes religious people idiots.

[DanishDynamite]

How are they knowledge to the contrary?
One is a belief in a magic sky-daddy as someone who has all the answers and a belief in his earthly underlings expousing his will through magic knowledge of what the magic sky daddy wants. The other is a method of obtaining the truth about how our world works, one you can do yourself no matter where you are, and one which has an almost infinite record of being right.

[DanishDynamite]

Oh, well, if you're going to get involved in a DD thread, you ought to have friendly warning:

Life's just better if you don't.


:D
:)

[DanishDynamite]

That experience did not suddenly change my mind, but was one the I can clearly recall. You reasoned your way out; it is difficult to do otherwise, but it cannot be denied that it is easier if born (if you are Danish) in a country where religious belief is not so strong. You may not be aware of what influenced all of your reasoning.

It is not that the religious need to provide evidence; but that they can't. The cases of used car-salesmen or green socks are not the same. Religious people are often aware of the rules of evidence, and what is a fact, but they make a special case for religion. An explanation for this double-think is that it was of evolutionary advantage. It may have passed it's sell by date, but I can't agree that makes religious people idiots.
There is currently no explanation for the religiously inclined. I wish there was, as we could then just classify it as an illness. I hope more research will be done in this area as so many are afflicted.

[Egg]

One is a belief in a magic sky-daddy as someone who has all the answers and a belief in his earthly underlings expousing his will through magic knowledge of what the magic sky daddy wants. The other is a method of obtaining the truth about how our world works, one you can do yourself no matter where you are, and one which has an almost infinite record of being right.

So you've defined the terms as you understand them, but you've not answered my question.

[AkuManiMani]

So they are all equally idiotic based on their belief in the "supernatural"?

"Supernatural" is just a point of view. To believe in the "supernatural" is to believe in the reality of things beyond one's conception of what constitutes "natural" law. If isolated hunter-gatherers are exposed for the first time to cutting-edge modern technology they would consider such artifacts supernatural by their understanding of the world. If we were exposed to phenomenon or technology based on principles unknown to us we to could consider them supernatural as well. But ofcourse such things would be natural in the sense that they have basic underlying rules that govern them and can -- in principle -- be understood. To claim that a group of people are "idiots" because of their belief in the "supernatural" is extremely presumptuous.


No it isn't. There are currently no unexplained phenomena which are not thought to be crackable by scientific investigation.

Read the bold. Any phenomenon -- even the "supernatural" -- can in principle be understood. My statement still stands that your OP is presumptuous.

[humber]

There is currently no explanation for the religiously inclined. I wish there was, as we could then just classify it as an illness. I hope more research will be done in this area as so many are afflicted.

In the same way that homeopaths are waiting for research to prove them right?
So the best thing would be if religion were an illness?

There is a lot of evidence, and a quite a number of books that explore the evolutionary susceptibility to religious thinking. Religious experience, as an effect, can be induced in a subject despite their beliefs

It is not necessarily a bolted on meme or idea, but integral to the way we think, and probably connected to other irrational responses such as the placebo effect

[DanishDynamite]

Read the bold. Any phenomenon -- even the "supernatural" -- can in principle be understood. My statement still stands that your OP is presumptuous.
If the supernatural can be understood through the usual scientific method, then it is not supernatural. I suspect most believers' view of what they believe in, is not that it's a natural law. Hard to undertand people praying to a natural law.

[DARK LORD XENU]

When you have something of relevance to say, please do so.

What would be of relevance? Don't you like being disagreed with mate? if you start a thread like this you should be ready to come across some one like my self!

Now I understand that your an athiest like most people here, BUT why try starting a thread off by saying any one like myself is an idiot for believing in God then go and try to deny what you said then try saying unless the other person should go get something relevant to say or bugger off unless they live in a cave some where.

OK enlighten me oh grand exhaulted athiest please put me back into my "idiotic" place then, or untill then why don't you find some thing of relevance to say YOURSELF, then accept the fact that not all religious people are idiots.

[DanishDynamite]

So you've defined the terms as you understand them, but you've not answered my question.
If every phenomena around us can eventually explained by the scientific method, then where is the room for a magic sky-daddy? If the sky-daddy is just a natural law, how ridiculous is it to pray to this natural law?

[Senex]

And of course, there is also the distinction between 'idiotic religions' and 'religious idiots'.


Sometimes it seems a small distinction.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=519097&in_page_id=1811

[ceo_esq]

One is a belief in a magic sky-daddy as someone who has all the answers and a belief in his earthly underlings expousing his will through magic knowledge of what the magic sky daddy wants. The other is a method of obtaining the truth about how our world works, one you can do yourself no matter where you are, and one which has an almost infinite record of being right.

That doesn't really answer Egg's question of why "The scientific method and the record of its achievements" necessarily constitutes "knowledge to the contrary" of religious belief, particularly if they constitute non-overlapping magisteria. (Granted, certain particular bodies of religious belief do overlap the scientific magisterium, and that's problematic - but it's not a general characteristic of religion.)

[DanishDynamite]

In the same way that homeopaths are waiting for research to prove them right?
So the best thing would be if religion were an illness?
The best thing would be if no such illness existed. But, yes, if it is an illness, it would be very good to so determine as therapy methods could then be looked for more easily.
There is a lot of evidence, and a quite a number of books that explore the evolutionary susceptibility to religious thinking. Religious experience, as an effect, can be induced in a subject despite their beliefs
No doubt. As I said previously there is evidence that a "god" center exists in the brain.
It is not necessarily a bolted on meme or idea, but integral to the way we think, and probably connected to other irrational responses such as the placebo effect
Why would you think so?

[DanishDynamite]

That doesn't really answer Egg's question of why "The scientific method and the record of its achievements" necessarily constitutes "knowledge to the contrary" of religious belief, particularly if they constitute non-overlapping magisteria. (Granted, certain particular bodies of religious belief do overlap the scientific magisterium, and that's problematic - but it's not a general characteristic of religion.)
I hope I explained the connection in my reply to Egg's question.

[Egg]

If every phenomena around us can eventually explained by the scientific method, then where is the room for a magic sky-daddy? If the sky-daddy is just a natural law, how ridiculous is it to pray to this natural law?

Can you show by the scientific method that every phenomena around us can eventually be explained by the scientific method?

If you were just a natural law, how ridiculous would it be to talk to you?

[Damien Evans]

Exactly. DD disrespects those who believe in God. DD insults someone solely on their beliefs, and is rude, arrogant, ignorant and his behavior is uncalled for. So I agree with you that only idiots engage in the behavior DD engages in.

I like the way you put that. Very cleverly worded.:)

[DanishDynamite]

Can you show by the scientific method that every phenomena around us can eventually be explained by the scientific method?Obviously not. But as I said, there is no reason to suspect otherwise.
If you were just a natural law, how ridiculous would it be to talk to you?
Extremely!

[ceo_esq]

No doubt. As I said previously there is evidence that a "god" center exists in the brain.

There may be evidence that a "god" center exists in the brain, but the larger question is: if it does exist, what (if anything) is its existence evidence of? After all, some people think that a "god" center is exactly the sort of thing we would expect to find if God actually existed. Somewhere in Lewis' writings, for example, he argues roughly to the effect that the presence of our "food" center points to the external reality of food, the presence of a "sex" center points to the external reality of sex, and so forth.

[AkuManiMani]

If the supernatural can be understood through the usual scientific method, then it is not supernatural. I suspect most believers' view of what they believe in, is not that it's a natural law. Hard to undertand people praying to a natural law.

As I said, "supernatural" is a subjective point of view -- it is a relative term. If a phenomenon is beyond our current explanatory framework or understanding it would be "supernatural" to us. Or, if that particular term causes you to break out in hives, you could use Dawkin's neologism -- "perinormal".

Being that it's obvious that reality [even the portions that we know of] is not completely understood, and it is impossible to fully grasp its infinite workings, its a state of fact that existence itself is "supernatural".

[Egg]

Obviously not. But as I said, there is no reason to suspect otherwise.



So, to summarise your argument, you're saying that because of your belief which you can't prove by the scientific method, religious people are idiots for having beliefs which they can't prove by the scientific method. I guess there's no refuting that one :).

[DanishDynamite]

There may be evidence that a "god" center exists in the brain, but the larger question is: if it does exist, what (if anything) is its existence evidence of?
If such a center exists, perhaps it is a remnant of something that once was useful. Perhaps it was the appendix of the brain, something we carry with us in our genes, but which is at best useless, nowadays.

Who knows, at this time?

[DanishDynamite]

As I said, "supernatural" is a subjective point of view -- it is a relative term. If a phenomenon is beyond our current explanatory framework or understanding it would be "supernatural" to us. Or, if that particular term causes you to break out in hives, you could use Dawkin's neologism -- "perinormal".
Sorry, you'll need to get a bit more specific. There are many repeatable phenomena which require explanation at this time. Hence the investment in CERN and similar. None of these are phenomena are considered supernatural, however.
Being that it's obvious that reality [even the portions that we know of] is not completely understood, and it is impossible to fully grasp its infinite workings, its a state of fact that existence itself is "supernatural".
Wht might you think that the part I bolded was in any way the case?

[PBTree]

What would be of relevance? Don't you like being disagreed with mate? if you start a thread like this you should be ready to come across some one like my self!

Now I understand that your an athiest like most people here, BUT why try starting a thread off by saying any one like myself is an idiot for believing in God then go and try to deny what you said then try saying unless the other person should go get something relevant to say or bugger off unless they live in a cave some where.

OK enlighten me oh grand exhaulted athiest please put me back into my "idiotic" place then, or untill then why don't you find some thing of relevance to say YOURSELF, then accept the fact that not all religious people are idiots.

Based upon what DD said at the very start of this thread DLX:

It boggles my mind that anyone could believe in any religion anywhere.
Could a believer please explain why and what he/she believes in?


and the fact that you appear to be a believer, maybe you could answer the why part of his question?

Nobody ever seems to answer that one, no matter how many times it is asked.

[DARK LORD XENU]

Based upon what DD said at the very start of this thread DLX:




and the fact that you appear to be a believer, maybe you could answer the why part of his question?

Nobody ever seems to answer that one, no matter how many times it is asked.

Well I believe in God because to me I just don't see how all of the universe could come to be from the big bang without some sort of intelligent design, but I am the first to admit I very well could be wrong in my beliefs.

[humber]

The best thing would be if no such illness existed. But, yes, if it is an illness, it would be very good to so determine as therapy methods could then be looked for more easily.

No doubt. As I said previously there is evidence that a "god" center exists in the brain.

Why would you think so?

A convincing explanation would be a long one. One reason that we are susceptible to religious thinking is the way that we infer cause from effect.
Just as we have an innate 'folk physics', we have a folk reasoning.

The specific connection to the placebo effect is that only taste and smell are connected to the hypothalamus, a much older part of the brain. For example, memories associated with taste and smell can last a lifetime, where most visual memories are soon lost.
There is a tendency in children to associate food as being good for them, and this extends to a sort of naive vitalism, that is, they assume that vital power or life force taken from food and water makes humans active, prevents them from being taken ill, and enables them to grow. If true, then the placebo effect would be expected as an inbuilt consequence.

You rightly extol science's achievements, but it is not done by the mind alone.
The scientific method is a tool or prosthetic device that removes as much as possible of our native thinking. Without it, we revert to the native state.

So, your reasoned adherence to atheism (as is mine) is both ours and the external mental prosthetic devices and libraries of stored information.

Occasionally, some religious minds are converted, and they often ( if not always) speak of the freedom and clarity of thought that it brings. Perhaps then, you may consider it fortunate that you are one of the lucky minority, rather than thinking of the remainder as being idiots ?

[DanishDynamite]

So, to summarise your argument, you're saying that because of your belief which you can't prove by the scientific method, religious people are idiots for having beliefs which they can't prove by the scientific method. I guess there's no refuting that one :).
No.

The scientific method has demonstrated that it is the most reliable way of obtaining knowledge about how our Universe works. The fact that we are discussing the current topic on our computers, worlds apart, is evidence enough.

So, the scientific method shows what is true and what is not in our world. It shows, for example, that the age of the Earth is at least 4 billion years and not 4000 years as some inane religion proclaims. It shows that our very species evolved from previous lifeforms, lifeforms which by the way have existed since almost the beginning of the Earth. It shows why stars are not "lights on glass spheres" and that the Earth is not the center of the Universe and that things do fall at the same rate, no matter their mass, despite what the Pope says. It shows, once again, how to reliably obtain information about the workings of our Universe.

Religion has not provided a reliable answer regarding anything since it was invented. And every answer it has suggested has been shown to be wrong. By science.

Hence, anyone thinking that any religion anywhere can provide answers to anything at all, is an idiot.

[AkuManiMani]

As I said, "supernatural" is a subjective point of view -- it is a relative term. If a phenomenon is beyond our current explanatory framework or understanding it would be "supernatural" to us. Or, if that particular term causes you to break out in hives, you could use Dawkin's neologism -- "perinormal".

Sorry, you'll need to get a bit more specific. There are many repeatable phenomena which require explanation at this time. Hence the investment in CERN and similar. None of these are phenomena are considered supernatural, however.

The phenomenon that CERN or the LHC are seeking to investigate are things predicted within our current theoretical framework. In other words, they are testing implications and hypotheses that arise from our current theories. Depending on what new data they collect then their empirical observations could be considered, to greater or lesser extents, to be "perinomal". For instance, say if the LHC uncovers phenomenon that is very far removed from anything predicted by any known theory then the observed phenomenon could be considered perinormal until our theoretical framework can be updated to account for them.


Being that it's obvious that reality [even the portions that we know of] is not completely understood, and it is impossible to fully grasp its infinite workings, its a state of fact that existence itself is "supernatural"


Wh[y] might you think that the part I bolded was in any way the case?

Since I've already explained the reasons for this in the past and I do not feel like typing my arguments all over again please excuse me as I copy+paste in reply:

Having a "Theory of Everything" implies that there is a fundamental scale of measurement upon which to base it. This is logically impossible because there must always be a deeper fundament upon which to base such a theory. The most theoretical physicists will be able to achieve is a "Theory of Just About Everything we Observe Currently".

Finding THE Theory of Everything is about as absurd as catching the horizon.

[...]

My point is that not that there is no logical basis for reality but that no matter how deep or encompassing our theoretical understanding of it is there will always be greater subtleties to be uncovered and explained -- we will never gain perfect understanding.

Our theories are finite cognitive models of an infinite universe. They are provisional understandings that are held until a more robust model is developed that allows us to "see" reality in a higher "resolution" -- so to speak. Theory attempts to map the borders of our conceptual horizons. We fact check the predictions of our theoretical map by surveying the mapped regions of reality thru the scientific method (empirical observation and deduction). The most we can expect of our map is for it to hold accurate until we reach its outer limits -- at which point we find whole new vistas to explore that place our previous map inna whole new context. Our body of knowledge and theory is only a starting reference point from which to build outward into a universe that almost certainly has no ultimate "beginning" or "end" in either scale or scope. Each time we gain a greater understanding of the universe the more baffling and counter intuitive it has become. Whenever it seemed we were on the brink of perfecting our conceptual framework we grabbed what appeared to be the last pieces of the puzzle only to find we knew even less than we thought we did before. From Galileo to Newton to Relativity and Quantum mechanics this pattern has held.

We may eventually find a "Theory of Everything" so vast and so deep that it will hold for centuries or millenia. But, sooner or later, its limits well be reached and a paradigm even more profound will have to replace it. I suppose Doug Adam's got it spot on w/ his metaphor: When the "ultimate" question meets the "ultimate" answer our universe as we know it vanishes and is replaced by something even more inexplicable.

[DARK LORD XENU]

No.

The scientific method has demonstrated that it is the most reliable way of obtaining knowledge about how our Universe works. The fact that we are discussing the current topic on our computers, worlds apart, is evidence enough.

So, the scientific method shows what is true and what is not in our world. It shows, for example, that the age of the Earth is at least 4 billion years and not 4000 years as some inane religion proclaims. It shows that our very species evolved from previous lifeforms, lifeforms which by the way have existed since almost the beginning of the Earth. It shows why stars are not "lights on glass spheres" and that the Earth is not the center of the Universe and that things do fall at the same rate, no matter their mass, despite what the Pope says. It shows, once again, how to reliably obtain information about the workings of our Universe.

Religion has not provided a reliable answer regarding anything since it was invented. And every answer it has suggested has been shown to be wrong. By science.

Hence, anyone thinking that any religion anywhere can provide answers to anything at all, is an idiot.

Tell me what if some one was to put to you that the truth of the universe was neither religious ie the Genesis story nor scientific ie Big Bang Theory but in the grey area inbetween Genesis and the Big Bang theory.
Would you still say they are an idiot?
Or lets say for a moment a well respected scientist say like Einstein or Hawkings were to believe in God would that make them an idiot?

[AkuManiMani]

Tell me what if some one was to put to you that the truth of the universe was neither religious ie the Genesis story nor scientific ie Big Bang Theory but in the grey area inbetween Genesis and the Big Bang theory.
Would you still say they are an idiot?
Or lets say for a moment a well respected scientist say like Einstein or Hawkings were to believe in God would that make them an idiot?

I think what Danish really means is that he is less of an idiot that the billions of religious persons on the globe. The views he holds concerning certain details of the universe are more accurate and he is, therefore, in a completely higher realm of intelligence than your average idiotic religious adherent. Surely, he is an intellectual god amongst a sea of drooling idiots ;)

[tsig]

Tell me what if some one was to put to you that the truth of the universe was neither religious ie the Genesis story nor scientific ie Big Bang Theory but in the grey area inbetween Genesis and the Big Bang theory.
Would you still say they are an idiot?
Or lets say for a moment a well respected scientist say like Einstein or Hawkings were to believe in God would that make them an idiot?

According to my belief hell can't hold all the idiots. I think Einstein is dead

[badnewsBH]

I'd say the existence of Dr. Ken Miller, a Christian and a defender of evolution at Dover, kinda puts the OP out of business. ;)