[Merged]All religions are idiocy

[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.