[Merged]All religions are idiocy

[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. 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.