[Merged]All religions are idiocy

[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 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 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.

 

[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.