0

I see stupid people all the time that are religious and nonreligious. That's the thing about stupidity: it is an equal opportunity condition.
My husband told me about how he was always scared of monsters as a child underneath his bed and in his closet. He thought they were bad monsters and were going to eat him. So his father told him that there were also good monsters in the room also that kept the bad monsters from doing anything and my husband got to sleep at night. His chosen worldview: atheist. And he's completely well-adjusted to boot.
There are alot more factors involved in this scenerio than just merely having a belief in God. For example, christians differ in level of education, income, culture, family tradition and mental capability, among other things. All of these have an impact on the way they view the world. All of these have an impact on whether or not they are more likely to believe in the concept of a 6,000 year old earth or a global flood. Or be a lax Catholic or a staunch JW.
And because so many factors forge us each as individuals, there will always be a difference of opinion about what the world is to each and every person regarding theism and atheism.
Aspects of life are irrational. Aspects of humanity are irrational. There can't be one without the other. I don't see that changing any time soon.
And so what if everyone is not rational?
The are plenty of people who do believe in God and have little knowledge of science, but can play a piano so sweetly it makes you weep. Or mentally-ill people who happen to be brilliant artists or mathematicians that know nothing of Ice Ages or solar systems. Theist leaders that practicied non-violence and gave their lives to end hatred and intolerance. Ballet dancers and atheletes who swear they've seen UFOs and study crop circles. High school teachers that might be closet wiccans but drive our kids to learn. Middle aged men that believed in biblical prophesy and wrote the greatest works of literature ever to grace a page.
Or a person like me, a Pagan woman who has done activisim for liberal causes, who helped to open a battered women's shelter in her hometown, and dreams of opening a homeless shelter or youth center one day. But everyone keeps telling me that I should just care for myself and my family and forget all those people that could be helped because it's the rational thing to do.
The irrational is necessary. Those that are irrational also bring their own aspects of good things to this world. They may not follow those things that others may deem important, but their contribution is no less needed.

My two cents.
Tangie

whichphilosophy

No
Each to their own.

That is as long as they don't try to eradicate the other or degrade the others views.

I find truths in religion which I could not find if I were atheist. That is not meant in anyway to demean atheism, for the one thing worse then being forced to live in an atheist society would be one where everyone would have exactly all my views.

Of course if I had US$1 billion in the bank I could probarbly semble a sufficently large empire of grovellors and lackeys to slaver on command, but then I would only know that this remains as long as the money is there.

The AntiChris

Unfortunately this line of reasoning can be used to justify the toleration of any form of ignorance or mistaken belief - "why educate these people? They'll only find another way to be stupid."

I don't think any sane person could deny that stupid stuff, ranging from the mildly foolish to the tragically catastrophic, is carried out all over the world in the name of, and justified by, religion.

It's my view that misguided 'tolerance' of religious belief merely serves to guarantee that this "stupid stuff" will continue to be perpetrated in the name of sincere but misguided religious belief. (By "misguided tolerance" I mean the common assertion that any form of spirited challenge to theistic belief is evidence of "intolerance")

One reason we hold education and critical thinking in such high esteem is because it tends to reduce the opportunities for us to display our innate stupidity.
He may be an atheist, but I bet he's agnostic about monsters.
I think you'll find there are very many highly-intelligent and well-educated theists who are thoroughly convinced of some pretty bizarre stuff simply as a result of their religious convictions.

I'm not at all persuaded by the argument that all theists who hold what we might consider to be irrational beliefs would necessarily be equally irrational absent their theism.
This is a bit of a strawman.

I certainly haven't been suggesting that there's no place for emotion and aesthetic appreciation in our lives. But even you must accept that there are times when rationality is not only appropriate but essential?

I think it's entirely appropriate to insist that rationality plays a role in assessing the validity of religious beliefs which have the potential to affect all our lives.

Chris

Gurdur

Sure, go ahead and be as intolerant as you like --- see how much you accomplish.
Oops, you've redefined "tolerance/intolerance" to suit yourself down below in an apparent retreat from your earlier claim that Tangiellis refuted; but since by any reasonable, genuine real-life defintion of "spirited challenge", all such activities are perfectly possible right at the moment in the land where you are living, then what exactly are you complaining about or wanting to promote ?
Quite a few of us manage public criticism of religion without fantasizing about "eradication" of religion, or pretending that "eradication of religion" would cure all ills.
And ? "Stupid" stuff has also been carried out in the name of atheism, explicitly.
LIke, just what is your point here ?
Then just what are you complaining about ?
Unless of course your definition of "spirited challenge" contains authoritarian elements in potential practice, in which case you don't deserve much sympathy; and if it's the normal, everyday defintion, then nothing is stopping you.
Suuuuuuuure, that's why Objectivists makew such a Big Thang about "rationality", and never quite attain it.
Or why so many posts here contain so much rhetoric and hyperbole. Suurrre, just a mark of "rationality". Ooooooo, I would love to see how you can divorce "rational" cognitive processes from values --- values not being a "rational" thing, as rationality is construed commonly here, though not in real life.
Suuure, as long as as rationality plays a role also in judging aesthetics (which affects all our lives), love (ditto), and hyperbolic rhetoric.


Missing the point consistantly, aren't you ?
Tangiellis pointed out that blanket condenmnations and generalizations about "religion" won't work when combating excesses of religion, and all you do here is retreat but try maintaining the same inflated claims under redefined guise.

The AntiChris

And I disagree.

Chris

Gurdur

Ooooo, no problems at all.

But I'm sure we're all looking forward to your detailing your success in "eradicating" religion, especially your detailing just how irrational generalizations and blanket condemnations are going to be so useful in eradicating religion. Since that's what you seem to be saying. And I've asked you to clarify just what you're saying.

Sooorry if I sound unsympathetic, just that, you know, dude, I live in the real world, and I have difficulties matching up the rhetorical hyperbole used so often here with anything concrete in the way of results or prescriptive ethics in the outside world.
Maybe I'm just not the Correct Kind Of Atheist, as some here are fond of telling me.

0

No, it doesn't. You claimed that religion is a major source of human stupidity. There are stupid people that have religious convictions and none at all. Stupidity is an aspect of the total human condition. It's not going anywhere, even if religion does.
And no sane person can deny that there is stupid stuff carried out every single day in the name of selfishness, greed and intolerance. All of which are tragically catastrophic to humanity. All of which are also inherent in the human condition regardless of religious affiliation. It's the people themselves that are the culprits. Their worldviews are windowdressing for their negative human attributes.
There is spirited challenge to religion everyday and it will continue to be so. More and more people are leaving the churches in droves, all finding their own philosophies and viewpoints on life without such doctrines. Or have you not checked the attendance at the churches in recent years? And just as there are those that have had bad experiences with debating the religious, there are also those that haven't.
The fact that you have a view makes you an individual. But I could just as easily say that atheism is misguided and stupid. I don't. Why? Because what works for me may not work from someone else.
Reduces but does not eradicate. I have seen stupid smart people. Intellectuals who hold doctorates that haven't even learned the lesson of common courtesy towards their fellow man. Or are so far removed from reality that they use their intellectualism to impose unrealistic ideals upon society because they think what interests them should interest everyone.
Do you honestly believe that the greatest movements of humanity that caused rampant death and destruction were carried out by stupid people with no knowledge? No, it was carried out by people who had knowledge and used it for destruction. A person that can influence millions and cause the deaths of millions more, religious or no, is not a stupid person.
lol. :rolling:
And there are some very highly intelligent and well-educated atheists who believe bizarre stuff as well like radical scientific theories that have no real support in the scientific community and cling to those theories long after they have been debunked. I've met atheists who don't believe in God, but are convinced there is extraterrestrial life out there that has visited us.
What exactly is your point here?
And this is something you may never know, correct? An atheist with bi-polar disorder isn't going to be rational or do rational things. Again, I ask you why the need for everyone to be rational? Love isn't even rational and without that, a lot of us wouldn't be here today.
I accept that rationality is as appropriate and essential as irrationality is. They are equal in terms. I think with my head and my heart; the rational and the irrational together. You cannot have one without the other as both are aspects of human nature and will always remain so.
I think it's entirely appropriate for an individual to insist that rationality plays a role in assessing the validity of religious beliefs on his or her own life. But to insist that other people must come to the same conclusion as you or even use the same method to get to that conclusion...that's no different from those people who claim that if you aren't theist you are [insert derogatory term here]. There is absolutely no difference between to two.

My two cents.
Tangie

0

Thinking of only the negative apsects of those with religious views is not the whole story.

If not for people like MLK, Jr. or Gandi or any of the other theistic activists that have existed, this world would be very different indeed. It certainly isn't a rational thing to put your life on the line to spread the message of peace and tolerance, now is it? Quite easy to forget that these people were moved by theism to promote goodness in this world. Doesn't make them better because they are theists, just makes them necessary.

Because people themselves are composed of varying degrees good and evil, so will the views they espouse cause good and evil in this world. It depends on the inclination of the individual as to what their actions will go towards.

My two cents.
Tangie

The AntiChris

This seems to encapsulate the main thrust of your defence of religious belief.

It appears that you simply don't accept that any negative consequences can be directly attributable to religious belief (or that if there are any, they're negligible). In other words, any negative consequences which appear to be directly related to religious belief would manifest themselves, in any event, in a world devoid of religious belief.

To a certain extent, I agree.

I fundamentally disagree with your implication that a significant proportion of the ills in the world today cannot be directly attributed to religious belief.

However, on the other hand, I readily accept that many theists simply use religious belief and so-called biblical teachings to justify their own prejudices. There's no doubt that such people would very likely be bigots in the absence of any religious belief, but you have to wonder what impact such people would have on society without the legitimisation endowed by a claimed religious justification.

BTW, despite rumours to the contrary, I'm not advocating the forceful deconversion of all theists neither am I even suggesting being really, really nasty to all religious believers. I'm simply responding honestly to the OP - "Is atheism for everyone?"

I answer emphatically YES. I do this on the basis that if nobody were to even consider the possibility that we were answerable to anyone else but ourselves and there were no more meaningless squabbles about what God is really telling us and which God is the TRUE God, then I am absolutely certain that the world would be a more pleasant place for all of us (and, no, I'm not saying it would "cure all the world's ills").

Chris

JohNeo

I must wonder, is the story of Cain murdering Abel in the book of Genesis an indictment of religion?

JohNeo