I don't trust religious people anymore

[methylatedghosts]

Take for example the push to add creationist views into the public school system. People fought long and hard to force schools to teach faith in the school system even though it is not based on science. I am not positive but i believe in most cases it was kept out of the school system. To me that type of thing is extremely dangerous and the type of thinking that holds this country back.

Science isn't the only way to view the world, and I feel like removing non-scientific views on how the world exists and works would be a great loss. I feel like it would be intellectually dishonest to dismiss them without proper study. However, teaching creationism and science as the only two options is also intellectually dishonest, especially if taught with the idea that only one of the two can be right, and ignoring all others.

 

[VegasRich]

Well put! It does come off a bit arrogant. Almost, but not quite "If you don't believe what I do, then you must be stupid"

I totally disagree, if i come off arrogant it might be because i feel completley confident in saying that there is no god or any other dieties. They are just figments of people's imagination. I certainly do not think people who believe in god, any god for that matter are stupid..i know for a fact that many of these people are highly intelligent people. It does make my head spin how people that so can clearly demonstrate strong critical thinking skills can set those same skills aside when it comes to their faith..

 

[VegasRich]

Science isn't the only way to view the world, and I feel like removing non-scientific views on how the world exists and works would be a great loss. I feel like it would be intellectually dishonest to dismiss them without proper study. However, teaching creationism and science as the only two options is also intellectually dishonest, especially if taught with the idea that only one of the two can be right, and ignoring all others.

Except there is no evidence to support creationism but mountains of evidence to support evolution. There is certainly no credible science backing up creationism, it is purely based on faith and religious views.

Also if your going to teach Intelligent design then who's design are you going to teach? There is just as much evidence to support this as their is any other religious views..so should we also teach this in school?

About « Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

 

[s2a]

Multitude of assumptions here.
1) That a person's beliefs, if not similar to yours, are illogical/unreasoned

To be fair, I’d say that’s the view of most folks of differing regions as well… understandably of course

2) That religions are illogical/unreasoned

“Reasoned” is not to be equated with “reasonable”
And quite frankly, by even most standards of any faith-based beliefs, those precepts are indeed illogical… just saying.//

3) That there is no god[

Well, anytime you have your compelling proofs to offer otherwise, step right up

4) That religions are only used to control people

Only? No, but it does seem a primary motivation…

5) That it is intellectually dishonest to hold beliefs that are dissimilar to at least 3 & 4

And that is where I took issue as well, to a point. I would counter that it’s also intellectually dishonest to assert that neither (3) nor (4) have no merit whatsoever in application.

I would suggest not being to quick to jump to conclusions upon discovering someone is religious (or rather, not-atheist). There are more worldviews than there are people alive, and so, while some conclusions may be safely drawn, you do yourself a disservice assuming that anyone with a religion has not thought it through or is not able to do so in a logical, reasonable way.

Again, my only quibble is with your equative semantics, not your general counsel lent.

Is it reasonable to retain a god belief?
Is it logical to retain a god belief?

I see those two questions providing completely differing replies,,, especially from an atheistic perspective

 

[methylatedghosts]

1) Completely untrue , i disagree with plenty of people and plenty disagree with me on my views..i do not automatically dismiss them as being illogical or unreasoned. I am by no means perfect or believe my way is the only way.

Reading what you wrote in the OP, it comes off as such. I assumed that you being atheist, you considered yourself non-religious. I assumed, therefore, that when you said (paraphrased) "I lose respect when I hear that someone is religious", this included anyone who was not atheistic, and as such, anyone who believed different than you.

2) Totally agree , i think believing in Any diety that there is no evidence of and taking things on Blind faith is at the very least foolish and illogical since most people will not apply that same method of thinking into any other part of their life..only in religion do people seem willing to disconnect reason and ignore evidence so they continue to have faith

Again, an assumption you might want to look at adjusting. The problem is, it sounds like you'd be asking for physical evidence of a non-physical thing. Some kinds of evidence are internal. They are entirely subjective and cannot be outwardly demonstrated. Your information is not the same as anyone else's.

3)Could not agree with you more..There is no god..that i am sure of.

Again, this is not something you or I could prove or disprove, perhaps depending on the definition of God. So therefore, again, an assumption you want to consider before drawing conclusions about other people in relation to their beliefs.

4)Religions are not only used to control people, they are also used to make tremendous amounts of money , gain power and influence among other things . Religion also has many positive qualities but those are necessary in order to keep people from leaving in droves..

A religion is used by an individual for individual reasons. It sounds like you're assuming that those who are in a position of power use a religion for the same reasons as the followers of the religion. A dangerous assumption to make when two followers may not even follow for the same reason.

5) I feel it is only dishonest if you are willing to be willfully ignorant in the face of mountains of evidence, inconsistencies and obviously false claims.

As I said earlier, your information is not the same as anyone else's, and a great deal of evidence for various religious beliefs is internal... subjective... nothing you can do or say can change someones mind when a belief is based on an inner knowledge that is felt and experienced rather than imparted.

I totally disagree, if i come off arrogant it might be because i feel completley confident in saying that there is no god or any other dieties. They are just figments of people's imagination. I certainly do not think people who believe in god, any god for that matter are stupid..i know for a fact that many of these people are highly intelligent people. It does make my head spin how people that so can clearly demonstrate strong critical thinking skills can set those same skills aside when it comes to their faith..

Why could it not be possible to use those same strong critical thinking skills to arrive at a set of beliefs that include God(s) or a version thereof?

 

[methylatedghosts]

To be fair, I’d say that’s the view of most folks of differing regions as well… understandably of course

Yes, but it's always a good idea to keep it in mind.

“Reasoned” is not to be equated with “reasonable”
And quite frankly, by even most standards of any faith-based beliefs, those precepts are indeed illogical… just saying.//

My issue is the assumption that religious beliefs are illogical/unreasoned. I don't doubt that some of them are. In my mind, it is reasonable to hold a reasoned belief

Well, anytime you have your compelling proofs to offer otherwise, step right up

Again, some things are more than difficult to prove. Some things just have to be seen/felt/experienced to be believed. I cannot prove to you that bacon is delicious. You must taste it yourself. (poor analogy, but it's the best I have at the moment)

Only? No, but it does seem a primary motivation…

For a small amount of people, perhaps. At least in my experience.

And that is where I took issue as well, to a point. I would counter that it’s also intellectually dishonest to assert that neither (3) nor (4) have no merit whatsoever in application.

I will agree here.

Again, my only quibble is with your equative semantics, not your general counsel lent.

Is it reasonable to retain a god belief?
Is it logical to retain a god belief?

I see those two questions providing completely differing replies,,, especially from an atheistic perspective

It is reasonable and logical to retain a belief in god(s) or versions thereof, if it is a belief that was reasoned (or logic-ed) to.

 

[waitasec]

My issue is the assumption that religious beliefs are illogical/unreasoned. I don't doubt that some of them are. In my mind, it is reasonable to hold a reasoned belief

if i may, can i ask...
why would you say that?

 

[methylatedghosts]

if i may, can i ask...
why would you say that?

No you may not!

But I'll answer anyway.

I don't doubt that some beliefs are illogical, simply because there is (seems to be .. an important qualifier, here) no logic in the belief. To the person holding the belief, yes, it may be highly logical and valid, but to a view from the outside it isn't.

It's more in the perception of what the belief is, than the actual logic-ness of the belief itself.

 

[Shermana]

Hello Everybody

Just to get a few things out of the way, Yes i am new here and yes i am an athiest. I started this thread not to cause a riot or anything like that but to simply discuss the topic. Lately as i have grown older i have come to realize that i no longer trust religious people.

I realize that many people i deal with on a day to day basis are religious in some form or another and of varying degrees and for the most part it is never brought up in a topic of conversation. Their beliefs are their own and as long as they don't push them on me i never know the difference..generally these are good people and i have no issues with them at all, nor they me.

The problem comes when i find out that they are religious, i instantly lose respect for them on an intellectual level and i no longer trust them to make sound decisions. The reason for this is the cognitive dissadence they show in their religious views and their ability to ignore what in my opinion is the obvious fact that there is no god, never was and that religion itself is just a tool used to control the masses.

I find myself looking at the country as a whole and realize that the same people who believe there is an invisable, all powerful , omnipotent being in the sky that created everything, controls everything and can see or do everything with no proof of that person get a vote in how this country is ran and that vote counts just as much as mine does.

Basing their choices on how we should run our country on a figment of their imagination and the will of the church is downright dangerous in my opinion.

Anyway , if anybody finds this way of thinking worth a conversation then have at it.

I am religious, and I deeply distrust most religious people, mainly I think they are dishonest, unwilling to examine their doctrines, unwilling to philosophize or defend their beliefs with logic, and have little interest in views outside of their own and would not change their mind even if it was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that their beliefs are shaky and not necessarily concrete.

However, Atheists are often the same. There are good Atheists who I'd rather hang with than most Theists, and many Theists who I think are rational people capable of researching the truth of things and are willing to put their beliefs in question. Most aren't so willing and find the idea repugnant. I often don't like Trinitarians for example, and it's not just because I am against the doctrine of the Trinity, but in how they defend it and the lack of willingness to address the Theological and Grammatical issues at stake honestly. Ones who are at least willing to honestly address the facts and retain their beliefs, I have not as much a problem with.

You say there's an "obvious fact' that there's no god. Well if it's such an obvious fact that there's no "god", feel free to start the 10000th thread on the subject and prepare to defend your "obvious fact" opinion. By your logic, Theists are completely justified in distrusting Atheists for the mere reason that they deny what they see as the obvious fact that there is a Higher Force which maintains the Balance of the Universe. You say that their views are dangerous, but every example of an Atheist regime in history has been a repressive Totalitarian socialist environment. They have much justification in saying that Atheists have a bad history with political power.

So why do you distrust Religious people more so than Atheists? Is it because of your confirmation bias that all religious people are wrong and therefore dishonest (which would be an end-run skipping around the entire philosophical debate about the concept of God and prejudice against people based on a philosophical mindset) or is it because of actual character issues involved with defending/defining/promoting their beliefs? Are these character issues actual personality flaws or is just you not liking what they believe? It sounds like you're just here to say that you don't like people for something that they believe as a factual reality, sounds about close to how Christians talk about Mormons and JWs in a way. Do you want to stoop to that level?

 

[waitasec]

I am religious, and I deeply distrust most religious people, mainly I think they are dishonest, unwilling to examine their doctrines, unwilling to philosophize or defend their beliefs with logic, and have little interest in views outside of their own and would not change their mind even if it was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that their beliefs are shaky and not necessarily concrete.

However, Atheists are often the same. There are good Atheists who I'd rather hang with than most Theists, and many Theists who I think are rational people capable of researching the truth of things and are willing to put their beliefs in question. Most aren't so willing and find the idea repugnant. I often don't like Trinitarians for example, and it's not just because I am against the doctrine of the Trinity, but in how they defend it and the lack of willingness to address the Theological and Grammatical issues at stake honestly. Ones who are at least willing to honestly address the facts and retain their beliefs, I have not as much a problem with.

You say there's an "obvious fact' that there's no god. Well if it's such an obvious fact that there's no "god", feel free to start the 10000th thread on the subject and prepare to defend your "obvious fact" opinion. By your logic, Theists are completely justified in distrusting Atheists for the mere reason that they deny what they see as the obvious fact that there is a Higher Force which maintains the Balance of the Universe.

So why do you distrust Religious people more so than Atheists? Is it because of your confirmation bias that all religious people are wrong and therefore dishonest (which would be an end-run skipping around the entire philosophical debate about the concept of God and prejudice against people based on a philosophical mindset) or is it because of actual character issues involved with defending/defining/promoting their beliefs? Are these character issues actual personality flaws or is just you not liking what they believe? It sounds like you're just here to say that you don't like people for something that they believe as a factual reality, sounds about close to how Christians talk about Mormons and JWs in a way. Do you want to stoop to that level?

well put Shermana

 

[McBell]

How do people who obviously manage to make difficult decisions every single day based on evidence, logic and trust simply throw all that out the window when it comes to their beliefs?

good question.
Why do you?

Now before you start in with denial, think about it for a bit.
Are you not doing just that when you arbitrarily slap every single religious person into the same boat?

 

[Starsurfer93]

I totally disagree, if i come off arrogant it might be because i feel completley confident in saying that there is no god or any other dieties. They are just figments of people's imagination. I certainly do not think people who believe in god, any god for that matter are stupid..i know for a fact that many of these people are highly intelligent people. It does make my head spin how people that so can clearly demonstrate strong critical thinking skills can set those same skills aside when it comes to their faith..

No, Vegas. That's not why I made the comment. You feel you've found the answer to the God question and your proud of what you've found. There's nothing wrong with that at all. Having a healthy amount of pride in your faith (or lack there of) is great! It shows your dedication to your beliefs Had you just demonstrated confidence in being an Atheist, I wouldn't have said you seemed kinda arrogant. (Though now that we're on the subject, "There are no gods or any other deities. They're just figments of people's imagination" is a rather blunt statement. I don't care, but there will be people who will call you arrogant for saying it like that. For the future, you might want to try rephrasing statements like that to avoid ruffling the wrong person's feathers too much)

Where I feel the arrogance comes into play is how this confidence effects your view of others. While you say you feel that many of these people are highly intelligent now, your OP and some subsequent posts basically said that upon realizing someone has aligned themselves with a faith, your opinion of them changes, particularly in regards to their intellect. You feel that they're are no longer 100% logical people and you don't trust them to make important decisions because they believe in something you feel is illogical. i.e. They're not on the same intellectual plain as you anymore. I can understand you not being able to understand their thinking in regards to that. But allowing your inability to understand taint your view of that person can only lead to trouble.

In regards to why someone would ever align themselves with a faith while having great critical thinking skills, I think the reason why very logical people have such a difficulty understanding this is that they and religious people find two different kinds of proof that they use to back up their beliefs. For those on the side of logic, they use hard scientific facts. With everything we know about evolution, the earth and the universe, there is plenty of evidence suggesting that there is no god. It's a very 1+1=2 way of thinking. There's no evidence suggesting an all-powerful being/beings created the world, so why believe otherwise? And that's a perfectly reasonable conclusion to come to from a logical standpoint.

Religious folk on the other hand rely more upon "Spiritual Proof", if that makes any sense. For example, when I meditate, either on my own or with my Sangha, I feel an immense change in me. It's as if a subtle presence fills my being and augments my perception of things. It's empowering, and it heightens both my awareness and the peace I feel inside. It's as if I am connected with everyone around me and I always finish Zazen feeling revitalized. I imagine this is the same way a Christian feels when partaking in Sunday worship or a Muslim taking part in prayer at the Mosque, or the way anyone may feel beholding the beauty of this world and the people in it. That feeling, that sense of awe and being interconnected with everything. THAT is what fuels our beliefs. And while it's true that many people take this proof and go too far with it (trying to force their views and beliefs on others) I don't feel that they're proof is a bad thing.

Does that make any sense? It's less of a hard scientific facts sort of thing, and more of a personal connection with the world. Sorry if what I said didn't mean much to you. It's the best example I could come up with...

 

[s2a]

No, Vegas. That's not why I made the comment. You feel you've found the answer to the God question and your proud of what you've found. There's nothing wrong with that at all. Having a healthy amount of pride in your faith (or lack there of) is great! It shows your dedication to your beliefs Had you just demonstrated confidence in being an Atheist, I wouldn't have said you seemed kinda arrogant. (Though now that we're on the subject, "There are no gods or any other deities. They're just figments of people's imagination" is a rather blunt statement. I don't care, but there will be people who will call you arrogant for saying it like that. For the future, you might want to try rephrasing statements like that to avoid ruffling the wrong person's feathers too much)

Where I feel the arrogance comes into play is how this confidence effects your view of others. While you say you feel that many of these people are highly intelligent now, your OP and some subsequent posts basically said that upon realizing someone has aligned themselves with a faith, your opinion of them changes, particularly in regards to their intellect. You feel that they're are no longer 100% logical people and you don't trust them to make important decisions because they believe in something you feel is illogical. i.e. They're not on the same intellectual plain as you anymore. I can understand you not being able to understand their thinking in regards to that. But allowing your inability to understand taint your view of that person can only lead to trouble.

In regards to why someone would ever align themselves with a faith while having great critical thinking skills, I think the reason why very logical people have such a difficulty understanding this is that they and religious people find two different kinds of proof that they use to back up their beliefs. For those on the side of logic, they use hard scientific facts. With everything we know about evolution, the earth and the universe, there is plenty of evidence suggesting that there is no god. It's a very 1+1=2 way of thinking. There's no evidence suggesting an all-powerful being/beings created the world, so why believe otherwise? And that's a perfectly reasonable conclusion to come to from a logical standpoint.

Religious folk on the other hand more upon "Spiritual Proof", if that makes any sense. For example, when meditate, either on my own or with my Sangha, I feel an immense change in me. It's as if a subtle presence fills my being and augments my perception of things. It's empowering, and it heightens both my awareness and the peace I feel inside. It's as if I am connected with everyone around me and I always finish Zazen feeling revitalized. I imagine this is the same way a Christian feels when partaking in Sunday worship or a Muslim taking part in prayer at the Mosque, or the way anyone may feel beholding the beauty of this world and the people in it. That feeling, that sense of awe and being interconnected with everything. THAT is what fuels our beliefs. And while it's true that many people take this proof and go too far with it (trying to force their views and beliefs on others) I don't feel that they're proof is a bad thing.

Does that make any sense? It's less of a hard scientific facts sort of thing, and more of a personal connection with the world. Sorry if what I said didn't mean much to you. It's the best example I could come up with...

I applaud your measured and explanatory reply0, especially as it may benefit younger folks less experienced in more “diplomatic” self-expression…

…that said, allow some further enhancement from yet another atheist if you might…

I suppose the “issue” that tends to engender the greatest disparities of personal perspective betwixt theists/spiritualists and outright atheists is the notion or presented premise of a validated “Spiritual Proof”.

If adherents of an/all faith-based beliefs could at least agree upon an objective “piety test”, or some other testable measure of “true belief”, then at least one might objectively identify poseurs from prophets…or monks in training

Again, to be fair to skeptics and general scientific methodologies, there is little “wiggle room” from which to bargain or claim exception/exemption from palpable validations/”proofs” or evidentiary conclusions. Nearly all faith-based beliefs claim some sort of personalized “revelation” or “insight” to appreciate their own perspective of “truth” or “divine inspiration”. As you are well aware, scientific methodologies do not allow anecdotal experiences or personalized “visions”, absent any valid methodologies of repeatable/objective verification/falsification means.

So, it’s a bit annoying to strict adherents of “don’t tell me, show me” ilk to abide anyone that claims insights into “ultimate truths” (existential or literal) by “faith” alone. It is.

Whether “faith” is bestowed, earned, learned, inculcated, or otherwise “revealed” to some newly found “believer”, that act, in and of itself, is of no consequence or interest to any atheist or skeptic.

What matters, or remains of interest, is the “why” of the “what” you perceive or believe as factually and spiritually true, or any claimed universal “truth”. Please note that many pagan and spiritual mythologies/religions earnestly claim that trees, rocks, wind, eagles, etc…. really do “speak”, and converse, and advise, and reveal “truths” of life, existence, and human frailties/foibles in lent direction and course to abide and follow to a designed purpose. That’s fine and well enough, until we choose to revert once again into the realm of scientific methodologies… the nature of explanations that do not require nor depend upon individualized or anecdotal testimonies that are untestable and unmeasurable by any methodologies defined by even the most ardent adherents themselves.

If your beliefs or understanding of the cosmos make you a more decent, compassionate, peaceful. generous, and accepting individual… then I’m well enough inclined to ignore whatever motivations move you to be so…
…but, know that that motivation is never as compelling nor persuasive as any provided by empirical and scientific facts. It’s not now, and it will never be.

I presume what annoys our OP progenitor most is the notion that “believers” presume that their own “unique” insights/revelations/understandings borne of faith-based beliefs are just as valid, or even more so, than from any derived from a systematic and methodological exercise of objective inquiry that can not, or will not, lend equal credence to claims of “God told me so”.

I entrust religious people with many personal accountabilities and responsibilities that affect my life and loved ones most directly, and I’m often grateful for their involvement in providing comfort, security, and love, both for myself and family and friends…

…but their faith and motivations are their own to account for, and have no bearing or influence whatsoever upon what I accept or espouse as scientifically derived “fact”. My very pleasant and genial next door neighbors believe that dinosaurs and humans coexisted. That’s simply absurd of course, but it’s their actions I value/admire most, not their silly motivations or beliefs. )

 

[Shermana]

For those on the side of logic, they use hard scientific facts. With everything we know about evolution, the earth and the universe, there is plenty of evidence suggesting that there is no god. It's a very 1+1=2 way of thinking. There's no evidence suggesting an all-powerful being/beings created the world, so why believe otherwise? And that's a perfectly reasonable conclusion to come to from a logical standpoint.

How exactly does Evolution and Astrophysics disprove a single concept of Deity? What kind of evidence can disprove God? Has a Naturalistic explanation been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt? They're barely trying to figure out how the Earth didn't crash into the sun and at best they have a few computer simulations. There's such thing as Theistic Evolutionists, whether I agree with them or not, there is absolutely nothing scientific or logical about science or logic that in any way defeats the concept of Deity. What may happen is a clash between the available known data and the opinions of the scientific community majority (most happen to be Atheist) and the opinions of those in the Theist camp who oppose them. If you think they are wrong, then there's a whole debate forum to get down to the details, but in no way whatsoever has any single scientific advance put the concept of Deity into doubt, there are so many "gaps" in the theory that a purely Naturalistic explanation requires an even greater leap of faith than a YEC, but that's a subject for said debate board. The point is, logic and science does not disprove Theism in any possible way, at best interpretations of the results contends against certain interpretations of the Writ. I don't think its reasonable at all to conclude that science and logic have disproven the idea of God, it's a commonly used end-run argument around on the actual details and is devoid of any actual substance.

 

[NIX]

By that logic why trust the general rationality of people who vote for politicians?

 

[Curious George]

If there is no logical proof that all religions are illogical, we cannot say that all religions are illogical. To say such would be a logical fallacy called a sweeping generalization and, consequently, illogical.

I would hold that due to the ambiguity of the concept of religion, the vast array of religions, and the potential to abstract god or gods as unbound to logic, such a proof will not exist. The last of these problems with such a logical proof most clearly illustrates the problem. Since we cannot escape from the logical nature of our reality any attempt at doing disproving a non-logic bound deity would beg the question (another logical fallacy). Doing thus, we make our claim illogical- not necessarily untrue- but we fail nonetheless.

So, your view in which you lose respect of any measure for someone based on the mere fact they hold to some religious standpoint is irrational. To adamantly assert an illogical statement about others' logic is humorous and surely to be perceived by some, given a large enough audience, as arrogant, hypocritical or both.

Although, I do commend you for the introspective brought about your awareness of this personal bias.

Finally, with this raised level of awareness you articulate in your OP, perhaps, you can dig deeper in efforts to discover why such a prevailing prejudice exists in your thinking.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Hello Everybody

Just to get a few things out of the way, Yes i am new here and yes i am an athiest. I started this thread not to cause a riot or anything like that but to simply discuss the topic. Lately as i have grown older i have come to realize that i no longer trust religious people.

I realize that many people i deal with on a day to day basis are religious in some form or another and of varying degrees and for the most part it is never brought up in a topic of conversation. Their beliefs are their own and as long as they don't push them on me i never know the difference..generally these are good people and i have no issues with them at all, nor they me.

The problem comes when i find out that they are religious, i instantly lose respect for them on an intellectual level and i no longer trust them to make sound decisions. The reason for this is the cognitive dissadence they show in their religious views and their ability to ignore what in my opinion is the obvious fact that there is no god, never was and that religion itself is just a tool used to control the masses.

I find myself looking at the country as a whole and realize that the same people who believe there is an invisable, all powerful , omnipotent being in the sky that created everything, controls everything and can see or do everything with no proof of that person get a vote in how this country is ran and that vote counts just as much as mine does.

Basing their choices on how we should run our country on a figment of their imagination and the will of the church is downright dangerous in my opinion.

Anyway , if anybody finds this way of thinking worth a conversation then have at it.

I think the important thing to remember is this: religious people are not stupid. It sounds almost patronizingly obvious, but an important distinction has to be made between religious irrationality and general irrationality.

The problem with religion (from my perspective) isn't necesarilly that it simply hampers logical judgement generally, although it can certainly result in that. Most of the religious people I know are perfectly intelligent people who never bring up religion of their own accord, and I have never really seen their religious beliefs directly influence how they treat other people or generally act in a secular situation. This is obviously not true of all religious people, but in my experience it is generally more common than the opposite.

For such people, having a religion does not harm their ability to observe and assess the world rationally. Rather than allowing their religion to influence their approach completely, they simply give religion an exemption from the regular application of logic that they would apply to any other endeavor in their lives. This is what I mean when I say "the distinction between religious irrationality and general irrationality". A good example of this is Professor Ken Miller, who is an accomplished biologist and opponent of intelligent design, while also being a practicing roman Catholic. Ken has spoken about his beliefs openly and explained that he does not let his religious beliefs influence his work or his approach to others. In this regard, Professor Miller has "compartmentalized" his belief as a singular bubble - the one aspect of his life that he feels he does not need to require logic to pursue. Therefore, he can be religious while still retaining a reliable sense of judgement in all other aspects of his life.

It does seem silly, but you have to understand that religion generates this mindset. Though it doesn't deserve it, religion still holds a place in society whereby people generally believe it is the one thing (or one of the largest, at least) that is impenetrable to logical inquiry. This is not the fault, or even a conscious choice, of believers, but is the inevitable result of relious indoctrination and the general societal regard for religion as being the one thing immune from logcial criticism.

In this sense, I don't think it's too difficult to separate your judgement of a person's religious beliefs from your general view of them as a person. When I learn that somebody I know is religious, I can generally prevent myself from using that as a judgement on their general ability to act or think rationally and instead believe that they are a typically rational person who simply possesses a singular irrational set of beliefs. It sounds contradictary, but such is the nature of religious belief.

 

[Nakosis]

Hello Everybody

Just to get a few things out of the way, Yes i am new here and yes i am an athiest. I started this thread not to cause a riot or anything like that but to simply discuss the topic. Lately as i have grown older i have come to realize that i no longer trust religious people.

I'm not sure why you'd trust anyone that you don't know well. I think religious folks can be trusted about the same as anyone else more or less. Unless you know a person well, religious or otherwise you probably shouldn't really be trusting them anyway.

What I don't trust is any conclusions they may offer based on anything they claim to be revealed/sacred scripture. At least nothing beyond what you can validate or experience the truth of for yourself.

 

[JohnLeo]

I think the important thing to remember is this: religious people are not stupid.
That is quite true; religious people are not stupid, they are deceived.

 

[Godwilling]

Now i'm all checking my spelling..did not realize i was being graded by my 10th grade english professor.

I agree with aspects of your OP, but try not to be defensive. The person that corrected your spelling cared enough to inform you rather than leave it unsaid for all to see and potentially mock. I would say "thank you" and move on.

By the way, I also care enough to let you know that on your religious identification you wrote "Athiest" where I think you might want to say "Atheist"

Regards

I