Why are most religious followers irrational?

[Eliot Wild]

Are you kidding. These are murderers, all they need is an excuse to release their anger or hatred or whatever messed up feelings they have. The point is they just need something to hide behind, a concept. Those leaders of those groups give these guys the perfect reason, they actually found a a way to present an explanation that what they are doing are actually right.

Others are just too dumb for their own Good.

The point is that that doesn't speak for religion itself. There are lots of other good examples for religious people, you just choose to concentrate on the bad, and i can't understand why.

When I worked in journalism, there used to be this saying, "If it bleeds, it leads." Crude, yes. But it is true.

Hundreds of planes land safely at LAX airport every week and nobody writes stories about any of them. However, if just one of those planes crash, and especially if passengers and/or crew onboard are killed, then it is going to make headlines.

I believe the same is true with religion, as you have noted. I am not saying it is fair. And I'm certainly not saying it is right for people to focus only on the bad.

I am just saying it is a reality. If religious people, Muslims or Christians or any others, use religion to find peace of mind for themselves or to feel apart of some larger community/family, then you are right, most non-religious folks aren't really going to notice, or if they do they are not going to write stories about it. However, let one nutjob kill a dozen or more people because he believes God/Allah commanded him to do so, then you can complain about undue attention to this crime as a religious act all you want, but the reality is people are going take notice of his religiously inspired motives.

But also, I tend to disagree with you to some extent. Because when religious practitioners do really good deeds, like feeding the hungry or housing the poor, it makes news too. For example, I daresay the late great Sister Teresa is ever bit as well known for her charitable acts as Osama bin Laden is well known for his crazed religious acts of murder.

 

[dogsgod]

When I worked in journalism, there used to be this saying, "If it bleeds, it leads." Crude, yes. But it is true.

Hundreds of planes land safely at LAX airport every week and nobody writes stories about any of them. However, if just one of those planes crash, and especially if passengers and/or crew onboard are killed, then it is going to make headlines.

I believe the same is true with religion, as you have noted. I am not saying it is fair. And I'm certainly not saying it is right for people to focus only on the bad.

I am just saying it is a reality. If religious people, Muslims or Christians or any others, use religion to find peace of mind for themselves or to feel apart of some larger community/family, then you are right, most non-religious folks aren't really going to notice, or if they do they are not going to write stories about it. However, let one nutjob kill a dozen or more people because he believes God/Allah commanded him to do so, then you can complain about undue attention to this crime as a religious act all you want, but the reality is people are going take notice of his religiously inspired motives.

But also, I tend to disagree with you to some extent. Because when religious practitioners do really good deeds, like feeding the hungry or housing the poor, it makes news too. For example, I daresay the late great Sister Teresa is ever bit as well known for her charitable acts as Osama bin Laden is well known for his crazed religious acts of murder.

Mother Teresa, charitable acts? She caused more children to slowly die in needless pain and suffering than anything else.

 

[Eliot Wild]

Mother Teresa, charitable acts? She caused more children to slowly die in needless pain and suffering than anything else.

Really, is that what she is known for?

 

[Eliot Wild]

Really, is that what she is known for?

I will admit I'm not that educated on the criticisms against Mother Teresa. And I have honestly never heard that she willfully committed cruel acts.

And honestly, I think your point is beside the real point.

She became famous for her charitable ministries. At least that is my understanding. But even if I am wrong, then I will change my example to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., whose religious principles of nonviolent social protest help spur institutional changes in American politics.

 

[dogsgod]

I will admit I'm not that educated on the criticisms against Mother Teresa. And I have honestly never heard that she willfully committed cruel acts.

And honestly, I think your point is beside the real point.

She became famous for her charitable ministries. At least that is my understanding. But even if I am wrong, then I will change my example to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., whose religious principles of nonviolent social protest help spur institutional changes in American politics.

Millions were donated in Mother Teresa's name and as far as anyone knows every penny is locked up in a Catholic Church vault. Read the Missionary Position by Christopher Hitchens.

 

[tarasan]

Millions were donated in Mother Teresa's name and as far as anyone knows every penny is locked up in a Catholic Church vault. Read the Missionary Position by Christopher Hitchens.

yes indeed that is where you are going to find unbais information, from a public anti-thiest, with so much bais we could start a compain to build school in africa with it!

seriously dude perhaps other sources?

 

[Eliot Wild]

Millions were donated in Mother Teresa's name and as far as anyone knows every penny is locked up in a Catholic Church vault. Read the Missionary Position by Christopher Hitchens.

Okay, fine. For God's sake, Mother Teresa was a nutjob who wanted to cause needless pain to little children.

My post wasn't intended to re-beatify her. The point was that regardless of what the world might think of her actions now, she was originally praised for good deeds. I was responding to the allegation that the non-religious world doesn't recognize good deeds by religious people. And I don't believe that is true.

But if you want to sidetrack the focus of the original debate and discussion by focusing on how Mother Teresa is all actuality a cruel villian, then so be it. I didn't realize there was such an intense campaign to demonize her. So it goes.

 

[Badran]

When I worked in journalism, there used to be this saying, "If it bleeds, it leads." Crude, yes. But it is true.

Hundreds of planes land safely at LAX airport every week and nobody writes stories about any of them. However, if just one of those planes crash, and especially if passengers and/or crew onboard are killed, then it is going to make headlines.

I believe the same is true with religion, as you have noted. I am not saying it is fair. And I'm certainly not saying it is right for people to focus only on the bad.

I am just saying it is a reality. If religious people, Muslims or Christians or any others, use religion to find peace of mind for themselves or to feel apart of some larger community/family, then you are right, most non-religious folks aren't really going to notice, or if they do they are not going to write stories about it. However, let one nutjob kill a dozen or more people because he believes God/Allah commanded him to do so, then you can complain about undue attention to this crime as a religious act all you want, but the reality is people are going take notice of his religiously inspired motives.

But also, I tend to disagree with you to some extent. Because when religious practitioners do really good deeds, like feeding the hungry or housing the poor, it makes news too. For example, I daresay the late great Sister Teresa is ever bit as well known for her charitable acts as Osama bin Laden is well known for his crazed religious acts of murder.

Well, I can't say i disagree with you. It's obvious bad actions get more attention.

I know too that good deeds are sometimes applauded, but i don't think it gets as much attention as the bad stuff.

Here is the problem though, when someone disagrees with the actions of Muslim radicals for example, that's fine, no that's great, because we should. But when you try to use them as an argument or evidence against religion i think that's a very unhealthy practice.

It's just a wrong method to judge views or religions depending on the actions of some of it's adherents.

 

[dogsgod]

Okay, fine. For God's sake, Mother Teresa was a nutjob who wanted to cause needless pain to little children.

My post wasn't intended to re-beatify her. The point was that regardless of what the world might think of her actions now, she was originally praised for good deeds. I was responding to the allegation that the non-religious world doesn't recognize good deeds by religious people. And I don't believe that is true.

But if you want to sidetrack the focus of the original debate and discussion by focusing on how Mother Teresa is all actuality a cruel villian, then so be it. I didn't realize there was such an intense campaign to demonize her. So it goes.

Well, now you know. Anyways, we all know what evil has been committed in the name of God, but what good can a religious person do that a non religious can't do?

 

[Badran]

Well, now you know. Anyways, we all know what evil has been committed in the name of God, but what good can a religious person do that a non religious can't do?

I am sorry, but that's not how it is. We are not judging what can religion do for us, religious people benefit from religion in their lives, that's all that matters. Just because some use it in a bad way doesn't mean we should discard it.

Should we discard politics?

Some people use it in a bad way.

 

[Peacewise]

so too macdonalds, beer, sport, speaking, television, books, all these things are used in a bad way from time to time, shall we discard all these too?
I'd argue for dumping macca's sure, but burn all the books, no thanks.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

yes i think refering to personel experience to conclusively prove that a God exists is a little wierd, but then again it is an expereince and unless you can prove them that their experience was false I think a little more than you talking about a unicorn.

also for the record something that you cannot see taste or touch is not material and therefore is not a unicorn, logical impossibilities cannot exist.

we validate it because it is something that has consistantly been proven in our lives, at when we look at it further we find it can be rationally supported through logic,

so we see no reason why it cant exist.

ohhh btw athiests and agnostics can have illogical and irrational beliefs as well, i have met quite a few of them.

Unicorns work in mysterious ways

 

[Riverwolf]

Should we discard politics?

Some people use it in a bad way.

Some? Try most.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Some? Try most.

A good politician is about as rare as a straight Broadway performer.

 

[Riverwolf]

A good politician is about as rare as a straight Broadway performer.

...I don't get it.

 

[Badran]

Some? Try most.

how did i miss that.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

...I don't get it.

Let's just say Broadway isn't famous for any notorious he-men lol.

 

[Badran]

...I don't get it.

It's a joke, that Good politicians don't exist, just like straight broadway performers.

 

[Riverwolf]

It's a joke, that Good politicians don't exist, just like straight broadway performers.

Well, there have been some good politicians from various political structures, but only a handful.

 

[Tiapan]

It is actually a fallacy, there are often good politicians. In our (Australian) system they are usually independents. like any evolutionary process, the enemy must be confronted to be successful. Our party politics (about equally based conservative and liberal) makes it particularly hard to compete as an independent for votes against those of the parties which have mega dollars, so when one makes it through they often become very powerful, because they hold the balance of power. So I think many of your comments are simplistic and naive. However in systems where the major party is supported by multinational commerce whose interests are purely the return to the shareholder, the Democratic process often fails as it is unrepresentative of the people instead being the front end of corporate industry eg US Republicans. The end goals are definitely NOT the same. I am not advocating socialism a failed sociological experiment, but I would suggest that ones own interests often outweigh, in your local environment, the interests of multinationals. Voting on something as critical as your future should be compulsory.

However this is all of track perhaps a new thread on the validity of politicians is in order.

Back to the OP. Many religious people are in fact quite rational, even some of isalmic faith, the failure is in their axiomatic basis which fails, that a single god exists, when equally valid answers include poly-gods or zero gods, both of which are denied by Abrahamic religions. Hence their fatal flaw.


Cheers