Not all Christians are idiots

[Solitary]

A reply from a friend of mine that is a Christian:


I laughed all the way through this one. You probably did too. I watched another video on the speed of light after watching the one you sent. In it the creationists were trying the Earth is only 6,000 years old because light could travel faster coming toward us and slower going away from us. And that it travels in a circle and that's how the Earth could be only 6,000 years old. I know there's supposed to be the Doppler Effect but wouldn't the speed of light always be constant? And light traveling in a circle??? Some of the stuff Creationists come up with drives me crazy.  Solitary

[stromboli]

Yes they are. The title of your thread is a lie.

[Hydra009]

Yes they are. The title of your thread is a lie.

It's not if you use fuzzy logic.  Wrong is relative.

[stromboli]

I also have relatives that are wrong, and that ain't no theory.

[Mandingo]

True. Only 70% are idiots.
The rest are raving lunatics.

[ApostateLois]

I think it is more accurate to say that not all Christians are young-earth creationists who believe any old thing that comes out of Ken Ham's mouth. They could still be idiots in other ways, such as believing they have only to pray to make their sick child well.

[Drummer Guy]

Yes they are. The title of your thread is a lie.

You must have a very loose definition of the word "idiot".

[Hydra009]

You must have a very loose definition of the word "idiot".

To be fair, there are an awful lot of idiots as shown in this poll.  I mean, the theory of evolution is slightly less credible than a virgin birth (of a God, no less) and just slightly more credible than ghosts.  Suffice it to say that this is not what intellectual greatness looks like.

[Hydra009]

His wife died in a horrible way with lupus, and he doubted his faith, but to feel better he still believes. Whether that is dumb or smart depends on whether it helps him. It is pragmatic after all. It's better to be irrational if it enables one to cope with tragedies in life in my opinion. Solitary

Gotta disagree with you there.  Comforting lies are no salve and no truth is unendurable.  A man who lies to himself -who uses religion as a crutch- is harmed twice, once by his circumstances and once by himself.

[Hydra009]

Perhaps I misspoke.  I only meant to assert that truth is always preferable to fiction, however seemingly comforting, not that people can deal with absolutely any form of harm/suffering that comes their way.  There is a subtle difference between those two claims.

But your example is certainly reminiscent of a whole host of arguments against atheism - that belief helps believers, especially those who deal with loss and we shouldn't dare criticize this coping mechanism.  I see this topic come up a lot - that people NEED religion as a crutch to deal with life's pain and it always strikes me first as resoundingly untrue and incredibly condescending.  Firstly, we have lots of people from all walks of life who don't believe in any god and who can and do deal with all sorts of bad circumstances.  So this idea that religion is somehow necessary to go on is falsified.  Secondly, it exhorts us to coddle superstitious beliefs.  I could argue about the existence of God till my face is blue with someone of an equally sheltered life, but if he or she lost someone dear to them, suddenly, that conversation is taboo.  We can all look at the world openly and honesty and evaluate religious claims in light of the evidence, if any, except for anyone who's had bad stuff happen to them.  Why?  Does the search for truth end at the first funeral you have to attend?  Third, it seems especially screwed up for atheists to make this argument.  Sure, I don't need religion, but you do.  Because you couldn't handle reality without it.  How harsh!  And finally, I can't help but notice that arguments for the utility of religion are not actually relevant to whether or not religious claims are actually true.  Imagine arguing for a heliocentric solar system, not based on relevant facts supporting this claim, but based on the idea that simply believing in it is somehow socially beneficial.  Such a tactic would be considered buffoonish in any other context but a religious one.

[Hydra009]

You realize that is a contradiction don't you? I agree that the truth is preferable, but not always

Oh?  And what are the exceptions?

and you say not that people can deal with absolutely any form of harm/suffering that comes their way. That's my point, what do they do when they can't? Not everyone is a hard ass like you and me.

Actually, everyone is precisely capable of exactly what we are capable of.  I don't know about you, but I don't classify myself as more resilient than humanity as a whole.

And I have never turned to religion even with PTSD, but not everyone can cope without having faith that gives them comfort.

I already covered this.  It's condescending (and wrong) to say that we can go without religion but other people can't.  Millions already do.

Whether we like it or not religion is pragmatic

Like I said earlier, I disagree with this assertion.  I suppose religions vary in their usefulness, but the dominant beliefs and their illustrious history of animal sacrifice, punishment of ultimate suffering for seemingly minor transgressions, and gleeful preoccupation with the end of the world doesn't seem like a particularly pragmatic suite of beliefs.

[Hijiri Byakuren]

I think Solitary's conclusion is fairly sound. It's his reasoning I take issue with. I find it more likely that the reason "some people" can't deal with uncomfortable truths is because of how our brains develop, especially in childhood. Those early connections are critical for the later development of higher reasoning. The less the brain is stimulated, the more synapses are pruned, and the fewer connections that individual ultimately has as an adult. It's no coincidence that children raised in more fundamentalist households are more likely to resist opposition to their religion as an adult, because there is a severe lack of synapses in the higher reasoning centers of the brain. (This is assuming that outside contact doesn't muck about with things, which it can and more frequently does.)

That being said, I think it goes without saying that I don't think Solitary's conclusion of "religion is pragmatic" is a permanent state of affairs. The reason should be obvious.

[Hydra009]

Religion works for more people than there are atheists, so religion is pragmatic, and helps many deal with unbearable suffering. This is obvious to me. religion works for the majority of people, that's what pragmatism means by definition, just because it doesn't for atheists doesn't mean it isn't pragmatic for theists. Could you be a suicide bomber?

I just now figured out that you're working off  the philosophical term of  pragmatism (a focus on beliefs' utility rather than their truth value), not the general term (like buying a Honda instead of a Hummer).  Okay, that makes a little more sense.  Because I gotta tell you, praying for rain doesn't seem at all like a practical solution to drought, exorcism doesn't seem like a practical solution to mental illness, etc.

Okay, so believers' beliefs (whatever they are, there's quite a variety of them) "work" for believers.  (except for the occasional suicide bomber or exorcism gone awry or snake handling gone as even a child could predict it would or cancer-be-gone prayer session, etc, etc) They tell you that without Jesus or Allah or whatever, life's not worth living and they couldn't go on and their beliefs have strengthened them and yadda yadda yadda.  Have you considered the possibility that these sorts of claims might not actually be 100% accurate?  People change beliefs all the time and a lot of the time, ditch religion altogether, their earlier grand pronouncements little more than chuckle-worthy gaffes.  How many threads have you seen where people view their arrival at atheism with a sense of relief?

And like I said earlier, there's no substantial differences between believers and non-believers.  We all bleed the same, we all suffer loss, we all seek comfort.  The only difference is that non-believers have trained themselves not to reach for the crutch.  And It's not some impossible feat, literally anyone could do the same.  And some will, but most won't.  And for those who never give up the crutch, part of the reason is that they're pressured so hard to keep it.  They buy into this idea that they can't leave it behind, so they don't.  It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[Hydra009]

I don't understand atheists that arrogantly think everyone has a choice to be religious or not like they do, or are weaker minded or delusional.

Well, this is a new one.  Since people can and do go from religion to a nonreligious stance, it's safe to say that the first part is true, inasmuch as choice is available to us (we can't change how we were raised).  The second part, not so much.  And likewise, this entire post of accusations doesn't appear to at all match what I've said here, which is disappointing to say the least.  Because I really tried to break down my stance in a very simple, easy-to-understand way.  That it apparently went unnoticed was mentally substituted by another set of claims is a very, very bad sign.

Why so much hostility? The majority of religious people I know are not a threat to atheists. You really think the majority of religious people are terrorist and insane, or stupid.

Nope and nope and nope.  Where do you get this stuff?

You really think all believers really believe if they pray for anything is more than just hope and brings them comfort?

You and I both know that believers consider it more than that.  People used to believe that prayer actually changes things.  Some still do.  If believers acknowledged that prayer was just wishing, there wouldn't be much to criticize.

One of my friends is an engineering physicist that got straight A's in math and all science classes in school, and he's a believer. If you think you are "brighter" than him because you are an atheist, you are delusional.

Good for him.  And like I said earlier, I don't consider myself better.  I also pointed out that this sort of idea is actually implicit in your stance - that Solitary doesn't need religion, but Joe Schmoe does.

But anyway, apparently we're at an impasse.  I disagree with you strongly that religion "works".  As well as whether or not the truth is always preferable to a lie.  And also, the ability of common people to embrace atheism.  (Do you seriously think I'd promote freethinking and irreligion if I thought I it was beyond the reach of the average person?)  The funny thing is that these are all typical arguments I'd expect from a dyed in the wool religious apologist, and here I am, having it with an atheist.

[stromboli]

I worked with engineers and scientists in the past that went to church every Sunday. Some Mormons and some Christians. I worked for a short time with a guy who had a Masters in Plant Biology. He was also a Mormon Bishop.

Can you say cognitive dissonance? These people, however bright they are, never actually confront their religion. Think about theists that come on here. They assume they are equipped to prove us wrong, and half the time get their heads handed to them, or else simply reject what we provide by way of argument and leave disgruntled. I have met two people personally who confronted their religion- one, a Physical Therapist who was a Mormon Bishop and one an Engineer who helped to create the Material Safety Data Sheets you get with various solvents and chemicals. They are both now atheists. Religious people may be intelligent as all getout, but they stay Christians because they simply do the Cog Dis dance and keep one reality separate from the other.

When in college in a predominantly Mormon community, I listened to a history professor-a Mormon Bishop- Cog Dis his way through the Infamous Mountain Meadows Massacre, essentially twisting the facts to make it look like the parties involved were all just caught up in events, when in fact the massacre was deliberate and cold blooded. And my triple great grand daddy Brigham Young ordered it, a fact he blatantly denied. So from that perspective I have to say that Christians or any other religion that supposedly live with one set of beliefs have never truly looked at the big picture. I did. I'm an atheist.