Not all Christians are idiots

[Hydra009]

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.

Agreed.  It's not so much a lack of intelligence as a combination of indoctrination and misapprehension, neither of which imply stupidity or insanity.  These are beliefs that are indoctrinated shortly after birth, propped up with seemingly logical arguments only after the conclusion has been accepted as true, and dissent from these beliefs is strongly (sometimes very harshy) penalized.  It's little wonder that they tend to go on from generation after generation with little issue unless directly challenged (which tends to be go badly for the challenger)

[Hijiri Byakuren]

I think it's a pretty safe bet that every [insert group here] is not an idiot, and I'm not sure why anyone would seriously try to claim that they are.

[stromboli]

Agreed.  It's not so much a lack of intelligence as a combination of indoctrination and misapprehension, neither of which imply stupidity or insanity.  These are beliefs that are indoctrinated shortly after birth, propped up with seemingly logical arguments only after the conclusion has been accepted as true, and dissent from these beliefs is strongly (sometimes very harshy) penalized.  It's little wonder that they tend to go on from generation after generation with little issue unless directly challenged (which tends to be go badly for the challenger)

Right, and exactly why they feel threatened when you challenge their world view. I really believe that most theists who get upset at that do so largely because they feel inadequate about defending their faith, and it upsets them.

[Hydra009]

You keep comparing all theist with the minority of the radical theist, and saying they are all stupid, if that isn't showing hostility to all theists, what is it?

Actually, I'm not. You simply decided (sans me) that that was what my opinion was.  I was simply illustrating examples of where religion doesn't work, and there are no more spectacular examples of self-harm than the extremists.  But the criticism is by no means limited to fundamentalists.  In your time here, have you really never encountered a thread in which a mainstream believer was ill-served by his or her beliefs? 

I have never in my life time heard a theist say they believe because it is pragmatic.

Have you ever heard a theist say that religion is necessary, both for their own wellbeing and for society as whole?  That a life without God isn't worth living?  Because I sure have.  And that's what I was addressing.

Tell me. how many theist friends do you have? Do you think they are all funda"mental"ist , stupid, and terrorist and believe the "past" history of the Catholic Church or KKK was OK?

I really resent you comparing me with religious apologist.

I simply said that your basic argument is what I typically encounter from religious apologists, which is true.  It's actually sort of shocking for me to see an atheist argue about how (other) people need religion.

And you sound as radical as they do with your opinion of theists. And logic isn't much different with your slick maneuvers like making ad hominum attacks on me, like "easy-to-understand", as if I'm too stupid to see your agenda against "all" theists.

1)  "Radical" or not, my case has been made and you have failed to refute it and then made the major mistake of failing to address it honestly.
2) Actually, an ad hominem is seeking to refute an argument based on some irrelevant fact about the author.  Like dismissing an argument as "sheltered" or coming from a "radical" with an "agenda" against religious people.  Look it up and check out strawman while you're at it.
3) My "agenda" is actually a lot less radical than you think it is.  Rather than enduring your attempts at guessing at it and chancing yet more people misunderstand where I'm coming from, I'll simply come out and say it.

*  I do not believe in any supernatural beings.  My beliefs can be accurately described as atheistic, naturalistic, humanistic, and irreligious.
*  I believe that belief in supernatural beings is intellectually dubious, has historically ill-served humanity and continues to do so.
*  I believe that naturalism, as opposed to supernaturalism, is more consistent with the facts we have gathered about our universe.
*  I believe that humanity as a whole would be better off if supernatural beliefs died out and people were irreligious.  (If this last one seems more contentious than the rest, know that this claim can be empiricially investigated and the results speak for themselves)
*  I seek to persuade others of the truth of these claims.

[Hydra009]

Right, and exactly why they feel threatened when you challenge their world view. I really believe that most theists who get upset at that do so largely because they feel inadequate about defending their faith, and it upsets them.

It's face-saving in general.  People get defensive when you turn over their apple cart.  Ideally, people should use these discussions to learn and reevaluate premises (both their own and others).  Unfortunately, they take disagreement as hostility and refutation as a form of attack.  That's just human nature, I guess.

[Contemporary Protestant]

I personally don't take questions offensively, however I get offended when someone says something rude like a guy at my school called Mary a slut, I'm not catholic so I wasn't super offended but my catholic friend was furious

[stromboli]

I personally don't take questions offensively, however I get offended when someone says something rude like a guy at my school called Mary a slut, I'm not catholic so I wasn't super offended but my catholic friend was furious

Mary wasn't a slut. There is no actual evidence she was a prostitute.

"Mary Magdalen (New Testament) - Mary is commonly believed to have been a prostitute because she was conflated with the prostitute that Jesus forgave. Many scholars believe the Mary Magdalen was not, in fact, a prostitute, as there is no biblical evidence for this assertion."

She was "caught in adultery." That doesn't make her a prostitute, more like a victim of a male dominated society.

[Contemporary Protestant]

I was referring to mother mary but that's still some good info to k