Are Religious people Stupid? (Page 2)

TheismIsUntenable: "actually an atheist carries NO burden of proof of his or her thinking and beliefs!"

It's important to understand the difference between strong atheism (also called positive atheism) and weak atheism (also called negative atheism).

A strong/positive atheist does make a claim; namely, that no gods exist.
A weak/negative atheist does not make any claims, they simply do not embrace the theistic one.

It is only in the strong sense that I was making the statement that they too carry a heavy burden.

MJ59: Some religious folk are stupid, some are quite intelligent, but believe stupid shit lol

Oh and they spread lies and misinformation to justify it too

Classic example: -------> blackshoes

A_Muse_Mint101: "Wherever people live, whenever they live, they find themselves faced with three inescapable problems: how to win food and shelter from their natural environment (the problem nature poses), how to get along with one another (the social problem), and how to relate themselves to the total scheme of things (the religious problem)." - H. Smith.

As there is no uniformly accepted definition of religion, it can be argued that even atheism can produce religious aspirations; tho not intrinsically from itself. It's an afterthought provoked in the sense that is presented by Smith. As A. Huxley pointed out, “religion is the price we pay for being intelligent, but not as yet intelligent enough.” This doesn't necessarily make one stupid, but it can lead to potentially erroneous navigation.

Even L. Swidler, a theist, put it in terms... "an explanation of the meaning of life and how to live accordingly." Sort of like the weak or open definition of Dharma; an aspect of truth and/or reality.

An atheist can therefore make the leap into religious-(like) thinking; which may be a good or bad thing, depending. Some atheists make a religion out of their atheism. Exalting their ideas while heel-stomping others in opposition; just as many theist have. So, I wouldn't specifically link religion and people in religious pursuit to be stupid, inherently/intrinsically. Most of the minds that take these pursuits of knowledge and truth to their honest-attempt limits do not come off to me as stupid in doing so, or in general. More-so as adventurers dizzying to an undiscovered country, with an incomplete map and uncorrected myopia. The more information that can be gathered for inspection and dissemination, the better, in my opinion.

But people can be stupid, on any path(s).

JX Amaro:
Hmmm, critically observing some of the responses, I think a REALITY CHECK is in order.

First, let’s keep in mind that science is about empirical facts. With (real) science, you can objectively prove it. Por ejemplo: If someone doesn’t believe that water turns to steam at 212 degrees Fahrenheit, then one puts some water into pot, pulls out the old Bunsen Burner, jacks the temperature up to 212, and presto (!) – the water starts to steam. Cool sh##. With atheism, on the other hand, there is NO empirical proof. Zero. Zilch. Nada! Ergo, it’s a (blind) faith. Of course, Christians, like moi, freely admit that their religion stands on faith. But atheists, apropos of everything, deny that they have a faith – and get uppity (!) when this embarrassing fact is publicly revealed and clearly demonstrated. Hay caramba...

Second, what is the deal with this “atheist burden” moonshine? I thought atheism was supposed to be some kind of golden “Advance to Go” card to the Good Life. You mean it doesn’t play out like that in real life? Gee, color me shocked. Am I to understand that there is no joie de vivre for atheists? Am I to understand that liberation from religious ignorance and dogma only leads to yet another coffee cup of sighs (and self-indulgent sorrows)? Damn, it almost seems like you atheists are on a road to nowhere...

Third, I have to laugh when atheists start waxing poetic about being nice, kind and just to other people. Huh? Newsflash: If God is dead (or never existed in the first place), then morality is dead-on-arrival, too. This is ipso facto, a one-shot-kinda-deal. Duh. And let’s not get started on the politics of atheism (can you say, “Murder State”?). I mean, I would hate to have to roll out the death tolls for the the 20th century post-Christian experiments in political nihilism. But I’m sure atheists aren’t too “burdened” by that. As Emma Goldman said somewhere, “If you want to make an omelet, you have to break a couple eggs.” Rock on, Emma.

Play it the way you feel it. Aces High.

So there goes three critical observations – reality checks. Let me finish by quoting Jimi Hendrix (with a couple amendments): “White collar atheist flashin’ down the street, pointing that plastic finger at me, they all assume my kind will drop and die, but I'm gonna wave my JESUS freak flag high.” Yaoza! Praise the Lord!!!

A_Muse_Mint101: For a self-proclaimed Christian, you're sure smug; not exactly a moral high-ground to project from. That is, unless you're some perverted Christian.

The empirical proof for theism is lacking because the burden of proof is -on- the positive claim; not its rejection. Even still, every attempt to empirically provide a firm ground from which to project one's faith in supernatural explanations has been eliminated with that lacking empirical support. Eg. Genesis claims. Of course, you can superimpose your magical thinking and relieve yourself of any burden of proof.

The soft atheist doesn't need to accept nor reject unsupported claims. They simply go about their business without it, as if it weren't an issue. Morality, and ethics, aren't accepted as divinely inspired. There is appreciation from their inspired human formulations, however. The constitution of the US was manifest in this manner.

JX Amaro:
@A_Muse_Mint101:
Hey-O! Accusations of being “smug” and “perverted”! ShOcKiNg!!! I be tinkin' dat I be hittin' da target! Um, Thomist-Maritainist Christian Existentialist here – not that it matters. And if you are looking to “kick-it-all-over-the-place,” you might want to sit down, relax and read “Don Quixote” by Cerventes – best Christian novel ever, imo.

On paragraph 2: Nice try at trying to pull a fast one with the old Straw Man Fallacy to indulge the fantasy of scoring a big, first-and-ten touchdown. I said that Christianity is a faith, not an empirical fact. (Here are my exact words from the above post: “Of course, Christians, like moi, freely admit their religion stands on faith.”) I plead guilty to being a fool for Christ.

On paragraph 3: “The soft atheist...” Ughh! That's like a 12 out of a possible 10 on the Cringe Scale. LOL. More seriously, I just love the way atheists pull out their magical “carte blanche” to avoid being philosophically seriously about morality. LMAO. A hundred and fifty million (plus) died from drawing on that magical account. Oh yeah, No Fault Atheism. Dig it!!!

OK, thanks for giving me some laughs.

MJ59: Shit and here I was thinking that just going about my business and not worrying about deities was so simple.............
Seems I gotta have a standpoint of some kind, just having no belief in a god/gods don't cut it any more

A_Muse_Mint101: I know you said it's a faith, and that's why it won't pull any -real- weight. It's as substantial as -any- faith. That's to say that it's on par with witches and, as was already mentioned, Greek gods. It's like watching the movie Gods of Egypt or Star Wars and submitting, "that's what I believe" as if that makes the case for one's faith substantial. It doesn't matter that you can or have read/watched all the canon. It's still simply reduced to convolutions of fantasy and fiction; even if your book group all believe it to be true.

Yes, I judge your writings here as smug and you pervert what Christ was pushing about love and acceptance. The attitude I perceive from it is you've an air of hoity-toity arrogance who is offended when your faith is dismissed. I don't believe you're a good person with that kind of attitude.

Atheism isn't responsible for mass murders, people are. Just as Tengrism isn't responsible for tens of millions of deaths during Khan's conquest. Tallying body counts, religion and its rejection, has inspired the most if we're to look at it in this manner. This boils down to a guilt by association fallacy. Let alone that the Bible says God puts people in power, thus making him ultimately responsible. So that argument isn't strong at all.

TheismIsUntenable: "Of course, Christians, like moi, freely admit that their religion stands on faith. But atheists, apropos of everything, deny that they have a faith"

Not in my experience. Having conversed with many thousands of Christians almost none of them "freely admit that it's faith" rather than evidence. They dance their entire lives not recognizing this fact.

I'd be embarrassed to admit that I believe in something without evidence, as a rational human being. You don't even need to be smart to see the problem with clinging to a belief absent evidence.

As to atheists denying they have a faith, well that's true for almost every atheist. Atheism is a rejection of the theistic claim due to the absolute bankruptcy of theism. You haven't provided sufficient evidence (no evidence at all in fact) to warrant belief, yet believe anyway.

I agree your sentiments come across as smug and arrogant, but you haven't brought really anything to the table to support your ideas. Bald assertion fallacies, cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacies, and utter stupidity.

Try harder please.

JX Amaro:
Oh, the laugh riot continues...

@Muse: On Paragraph 1&2: You claim the Christian faith is on par with any other faith including witchcraft – OK, but don't tell any of the Wicca crowd that (they might be offended by your “smug arrogance” and deem you not a “good person.” LOL.) Though I admit myself a “fool for Christ,” I stand in good intellectual company: Sir Isaac Newton, Galileo Galilei, Werner Heisenberg etc (more on that below). The real issue is this: I concede my belief is a faith (even one for fools (does this really make me “hoity toity” and easily “offended” when my faith is dismissed?)); but Atheists don't concede their belief as a faith. Atheists fantasize themselves as “scientific.” Sorry to shatter your illusion, but Agnosticism is as far as Reason and Science can take you. Atheism requires a leap of faith. Deal with it.

Then in the second paragraph we get this beauty from Muse who denies God/Christ, but then plays God/Christ by deciding who the “Good” people are: “...you (JX Amaro) pervert what Christ was pushing about love and acceptance.” Note that Muse treats Jesus like a cheap drug dealer “pushing” a belief, then invokes this very same “pusher” to suggest that I have “perverted” His teachings (and am a bad person)! LMAO. Um, no. Muse: If you are looking for someone perverting Jesus (like equating Him with drug dealers), just look in the mirror. Bang! Total fail.

On Paragraph 3: Here Muse attempts to exonerate Atheists of their failed utopias that cost over 150 million people their lives. Hey, people are people. In other words, Sh## happens. OK, but here's a quote from Leon Dzerzhinsky: “We will make our hearts cruel, hard, immovable... We will not quiver at the sight of a sea of enemy blood. Without mercy, without sparing, we will kill our enemies in scores of thousands; let them drown in their own blood! Let their be floods of the blood of the bourgeoisie – more blood, as much as possible...” Need more? Here's Che Guevara: “Crazy with fury I will stain my rifle red while slaughtering an enemy that falls in my hands! My nostrils dilate while savoring the acrid odor of gunpowder and blood. With the deaths of my enemies I prepare my being for the sacred fight and join the triumphant proletariat with a bestial howl.”

Draw your own conclusions.

@TheismisUntenable: Paragraph 1&2: This is rich. After quoting me (“Christians, like moi, freely admit that their religion stands on faith”) he then tries to put the rotten fruit of “thousands” of Christians at my doorstep! Ixne. I agree with the Angelic Doctor, St Thomas Aquinas, that the Christian faith can neither be proved nor disproved – it's a question of faith, or lack thereof. This is a pretty conventional view and not some “perverted” acid theology that I cooked up in my mind.

In Paragraph 3 TheismisUntenable gives us this gem of pseudo-intellectual moonshine: “I'd be embarrassed to admit I believe in something without evidence, as a rational human being.” Have you ever heard the old axiom, “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”? Moreover, you might want to review the writings of the Scottish philosopher David Hume. According to Hume, the most basic principles of Reason – eg, causality – can NOT be proved. And it was Hume whom awoke Kant from his “dogmatic slumber,” leading the latter to write, ��The Critique of Pure Reason.” (Note: you might want to read that, too.)

Paragraph 4 then attempts to divert attention from the subject. The issue at debate is this: “Are Religious People Stupid.” Needless to say, it's the premise that is stupid. The list of Christians who have contributed to the highest levels of (real) Science and Technology is long. It includes Robert Grosseteste (considered a founder of scientific thought), Francis Bacon (considered a founder of the scientific method), Galileo, Pascal, Newton, Kepler … (and on and on) all the way up to Werner Heisenberg in the twentieth century and beyond. Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology
Moreover, if we add contributions from other faiths, the list becomes that much longer, and the FACTS become that much more damning to the premise of this idiotic thread.

Paragraph 5 is where the wheels really fly off the cart. LOL. I'm accused of being smug and arrogant. Who cares? I'm just a face in the crowd looking for New Jerusalem. Oh yeah, I'm also accused of not bringing anything to the table. Oh really? Maybe you should go back and re-read my posts and pick up on the content rich points I make. Frankly, I have style and substance to burn. (Pardon me for being a tad immodest.)

The post ends with a laughable piece of false bravado suggesting that I “try harder.” LOL. While it's true that I haven't tried all that hard, it's also true – and far more relevant – that I have destroyed the thesis being promoted on this thread and have left it in smoldering ruins with black smoke billowing into a dark, barren sky. LOL.

Atheism is absurd – top to bottom. Christianity only seems absurd at the prima facia (superficial) level. The deeper one digs into it, the more one discovers it's astonishing – even endless – depth and range. The brightest people in the world have been figuring this out for the last 2,000 years. It doesn't surprise me that intellectual bottom-feeders like those of the Atheist ilk can't grasp it. Too bad for you. Yet, there is still time for you to open your eyes.

Hallelujah, Christ is Risen!!!

AretoNyx: Most people are religious so likely. However religious does not equal if one is stupid when they automatic trust and obey church leaders or cults even. However some think schools and hospitals...cartoons and toys...and all sorts of daily things are evil but still use daily stuff. Some conspiracies are very religious based and some racist or other hateful views too. Some protest funerals in name of religion or do extremist violent things. Though most of all many are clueless there being more than one religion and religious sects how they are different, but politics is often treated similarly with religious vigor as well. Superiority complexes and self righteousness seems to make big bucks for mega churches not feeding the poor. I do however cheer for churches helping poor and homeless...whom seem more thoughtful. Those that think only atheists do not help when they do...that atheists are those theists that are not clones to what they believe is the true religion...that think atheists are the only ones that would see those in congregation of a church as individuals that are idiots...that being an idiot is permanent in all cases...that being prejudice is the answer...I kinda feel sorry for them.

hornchurchmale: good god! what a load of anti free thinking theists here. simply trying to dream up any excuse to deny logic and realism preferring a 'belief' system to facts. might as well have same beliefs in Totem poles or water sprites and fairies.

TheloniousSphereMonk: Jx Amaro...if Christianity has depth and range I don't often hear of it. What I typically hear is the same Ole slogans (Hallaujah Christ is risen, for example) accompanied by the same Ole verses that we all are quite familiar with already.

Where are the little life stories...the little anecdotes, the personal life experiences?? If your faith has served you well than let us know how.

I occasionally hear of the vague happiness that christ brings, but never the details, the examples, the reasons....the life experience!!!

Such things never come about well when put on the spot, but randomly, in casual conversation. Still, even there it seems a rarity.

It will take more than slogans and the rhyming off of well known verses to convince me of the depth of christ.

A_Muse_Mint101: Pushing doesn't equate to a negative connotation; unless you perceive it that way. That, in itself, is telling of your psychology, and exemplifies my argument that you're smug and perverted, as in to alter, corrupt, distort, what Christ was pushing, to compel or urge, in his message. You can't even avoid perverting a simple term without taking it in a darker than intended context. You're not as clever as you think you are. You are as arrogant as many of us see you are.

I don't deny that Jesus may have been a real person, or people. I do deny that there is sufficient evidence to support deifying him/them. Your Christian faith has a preponderance of imagery touting him to be an Anglo Palestinian, and that's just silly and as perverted as your faith. My amalgamation of materialism with better parts of other philosophies are more tenable than a singleton approach to attain, or at least/best, understand knowledge of reality. Jesus would, my guess, probably prefer my company over yours.

There is no fantasy in reason; that is the standard of faith. Your rose tinted glasses aren't serving faith with reason.

JX Amaro:
@Theolonius: Your questions are a little off-topic, but I will be thrilled to answer anyway.

On the depth and range of Christianity, just look at the endless miles of Christian commentary. From Augustine, to Aquinas, from Luther to Calvin and on and on it goes. There isn’t enough time for me to read all the Christian books I want to read! (I even find reading anti-Christian books interesting.) If I had to be limited to just one suggestion – reflecting my own personal interests – I would HIGHLY recommend St Thomas’s Commentary on Aristotle’s Nicomachaen Ethics. It is beyond mind blowing. I had read the NE a couple times and thought I had grasped it. I hadn’t. Until you read Thomas on the NE you do NOT know it. And, as such, you don’t know the possibilities for Christian eudaimonism and a Christian Eudaimonian Man/Woman. Totally Next Level.

“Where are all these little life stories...”? If you mean the “little life stories” of everyday people being touched by the power of God/Jesus, I can only imagine there are thousands of such books available on Amazon. For example, the “My Favorite Pillow” guy has written a biography about how he had fell to drug addiction and was saved by Jesus. Hallelujah! (David Berkowitz, the Son-of-Sam serial killer, also became a born-again Christian and now leads a productive, useful life.)

My story? Well, that’s way off topic. Short version: After checking out the scene in the halls of philosophy, I concluded that Christianity was the only system of thought that – in spite of it’s seemingly absurd trappings – actually made sense and that you could actually FEEL. With Christianity, the Lightning Strikes!!! By comparison, Academicism, Peripeticism, Epicureanism, Stoicism etc are just elegant words on paper. (Protestants sometimes call this phenomena “Proof by Potency.” Es verdad.)

To return to the life stories without dilating narcissisticly on moi – apparently I am “arrogant” and “smug” among other less than praiseworthy things (consider the source) – I would point to Bach. All his music is dedicated to Jesus. Think about that next time you listen to the Brandenberg Concertos. Vivaldi (my personal favorite) was a Catholic priest (think about it). It sounds ironic (maybe zen), but through service one finds liberation. Once you choose to serve Christ, the next thing is to be a good servant and this leads to – yes! – eudaimonian practice, self-realization and Christian Arete (ultimately “Makarios”). Nietzsche can prattle on about the “Superman” (Ubermensch), but those dudes (Stalin, Hitler et al) are just grotesqueries – a net loss, not gain, to Humanity. In the end, no one flies as high as Christian eagles dare.

So if you want to know the depth of Christ, just consider the fascination of Bible stories, the genius of the commentators, the great artists and the brilliant scientists from Newton to Heisenberg. This is Full Spectrum Dominance. Atheists are left in the dust.

JX Amaro:
@Muse: Your response is so preposterous that I think you might benefit from relaxing a little bit. Here is a good song:
YouTube

Actually, I meant this one (but they are both good):
YouTube

A_Muse_Mint101: Your response is a deflection.

JX Amaro:
@Muse: OK, but the two songs I suggested show that I was trying to show some charity – “Sympathy” by Stryper is such a great song. Moving on…

I’ll let others decide for themselves if your speaking of Jesus “pushing” his ideas about “love and acceptance” was a less than a dignified way of putting it. (And I don’t see much “love” and “acceptance” coming from you – but who cares about my opinion.)

I’m not as clever as I think I am? Who cares? I don’t think I’m all that clever either. I DO think you are lashing out at me because I trashed your views. Guilty.

I’m as arrogant as others think I am? Again, who cares? But maybe those accusing me of being arrogant aren’t exactly displaying themselves as models of humility either. Ya think? (BTW, I think “confident” and “enthusiastic” might better describe my attitude, but others can judge as they may.)

But my favorite moment in the preposterous post Muse made (that I politely declined commenting on) was in the laughable way that Muse said Jesus would prefer Muse’s company over mine, and this was said but a couple sentences after Muse said faith in Jesus was PERVERTED! (Note: It wasn’t clear to me if Muse meant that just my faith in Jesus was perverted, or if faith in Christ, generally speaking, was perverted.) (Also note that in a post earlier in this thread, Muse talked about his interest in Whale Sex, or DH Lawrence’s poetry about it (whatever) – yeah, nothing weird or perverted about that! LOL)…

… Well, it’s certainly possible that Jesus is dissatisfied with BOTH of us. However, I am NOT the one who is “playing Jesus.” I’m sure Muse has many fine qualities. My only point is to counter the premise of this thread that religious people are stupid. Frankly, I think I achieved my objective.

So, here's some more music to relax with. Gary Moore playing some beautiful Christian blues:

TheismIsUntenable: @Jx

"Paragraph 1&2: This is rich. After quoting me (“Christians, like moi, freely admit that their religion stands on faith”) he then tries to put the rotten fruit of “thousands” of Christians at my doorstep! Ixne. I agree with the Angelic Doctor, St Thomas Aquinas, that the Christian faith can neither be proved nor disproved – it's a question of faith, or lack thereof. This is a pretty conventional view and not some “perverted” acid theology that I cooked up in my mind."

This does nothing to address my comments unless you're trying to invoke a no true scotsman fallacy, which honestly would not surprise me at all.

"In Paragraph 3 TheismisUntenable gives us this gem of pseudo-intellectual moonshine: “I'd be embarrassed to admit I believe in something without evidence, as a rational human being.” Have you ever heard the old axiom, “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”? Moreover, you might want to review the writings of the Scottish philosopher David Hume. According to Hume, the most basic principles of Reason – eg, causality – can NOT be proved. And it was Hume whom awoke Kant from his “dogmatic slumber,” leading the latter to write, “The Critique of Pure Reason.” (Note: you might want to read that, too.)"

Please explain the difference between intellectualism and pseudo-intellectualism.

Secondly, that axiom is fine under most circumstances but if we have expectations to find evidence and do not...then it can be extremely powerful counter-evidence. If you claim that there is an invisible elephant in my room and I don't detect it in any way (e.g. thermal imaging shows nothing, I move about the room and cannot *run into it*, I fill the room with balloons and there isn't an elephant-shaped gap in the balloons, etc.) then I can quite reasonably conclude the falsity of your claim.

Thirdly (and even worse for you), that axiom is actually irrelevant to what I said. At no point did I say that because theism has no evidence that it is false. What I said was that I'd be embarrassed to believe in something without evidence, meaning that it would be irrational to believe in something without evidence. There's no evidence of life in the Universe besides on Earth. Yet it's possible and even plausible. But if you believe it does exist elsewhere, you're irrational as well for the same reason I stated previously. Do you get it now?

"Paragraph 4 then attempts to divert attention from the subject. The issue at debate is this: “Are Religious People Stupid.” Needless to say, it's the premise that is stupid. The list of Christians who have contributed to the highest levels of (real) Science and Technology is long. It includes Robert Grosseteste (considered a founder of scientific thought), Francis Bacon (considered a founder of the scientific method), Galileo, Pascal, Newton, Kepler … (and on and on) all the way up to Werner Heisenberg in the twentieth century and beyond. Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology
Moreover, if we add contributions from other faiths, the list becomes that much longer, and the FACTS become that much more damning to the premise of this idiotic thread."

Did you even read the OP or is your mental capacity of such diminished status that you only got so far as the title? Is the idea of a sensationalist headline foreign to you?

"Paragraph 5 is where the wheels really fly off the cart. LOL. I'm accused of being smug and arrogant. Who cares? I'm just a face in the crowd looking for New Jerusalem. Oh yeah, I'm also accused of not bringing anything to the table. Oh really? Maybe you should go back and re-read my posts and pick up on the content rich points I make. Frankly, I have style and substance to burn. (Pardon me for being a tad immodest.)"

I challenge you to cite a single thing you've said in the many posts you've made on my thread that support theism in any way.

"The post ends with a laughable piece of false bravado suggesting that I “try harder.” LOL. While it's true that I haven't tried all that hard, it's also true – and far more relevant – that I have destroyed the thesis being promoted on this thread and have left it in smoldering ruins with black smoke billowing into a dark, barren sky. LOL."

You haven't even addressed the OP as I've already mentioned. Quite sad really.

"Atheism is absurd – top to bottom. Christianity only seems absurd at the prima facia (superficial) level. The deeper one digs into it, the more one discovers it's astonishing – even endless – depth and range. The brightest people in the world have been figuring this out for the last 2,000 years. It doesn't surprise me that intellectual bottom-feeders like those of the Atheist ilk can't grasp it. Too bad for you. Yet, there is still time for you to open your eyes."

Claims require evidence, for which you've brought none to the table. Just more bald assertions from what appears to be an angsty teenager.

A_Muse_Mint101: If by "politely declined to comment on" includes asserting in response that it is "preposterous" we indeed have a different tact for morality.

Yes, I am asserting that Jesus would prefer my company with honest inquiry over your snide contrarianism of opposing views and obligate submission to your imagined master.

To clarify, your faith is perverted from what Jesus set as example. I know of, and have many friends that are, Christian who don't blow their own sails as you do.

D.H. Lawrence's poem was about whale sex, so it isn't perverted from the poem. You might think the poem itself is perverted, and that's fine; which I tend to agree it's definitely an odd thing to be inspired by. Something he wrote in another area was, "Consciousness is an end in itself. We torture ourselves getting somewhere, and when we get there it is nowhere; for there is nowhere to get to." This speaks volumes to me about the pursuit of faith in mysticism and the supernatural.

I also tend to agree with much of Jesus's moral and ethical assertions. I don't agree with all, but many are in alignment with how I see being good.

To the OP's point, you do add credence to the question's answer being, yes religious people are (can be) stupid. Education on topics doesn't negate being stupid.

MJ59: Man, this thread's a classic!

TheloniousSphereMonk: Jx Amaro....thanks for the answer but I guess I have wireclub on the brain and was thinking more along the lines of wireclub folk when I asked about the depth of Christianity....not Luther, Bach and Vivaldi.

I'm sure Amazon has scores of books based upon the personal experiences of Christians.

For the most part, all I hear around here is again, a few slogans accompanied by the same Ole verses...

AretoNyx: So many books besides Christians that mention some Jesus...though any how often the world religions most popular still vary what is a thing sect to subjectivity. Theism seems so much that arguing in ways not agreed exactly same yet many only blaming atheists and who ever people hate I guess is supposed to fix everything in some views.
True same old verses but hopefully not out of hate and such desires. People do what they do though whatever they have.

JX Amaro: (Sorry for the delay, I've been busy...)
@TheismisUntenable: My vanity is somewhat stroked that you felt the need to copy and paste my ENTIRE (fairly long) posting!!! Two points for me. Moving on…

Virtually everything TheismisUntenable said in response to me was typical of the pigheaded, intolerant, reactionary-jerk-atheist-personality-type that TheismisUntenable so splendidly demonstrates. However, one telling point was so spectacularly telling that some kind of response, I thought, was in order – for laughs, if nothing else.

Here it is: TheismisUntenable asks for a distinction to be made between a pseudo-intellectual and an actual intellectual. OK, that’s easy: An actual intellectual WOULDN’T start a thread based on an “on-line” study comprising something like 63,000 respondents! Anyone at all familiar with Academic culture would find this a joke and TheismisUntenable would get laughed out of any graduate program for such a roll out. Even relatively bright High School students would find the methodology unacceptable – laughable. In short, TheismisUntenable’s “Study,” like Theism’s post (which is premised on the study) is a bad joke. And the laugh is on him for being so superficial as to think he was being smart, witty and “scientific.” LOL. ROFL.

(Note: There is NO WAY around the point I have just made. This is a “direct hit.” Total annihilation of the thread and total humiliation of a pig-headed pseudo-intellectual apparently ignorant of how Academia and the Scientific Method operates in the real world. Bang! You crashed and burned, dude. Deal with it.)

(Further Note: It doesn’t surprise me at all that Atheists have such low standards of methodology: Atheism, as I have said before, is a type of magnet for bottom-feeder losers, pseudo-intellectuals and trashy, TV chat-show pseudo-academics. Ughh…)

(Further, Further Note: If you can’t dig Christ, you might as well check out Buddha, Confucius, Epicurus and/or even Zeus! You have options!!!)

------))))))>

@Muse: Well, I politely declined to comment because I thought your response was preposterous, capisce? And yes, I would most certainly agree that we have a different “tact of morality” (talk about “hoity toity” nineteenth century, unhip language!). My morality boils down to an objective, God-given Law, and it’s NOT open to self-serving amendments of Friday-Night-Hedonist convenience. If I fail that law, I sin – no, ifs, ands or buts about it. Atheist morality, on the other hand, is subjective: Law is whatever any Atheist says it is, even if the said Atheist doesn’t abide by it (which is usually the case). And this is why if you scratch any given Atheist, you will find a petty little dictator – usually a raving and drooling one. Atheists, in short, deny God so as to be God – or, at least, a god. Such is, “Atheism Revealed.” Ughhh.

In regard to the preposterous comments of Muse: I’ll leave it to readers to decide if Muse is “high on his own supply” in thinking Jesus wants hang out with him (presumably at a chi-chi garden party where we can only suppose that Leonardo and Napoleon also excitedly await Muse’s dramatic entrance). I might not be on the A-List, but at least I know I’m not on the A-List. Muse, with his home-cooked and half-baked “World According to Garp” philosophy, self-evidently lives in NeverNeverLand thinking Jesus wants to pal up with him. Ixne.

(Note: Muse: You seriously need a Reality Check. Try to dig this: When Jesus returns, He isn’t going to hang out with comfortably numb atheist losers like you (ie, people who live in relative luxury in the “First World” and mock God). No. The first people Jesus will grace with His presence will be the exploited and brutalized of the “Third World” – the people’s whose suffering make your “comfortably numb” lifestyle possible. Wake up to reality, jerk.)

On Muse’s “talking point” that I am a “perverted Christian,” let’s translate this into real-speak. What Muse really doesn’t like is that I flipped the script. This thread was supposed to be a bunch of “smart” Atheists trashing “dumb” Christians for laughs. Well, it didn’t work out that way. It turned out the Atheists weren’t all that smart and got trashed by the Christians – with moi taking a lead role. Deal with it. If you can’t keep up with the pace, get out of the race. Got it?

Muse – apropos of everything – then goes on to compare his own “World According to Garp” philosophy to the Word of God, with his own half-baked theories being granted the privileged pole position. Ughh. Muse: Can you say, “delusions of grandeur”? Oh, puh-leeeze…. This dude really needs psychological help! STAT!!!

Muse then ends by moving the goal posts of the thread. Yes, according to Muse, it is no longer a question of religious people being stupid, it is a question of how being religious and educated STILL makes you stupid. In other words, If you are not an Atheist, Then you are Stupid. Apparently, this is “The Law of Atheism” (ie, applied ipsedixitism). As we see, Atheists have no respect for objective reality. Reality is simply whatever the little dictator (Atheist) says Reality is. The thoughtful reader can now see why Atheism is a pig-trough for intellectual geeks and goons. Ughhhhhh...

TheismIsUntenable: @Jx

Since you largely had no reply to my rebuttals, I trust you now understand how incompetent and false your points were in the first place so I'll simply address the last remaining bit of tomfoolery.

"Here it is: TheismisUntenable asks for a distinction to be made between a pseudo-intellectual and an actual intellectual. OK, that’s easy: An actual intellectual WOULDN’T start a thread based on an “on-line” study comprising something like 63,000 respondents! Anyone at all familiar with Academic culture would find this a joke and TheismisUntenable would get laughed out of any graduate program for such a roll out. Even relatively bright High School students would find the methodology unacceptable – laughable. In short, TheismisUntenable’s “Study,” like Theism’s post (which is premised on the study) is a bad joke. And the laugh is on him for being so superficial as to think he was being smart, witty and “scientific.” LOL. ROFL.

(Note: There is NO WAY around the point I have just made. This is a “direct hit.” Total annihilation of the thread and total humiliation of a pig-headed pseudo-intellectual apparently ignorant of how Academia and the Scientific Method operates in the real world. Bang! You crashed and burned, dude. Deal with it.)

(Further Note: It doesn’t surprise me at all that Atheists have such low standards of methodology: Atheism, as I have said before, is a type of magnet for bottom-feeder losers, pseudo-intellectuals and trashy, TV chat-show pseudo-academics. Ughh…)"

So you didn't make any distinction between the things I requested (as suspected). Instead you crafted what can only be said to be an ad hominem fallacy. What's worse is that your entire argument refutes itself.

The study is comprised of an enormous number of respondents and it is published in Frontiers in Psychology, the largest academic journal in the field. So I'm not sure you realize how stupid your comment actually was. Unless your argument is that a peer-reviewed study published in the largest academic journal in the field of psychology is "pseudo-intellectual" (which would be even more stupid than your already profoundly stupid argument) then it is refuted. DEAD.

Next time bring facts. This is not going well for you...like...at all. You are demonstrating that yes, religious people are stupid.