Why are most religious followers irrational?

[Peacewise]

Name a moral kindness or action that a theist can do because of their belief, but that an atheist can't.

Love God.

 

[Peacewise]

Atheists are very capable of that.

So you say and in your experience they are capable of that in theory, to which I agree - in theory.

However I have yet to meet or experience any person who calls themselves an atheist that professes to loving a stranger, as a practice.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

And I'm not saying that this wasn't how Marx saw the social function of religion. I think, though, that this particular passage might be seen as expressing a more positive attitude towards religion, or at least a less fierce condemnation, than that usually associated with it; while, according to such interpretation, religion could be seen as a reaction to socio-economic conditions and a tool eployed by the ruling class over the people, it wouldn't necessarily exclude its more positive aspects.

And to address your point - while I'm not saying that religion might not be used in such way, I think some religious movements could be seen as having an aspect critical, opposing or not upholding the socio-economic environment (e.g. the Liberation Theology), thus not necessarily being a tool to make people feel better about their lives in order to keep the established order.

I'll give you that; I could have used the whole quote, I manipulated it a little to make a point. There are also religions that aren't used in such a way; Dharmic religions take a more realistic view on life in my opinion. I'd have to say I agree with you, but I still have a problem with religions that give people delusions when they could be bettering themselves by their own will.

 

[dogsgod]

So you say and in your experience they are capable of that in theory, to which I agree - in theory.

However I have yet to meet or experience any person who calls themselves an atheist that professes to loving a stranger, as a practice.

.



Atheists love strangers, they taste like chicken.

 

[tarasan]

.



Atheists love strangers, they taste like chicken.

well....... at least he agrees....

 

[Peacewise]

.
Atheists love strangers, they taste like chicken.

Well that's certainly irrational, thereby providing a single example of...

Most religious followers are irrational for the same reasons everyone else is.

So why'd you get irrational dogsgod? I ask for it may be enlightening on the question of why some religious are irrational.

 

[Riverwolf]

So you say and in your experience they are capable of that in theory, to which I agree - in theory.

However I have yet to meet or experience any person who calls themselves an atheist that professes to loving a stranger, as a practice.

What about Jains, or atheistic Buddhists? They do still count, you know. ^_^

 

[Peacewise]

lol, Riverwolf, I got no idea about them having never met them, nor even read about them!

 

[Riverwolf]

lol, Riverwolf, I got no idea about them having never met them, nor even read about them!

From what I've read, Hinduism adapted the doctrine of ahimsa (non-violence in thought, word, and deed) from the Jains. ^_^

 

[dogsgod]

All the atheists I know eat their young. Atheists are incapable of loving anyone because they don't believe in whatever god it is that Peacewise believes in.

 

[LoTrobador]

I'll give you that; I could have used the whole quote, I manipulated it a little to make a point.

Simply wanted to add a different perspective on this passage.

There are also religions that aren't used in such a way; Dharmic religions take a more realistic view on life in my opinion.

It's interesting, as there has been some criticism of Hinduism as reinforcing the class structure of Indian society.

On the other hand, you might be interested in an article from The Times of India, D is for Dalits and E is for the English Goddess by D Shyam Babu, on the dalits of Bankagaon pledging to learn the English language as well as worship it as a goddess. To quote the article:

In Prasad's mind there is no debate about the role of English. He calls English-speaking Indians Macaulay's children and sees English as a tool to emancipate the dalits. "The State and society cannot emancipate all dalits from backwardness and poverty. The dalits themselves should shape their own future," he says.

I'd have to say I agree with you, but I still have a problem with religions that give people delusions when they could be bettering themselves by their own will.

I certainly see your point.

 

[fantome profane]

So you say and in your experience they are capable of that in theory, to which I agree - in theory.

However I have yet to meet or experience any person who calls themselves an atheist that professes to loving a stranger, as a practice.

lol, Riverwolf, I got no idea about them having never met them, nor even read about them!

Your experience is extremely limited. Why do you feel so confident to make such broad generalizations about what you obviously have no experience (or knowledge) of?

 

[dogsgod]

Your experience is extremely limited. Why do you feel so confident to make such broad generalizations about what you obviously have no experience (or knowledge) of?

He has aligned himself with an all knowing God.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

So you say and in your experience they are capable of that in theory, to which I agree - in theory.

However I have yet to meet or experience any person who calls themselves an atheist that professes to loving a stranger, as a practice.

Though I personally hold no feelings (either good or bad) toward strangers, it is a generalization to say that all atheists are indifferent to people. There are plenty of atheists who do just as much work in their communities, sometimes even more, than theists.

 

[Riverwolf]

He has aligned himself with an all knowing God.

I've met plenty of atheists who are just as guilty of that as theists.

Making broad, naive generalizations is another typical flaw of human nature.

 

[Peacewise]

Love strangers & Love God - these are merely attempts to answer dogsbody's question and therefore must be generalizations for the very nature of the question demands a generalization, having now seen the way in which dogsbody is contributing I now know that my error was in giving any consideration to that question that is now revealed as bait.

I remain confident that I have yet to meet an atheist who professes to love a stranger and am unsurprised that when I relate my personal experience that some would incorrectly claim that this is a generalization, when in fact it is an specific observation to support the generalization of "love strangers" as an answer to dogsbody's question.

Further I have answered dogsbody's question "Name a moral kindness or action that a theist can do because of their belief, but that an atheist can't." with the irrefutable answer, that being "love god" which of course has been ignored as is often the way with baited questions that get answered reasonably.

 

[fantome profane]

I remain confident that I have yet to meet an atheist who professes to love a stranger and am unsurprised that when I relate my personal experience that some would incorrectly claim that this is a generalization, when in fact it is an specific observation to support the generalization of "love strangers" as an answer to dogsbody's question.

Do you ask everyone you meet if they are atheists or not? And do follow that question up with do they have love for strangers? You may very well have met dozens or even hundreds of stranger loving atheists and you would never know it.

You are making an unsubstantiated overgeneralization. Atheists are just as capable of selfless universal love as theists are. And they do love strangers.

Further I have answered dogsbody's question "Name a moral kindness or action that a theist can do because of their belief, but that an atheist can't." with the irrefutable answer, that being "love god" which of course has been ignored as is often the way with baited questions that get answered reasonably.

How is loving something that does not exists a moral kindness?

 

[Peacewise]

It is being illogical to go from my specific case, to claiming that I make an unsubstantiated overgeneralization, wiggle that bait I don't mind chewing it for a moment.

Ah I see, I make a specific case based on personal experience and qualify it thus very plainly to see, you instead make the generalization that "they do love strangers" lol, mate you project your generalizations onto me, for it is you who generalize whilst I am specific.

Loving God is part of Christian morals.

 

[EverChanging]

Humans are not entirely rational beings anyhow, and even emotions play a role in our reasoning....Nor are all beliefs of atheists/secularists rational, and I say that with complete sympathy toward skepticism.

I have a very rational, analytical side, but it is fallible, and that requires humility on my part. My spirituality, for me, is about humility and mystery....Ultimately, there are things that I cannot know. It is also about entering into another side of my personality -- metaphor and meaning, things that pure rationality do not give me. I enter into a state of being...of loving...seeing oneness everywhere. None of this is incompatible with atheism or philosophical naturalism (materialism). Buddhism, which influences me, is very compatible with atheism, particularly Zen Buddhism (although some forms of Buddhism do have deities).

We have a tendency in the west to characterize all religious people as theists, but not even all Christians are theists, nor are they all irrational. It is easy to attack fundamentalism and other caricatures of religion. It is not so easy to seek transformation. It is easy to judge others. It is not easy to let go of self -- to see it for the illusion that it is. And that is not just some mere spiritual saying....Everything effects everything else, all is intertwined. The words I'm typing will have physical effects in your brain as you read it. Every action is intertwined with everything else, with no "self" in the driver seat, and thus all reason to judge fades away.

True spirituality is about depth and another way of seeing the world, much like an artist painting a scene in an idiosyncratic way or creating....For many people, religion is not primarily about belief. Atheists like Dawkins and others, though I do have respect for them and what they do, as well as their logic, have only the most primitive understanding of the religious traditions they criticize. They don't seem to be able to distinguish fundamentalism and more subtle and complex forms of religion and spirituality.

 

[BruceDLimber]

Greetings!

Perhaps you should look into the Baha'i Faith, one of whose central principles is the essential AGREEMENT of science and religion!

Science explains the "how" of existence while religion explains the "Who" and "why"; and properly viewed, the two dovetail very nicely!

Best!

Bruce