My apologies for ramblings against Buddhists. I realize that I am disappointed by my own expectations (of Buddhism/-ts), and this disappointment got a while out of control. I say this not to justify my behaviour but to de-emotionalize.
May I ask out of interest what expectations have been let down?
How can you seriously discuss the topic of "The never-ending capacity of religion making people stupid"? Can't you imagine that it may be an offense to anyone who considers himself religious? If the goal of choosing this topic was to provocate, to make people angry: it's a success! (see above )
While the title of the thread isnt perhaps the best the content of the thread is about how when certain religious dogma is taken to an extreme literal interpretation and the effect that has on a persons rationality (thats my take of the thread anyway)
And for the argument: Yes, there are bad examples. But you can enumerate thousands and still proof nothing. That's what I mean with "proof by example" - it's logically illegal. The only thing this shows is that there are "stupid" people, and some of those justify their doing with their believe. Nothing more. Maybe these people just misused the religion to have an excuse, maybe they misunderstood the teachings, maybe they are in an orthodox sect which does not represent any majority... and so on.
This is from my own personal opinion but i agree that religion doesnt make someone "stupid" but impacts on rational thinking. I cant speak for the OP but i think that is what is meant and not the idea that religion is for the uneducated. Hence by saying "The never-ending capacity of religion making people stupid" it means, from what i understand from the discussion, "The never-ending capacity of religion making people irrational"
Especially this does not prove any causality, not even a connection, between level of intelligence and religion.
Of course not, many intelligent people have been religious
So if I go and do something "stupid", like having many babies(!), and honestly believe (or just claim) that it was in the name of the Dhamma, what exactly would that prove?
That you didnt understand Dhamma since it doesnt teach that, the point i was trying to make is that if one states that religion is having a negative effect on a person then one has to look at the destructive views said person is holding in comparrison with the text. If its found that their irrational and destructive belief is backed by the text then one can make a stronger case for the religion being the negative influence on the person instead of visa/versa
Is it clearer now what it is I didn't like?
Indeed, my understanding is that you take issue with the claim that religion makes people stupid or is for stupid people. I agree with you here however as i said the word "stupid" as used in this thread wasnt intended to mean of low intelligence but an absence of rational thinking and fundementalist dogmatic thought
Metta
But other definitions of "stupid" don't really make a difference. Neither it sounds less offensive, nor makes it the thesis and argument better.
