The never-ending capacity of religion making people stupid

[Mawkish1983]

*** THIS POST IS AN INTERMISSION FOR A BIT OF METTA SHARING ***

[Ceisiwr]

Hey

• Buddhists are noticeably bettered by meditation, regarding to tolerance and kindness

How do you know what they were like before?

• humans can have fair and respectful arguments about metaphysical topics

Of course they can

• this forum's different

Im not sure that this part means

"isn't perhaps the best"? Is this euphemism or an answer to my question ("Can you imagine if it is offensive...") with a "no, not really".

I was agreeing with you

No, it doesn't. It tells you nothing about the influence of religion on that person. A religion may influence a person in three ways:
• negative: make a person more irrational and irresponsible. Or it may be
• neutral: no change - the person may be equally irrational, maybe then using another belief system to justify his behaviour.
• positive: a person can be stabilised by and find happiness in the religion. The idea is that an unstable and unhappy person acts more irrational and destructive.

None of these possibilities can be backed up by examples. Do you understand "proof by example" and why it is a fallacy?

Well first of all i said a stronger case can be made, not that it has been proven

for example the Roman Catholic Church's stance on contraception, we can see a link between that religious belief and the suffering its causing in africa and conclude that the religious thought has had a negative effect on said catholics state of mind in regards to sound judgement and, i would say, ethics


As for the link you provided it had this example

I've seen a person shoot someone dead.
Therefore, all people are murderers.

I dont think anyone here has said anything like this in relation to religion

And besides, if (in the above example) my understanding of the Dhamma is wrong... Who can judge what's right understanding? Maybe your interpretation is wrong.

Saying that Dhamma teaches everyone to have lots of sex and lots of babies would be a wrong understanding since there is no backing of this view of any kind in the canon

Even worse: deciding the "right interpretation" of another religion where you have only superficial knowledge of the scriptures?

Thats assuming that people dont know other religious scripture

The topic itself is stupid enough But other definitions of "stupid" don't really make a difference. Neither it sounds less offensive, nor makes it the thesis and argument better.

So its wrong to say that the fundementalists are lacking rational thought in regards to certain things, if i say that a creationist who states that the earth is only six thousand years old and evolution didnt happen and that man lived with dinosaurs is irrational is this is being wrong, biggoted and offensive?

(im aware this is a small minority and an extreme case but it is for sake of an example, i know not all xtians belief such things)


metta

[freki]

Another feeling tells me it's better to stop further discussion here, so please excuse.

cheerio,
freki

[tiltbillings]

Another feeling tells me it's better to stop further discussion here, so please excuse.

cheerio,
freki

Too bad. I was going to ask you to show in anything I said that expmlified the logical fallacy you referenced. Alas, it is not to be.

[Mawkish1983]

I personally feel its time for this thread to come to a close.

[retrofuturist]

I personally feel its time for this thread to come to a close.

I agree... there's seemingly nothing positive left to come out of it.

Metta,
Retro.

[tiltbillings]

I unfortunately seriously misjudged the possibility of negative reaction to such an idea. Of course no one has a monoply of acting badly in the name of religion, but criticizing questionable religious behavior is not to everyone's liking.

To those who were offended, my apologies; to those who weren't my apologies.