NationStates Jolt Archive

I see this mainly from non religious people to religious people. Basicly those of us with a belief (and holding the morals surrounding that belief) are labeled as stupid for simpley holding those beliefs. Frankly it doesnt get you anywhere and is no good for debate. How can anyone promote and argue their viewpoint if you will just dismiss whatever they say as stupid. For example, calling God an imaginary freind, thereby dismissing several thousand years of study and discussion into the areas of theology and metaphysics. And calling the people who oppose abortion stupid, thereby simply cicumventing any right they have to have their voice heard. Calling someone stupid for holding a belief does not do debate any service.

Yes it does, stupid. How can you be so stupid? Oh right... you were stupid to begin with. :p

I see this mainly from non religious people to religious people. Basicly those of us with a belief (and holding the morals surrounding that belief) are labeled as stupid for simpley holding those beliefs. Frankly it doesnt get you anywhere and is no good for debate. How can anyone promote and argue their viewpoint if you will just dismiss whatever they say as stupid. For example, calling God an imaginary freind, thereby dismissing several thousand years of study and discussion into the areas of theology and metaphysics. And calling the people who oppose abortion stupid, thereby simply cicumventing any right they have to have their voice heard. Calling someone stupid for holding a belief does not do debate any service.
It's the first step in a process of dehumanization which ultimately ends in the justification of liquidating those with a particular belief system. Used quite effectively before and during WWII by those who characterized Jews as being "dirty" and "greedy."

This needed to be said. I wonder if it will dissolve into a flame war due to people saying, "But it is stupid to not agree with me!"

I concede to people who want proof of God's existence that it's impossible to prove that he exists, but I also argue that it's impossible to prove that he doesn't exist.

I agree that it is not stupid to hold a belief. Now, to have blind faith in said belief in the face of huge piles of evidence to the contrary......that's another story, and while I will not call someone stupid for it, I will not respect them for it either.

ok stupid, ill tell you who its helps, you religious fanatic, YOUR MOTHER

apart from that, yeah, i find it disruptive (im such a hyprocite(sp?))

I agree that it is not stupid to hold a belief. Now, to have blind faith in said belief in the face of huge piles of evidence to the contrary......that's another story, and while I will not call someone stupid for it, I will not respect them for it either.
Contrary to the whole aspect of what they believe in or only what the person who is presenting the evidence thinks is the whole aspect of what they believe in?

In other words, disproving Creationism does not prove that nothing is worth believeing in christianity.

It's the first step in a process of dehumanization which ultimately ends in the justification of liquidating those with a particular belief system. Used quite effectively before and during WWII by those who characterized Jews as being "dirty" and "greedy."
and it also can be a uniting force that can move a people to do wonderous feats that marvel even today's scientists.

I agree that it is not stupid to hold a belief. Now, to have blind faith in said belief in the face of huge piles of evidence to the contrary......that's another story, and while I will not call someone stupid for it, I will not respect them for it either.

At least you're not insulting someone for not agreeing with you. But what's evidence really? Some people hold up the fact that there's suffering in the world as evidence that there is no God, while I don't see it as evidence of anything other than the debatable position that the world sucks.

and it also can be a uniting force that can move a people to do wonderous feats that marvel even today's scientists.


Calling religious people stupid? I'm pretty sure that's what me meant...

For example, calling God an imaginary freind, thereby dismissing several thousand years of study and discussion into the areas of theology and metaphysics.

Actually, the "imaginary freind [sic]" argument is trying to point out that there may be irrational psychological motivations for the belief. The problem is that people don't explain that metaphor, so that people sometimes don't see what's being said. Either that or they simply refuse to consider it, which means they need a bit more humility.

Contrary to the whole aspect of what they believe in or only what the person who is presenting the evidence thinks is the whole aspect of what they believe in?

In other words, disproving Creationism does not prove that nothing is worth believeing in christianity.

Contrary to the actual belief itself. There are those who would try to extend that, but I am talking about a more narrow case. Suppose someone believed that the Earth was flat because of certain verses in the Bible. If they continued to hold to that belief despite being shown all the evidence, I would not respect them. Of course, the flat-earth belief has little to do with belief in salvation, or in God.


At least you're not insulting someone for not agreeing with you. But what's evidence really? Some people hold up the fact that there's suffering in the world as evidence that there is no God, while I don't see it as evidence of anything other than the debatable position that the world sucks.

When I speak of evidence, I'm generally speaking of empirical evidence, which can only be used to describe that which occurs within our universe. None of it can be applied to the existence or non-existence of God, and "Suffering means there is no God," is a rather subjective stance anyways.

Calling religious people stupid? I'm pretty sure that's what me meant...It's the first step in a process of dehumanization which ultimately ends in the justification of liquidating those with a particular belief system. Used quite effectively before and during WWII by those who characterized Jews as being "dirty" and "greedy."
sounded like he was saying it about religion and blind Faith.

Eutrusca, if I did mis interprete what you said, then I apologize.

While we are on teh subject of stupidity.

Is stupidity nature or nurture anyway?

If it's genetic is it fair to hold that over someones head?

So if I believe that the world was really a giant soccer ball, the sky was pink, and that you owed me $100, I'm not stupid?

I see this mainly from non religious people to religious people. Basicly those of us with a belief (and holding the morals surrounding that belief) are labeled as stupid for simpley holding those beliefs. Frankly it doesnt get you anywhere and is no good for debate. How can anyone promote and argue their viewpoint if you will just dismiss whatever they say as stupid. For example, calling God an imaginary freind, thereby dismissing several thousand years of study and discussion into the areas of theology and metaphysics. And calling the people who oppose abortion stupid, thereby simply cicumventing any right they have to have their voice heard. Calling someone stupid for holding a belief does not do debate any service.

Neither does whining.

So if I believe that the world was really a giant soccer ball, the sky was pink, and that you owed me $100, I'm not stupid?


No, it just means that you are not sharing the good stuff with me :(

It's the first step in a process of dehumanization which ultimately ends in the justification of liquidating those with a particular belief system. Used quite effectively before and during WWII by those who characterized Jews as being "dirty" and "greedy."

And being used quite effectively now by many against Muslims as irrational fanatics and terrorists.

So if I believe that the world was really a giant soccer ball, the sky was pink, and that you owed me $100, I'm not stupid?no.

it means that for some reason, you're kicking a globe into the soccer net, is partically color blind, and forgetting the fact that in reality, you owe me $1000.

This begs the question: Have any of us truly grown up or are there still chunks of us still in childhood. Sure, you can use theism as a poor excuse to do bad, but you can also use atheism for a poor excuse. Has anyone truly left the name-calling and the "dumb people disagree with me" stunts of yesteryear?

This reminds me of this thesis I wrote for English on why the world sucks.

This reminds me of this thesis I wrote for English on why the world sucks.

*Make note to use this as a topic for a disertation if I ever need to do one.

There's an invisible unicorn behind you. You can't feel him, you can't smell him, you can't taste him, and there's no way you can prove he is or isn't there, but he is, and if you don't believe me you're stupid.

That's what I find odd about the liberal "you must accept all lifestyles and perspectives" so-called "inclusive" approach -- some conservative groups appear to be exempt. It seems kind of hypocritical to say one has to embrace all lifestyles yet be subjectively exclusive in this manner.

We'll never have world "peace" but can we at least have world "agree to disagree and quit picking on each other"?? Think how much more free time we'll all have to watch TV...

:D

That's what I find odd about the liberal "you must accept all lifestyles and perspectives" so-called "inclusive" approach -- some conservative groups appear to be exempt. It seems kind of hypocritical to say one has to embrace all lifestyles yet be subjectively exclusive in this manner.

We'll never have world "peace" but can we at least have world "agree to disagree and quit picking on each other"?? Think how much more free time we'll all have to watch TV...

:D


I'm liberal, and I think your description of my liberal beliefs are silly.

I believe in TOLERANCE, not acceptance. Everyone's beliefs and actions must be tolerated and allowed. Actions which infringe on the rights of other people shouldn't, but the belief is still allowed.

That said, anyone is allowed to think or say whatever they want.


But I'm still allowed to make fun of them for it.

*Make note to use this as a topic for a disertation if I ever need to do one.
Just don't turn it in to me.

I'm liberal, and I think your description of my liberal beliefs are silly.

I believe in TOLERANCE, not acceptance. Everyone's beliefs and actions must be tolerated and allowed. Actions which infringe on the rights of other people shouldn't, but the belief is still allowed.

That said, anyone is allowed to think or say whatever they want.


But I'm still allowed to make fun of them for it.
Just add "and they can make fun of me too" and I think you'll have something there.

Just add "and they can make fun of me too" and I think you'll have something there.


Duh.

No, it just means that you are not sharing the good stuff with me :(

Ha!

Duh.
You would be surprised by how many people would not take that as a given.

I see this mainly from non religious people to religious people. Basicly those of us with a belief (and holding the morals surrounding that belief) are labeled as stupid for simpley holding those beliefs. Frankly it doesnt get you anywhere and is no good for debate. How can anyone promote and argue their viewpoint if you will just dismiss whatever they say as stupid. For example, calling God an imaginary freind, thereby dismissing several thousand years of study and discussion into the areas of theology and metaphysics. And calling the people who oppose abortion stupid, thereby simply cicumventing any right they have to have their voice heard. Calling someone stupid for holding a belief does not do debate any service.


I have repeatedly seen you applying specious reasoning and a deeply flawed understanding of various terms. That is what I've taken issue with. Please understand, when you use [poor reasoning A] to support [Concept B], its not really an attack on [Concept B] to point out [poor reasoning A].

There are Christians on this board that present their case in a far more sound and informed manner than you, and they are responded to accordingly.

So if I believe that the world was really a giant soccer ball, the sky was pink, and that you owed me $100, I'm not stupid?

No. It just means your ill informed.

No. It just means your ill informed.

Why? They are my beliefs. How does holding those beliefs make me ill-informed?

No. It just means your ill informed.
So what you're saying is, when you're in yet another God thread, you'd rather have people call you ill-informed than stupid? Put it in your signature--you'll probably get some people who respond to that. Personally, I tend to stay out of your threads, so you won't have to worry about me.

Why? They are my beliefs. How does holding those beliefs make me ill-informed?

Well if you have beliefs about things which can be subjectively proven that are contary to the evidence, you are just ill informed not stupid. For example, if I believed that England won the world cup in 2002, it could be because someone told me. Hence someone would just show me conclusive evidence to the contary. I wasnt stupid for believing that. Simply ill informed. On subject matters where there can be no debate as there is sufficent evidence to prove a side, if a person believes the contary it is useually because they are poorly informed. However most of the topics we discuss here (Science, theology, politics) are open to debate and interpretation.

Yes it does, stupid. How can you be so stupid? Oh right... you were stupid to begin with. :p
Does this qualify as flaming?
I hope not. It was very funny.
Maybe there'll be more. After all, it's only the SECOND post on this thread.


EDIT: Boy, howdy was there more.

So what you're saying is, when you're in yet another God thread, you'd rather have people call you ill-informed than stupid? Put it in your signature--you'll probably get some people who respond to that. Personally, I tend to stay out of your threads, so you won't have to worry about me.
Were you gnashing your teeth when you posted this, Nazz? ;)

Were you gnashing your teeth when you posted this, Nazz? ;)
Nah. Just pointing out the problem in his argument. Nothing personal in the post.

Those people may not help the debate, but they make laughing at them much easier. Someone just called another person stupid for a childish reason. I'm going to need to laugh right now. Lol.

There's an invisible unicorn behind you. You can't feel him, you can't smell him, you can't taste him, and there's no way you can prove he is or isn't there, but he is, and if you don't believe me you're stupid.
nomination....

and not the first one if memory serves

So what you're saying is, when you're in yet another God thread, you'd rather have people call you ill-informed than stupid? Put it in your signature--you'll probably get some people who respond to that. Personally, I tend to stay out of your threads, so you won't have to worry about me.

No, because unlike the beliefs he stated, the belief in God (or rather the logic of it) is debatable. It is possible to prove the world is not a giant football.

Why? They are my beliefs. How does holding those beliefs make me ill-informed?
The Earth is flat - no, shut up, it's flat.

That's what I find odd about the liberal
:D
Well the integrity of the post spirals downwards immediately following this otherwise innocuous introduction.
That's about the best i can give you without indulging the strong desire to ridicule you in the manner most befitting you.

I don't care what your belief system is, if you don't respect what they believe in, you're stupid and ignorant. Feel free to disagree, but to blantantly put down is foolish. Yes, for all you debaters, that would include radical ideology, and the inaccurate facts that spew out of Limbaugh's mouth.(not trying to troll here)

[/short rant]

No, because unlike the beliefs he stated, the belief in God (or rather the logic of it) is debatable. It is possible to prove the world is not a giant football.
No, it's possible to present VERY STRONG EVIDENCE that supports the idea that the planet isn't a giant football.
You personally (as well as i, personally) cannot actually prove it.
Apparently the only REAL argument for "God" is the fact that it is debatable - in the very obvious sense that no matter how many CENTURIES you argue about it you can't prove the actual existence of it, and people will disagree with you about using (as mentioned before) very specious and fallacious arguments to try and quantify your dogmatic delusions.
When i say "you're", of course, i speak generally ... apply personal experience where necessary & appropriate. *nods*

Good point. It is a way to dehumanize people because of what they believe.

I don't care what your belief system is, if you don't respect what they believe in, you're stupid and ignorant. Feel free to disagree, but to blantantly put down is foolish. Yes, for all you debaters, that would include radical ideology, and the inaccurate facts that spew out of Limbaugh's mouth.(not trying to troll here)

[/short rant]
Well, two things about the Limbaugh part ... one, people who are factually oriented don't/shouldn't even go NEAR Limbaugh's bilge for content ... and two, if they're inaccurate then they are by definition NOT facts.
Even though they ARE consistent with Limbaugh diatribe.

Well, i'm done ...

Personally, from just the people who earnestly reply to the stuff I say, i've never heard someone actually call me stupid yet. There was one guy who flamed me awhile ago for something silly and some guys who flamed me in some homosexuality thread, (It was really creepy) but they wern't really replying, from what I can remember, people who have taken the time to reply to me (And it takes alot of time I gotta admit, I really do give it everything I got in these sort of debates :/.) never actually insult me once, so they don't really seem to be that mean particularly to other people, and to tell you the truth, seem kind of nice.

I see this mainly from non religious people to religious people. Basicly those of us with a belief (and holding the morals surrounding that belief) are labeled as stupid for simpley holding those beliefs. Frankly it doesnt get you anywhere and is no good for debate. How can anyone promote and argue their viewpoint if you will just dismiss whatever they say as stupid. For example, calling God an imaginary freind, thereby dismissing several thousand years of study and discussion into the areas of theology and metaphysics. And calling the people who oppose abortion stupid, thereby simply cicumventing any right they have to have their voice heard. Calling someone stupid for holding a belief does not do debate any service.
Actually I have seen more athiests call religious people stupid than the other way around. Like the entire one time I've seen it.
But I have seen more religious people bad mouth and demean athiests more often than athiest to religious people. Of course most of those religious people tend to be those really out spoken @$$ hole christians that can't stand other religiouns (which is not all christians, most are not @$$es).

I see this mainly from non religious people to religious people. Basicly those of us with a belief (and holding the morals surrounding that belief) are labeled as stupid for simpley holding those beliefs. Frankly it doesnt get you anywhere and is no good for debate. How can anyone promote and argue their viewpoint if you will just dismiss whatever they say as stupid. For example, calling God an imaginary freind, thereby dismissing several thousand years of study and discussion into the areas of theology and metaphysics. And calling the people who oppose abortion stupid, thereby simply cicumventing any right they have to have their voice heard. Calling someone stupid for holding a belief does not do debate any service.
You need to learn to distinguish between somebody calling a BELIEF stupid, and somebody calling the BELIEVER stupid.

Smart people very often hold some extremely stupid beliefs. I happen to think that modern religions are profoundly stupid (as well as excruciatingly boring), but I know that many intelligent and interesting people choose to believe in these stupid ideas. Precious few of those believers seem able to understand the distinction.

Maybe this will help: I also think racism is stupid. I know some otherwise intelligent people who are racist, but the fact that the people are smart does not mean their beliefs are smart. They are non-stupid people who believe in something very stupid.

You need to learn to distinguish between somebody calling a BELIEF stupid, and somebody calling the BELIEVER stupid.

I see your point


Smart people very often hold some extremely stupid beliefs. I happen to think that modern religions are profoundly stupid (as well as excruciatingly boring), but I know that many intelligent and interesting people choose to believe in these stupid ideas. Precious few of those believers seem able to understand the distinction.

Would you be interested in a one on one debate regarding this?

Eutrusca, if I did mis interprete what you said, then I apologize.
Not a problem. I can be somewhat ... abstruse sometimes. ;)

Would you be interested in a one on one debate regarding this?
On what? Whether or not modern religious beliefs are stupid and boring? That's a discussion that probably won't go anywhere, to be honest. Debates on opinions usually don't. :)

On what? Whether or not modern religious beliefs are stupid and boring? That's a discussion that probably won't go anywhere, to be honest. Debates on opinions usually don't. :)

On whether the Christian faith does have logic to it and can be said to make sense.

I see this mainly from non religious people to religious people. Basicly those of us with a belief (and holding the morals surrounding that belief) are labeled as stupid for simpley holding those beliefs. Frankly it doesnt get you anywhere and is no good for debate. How can anyone promote and argue their viewpoint if you will just dismiss whatever they say as stupid. For example, calling God an imaginary freind, thereby dismissing several thousand years of study and discussion into the areas of theology and metaphysics. And calling the people who oppose abortion stupid, thereby simply cicumventing any right they have to have their voice heard. Calling someone stupid for holding a belief does not do debate any service.
Hint it was not your religion that caused some people to label you as such.

Getting your persecution complex into high gear will not help you understand that.

As for the ad-homonim attacks I agree they detract from discussion, but some are just tired of debating with people who appear incapable of understanding their point

There's an invisible unicorn behind you. You can't feel him, you can't smell him, you can't taste him, and there's no way you can prove he is or isn't there, but he is, and if you don't believe me you're stupid.

[Turns and waves to the unicorn]

So why's he following me? Is there an organisation that sends out unicorn stalkers?

(And while we're on the subject, it should be 'an unicorn', but doesn't 'a unicorn' sound much better?)

Well if you have beliefs about things which can be subjectively proven that are contary to the evidence, you are just ill informed not stupid. For example, if I believed that England won the world cup in 2002, it could be because someone told me. Hence someone would just show me conclusive evidence to the contary. I wasnt stupid for believing that. Simply ill informed. On subject matters where there can be no debate as there is sufficent evidence to prove a side, if a person believes the contary it is useually because they are poorly informed. However most of the topics we discuss here (Science, theology, politics) are open to debate and interpretation.

What if I showed you conclusive evidence to the contrary and you kept on believing that England won?

I see this mainly from non religious people to religious people. Basicly those of us with a belief (and holding the morals surrounding that belief) are labeled as stupid for simpley holding those beliefs. Frankly it doesnt get you anywhere and is no good for debate.
Actually, no. The "stupid" label is earned not by the fact of the belief, but by the pathetically low standard of debate. Few who take the side of religion in a debate, use the correct definition of theory - and that is stupid.

Well the integrity of the post spirals downwards immediately following this otherwise innocuous introduction.
That's about the best i can give you without indulging the strong desire to ridicule you in the manner most befitting you.

WTF?? It's called stating a personal opinion, dude. The word "liberal" is used to distinguish it from the perspective of "conservative". Don't throw stones when you live in a glass house you vapid underachiever.

Speaking of humor...how many liberals does it take to change a standard lightbulb?
"Because of the great diversity in shape, size, color and wattage, to employ just one type of lightbulb above the others would be discrimination; therefore, let us all hold hands in the dark and sing 'kumbaya'."

A poster in an abortion thread used the term "unsactioned sex act"

I posted that I found the term funny.

I find the term unsactioned sex act funny same way I find the term heretic, or blaspemous, or holy, or pure, or profane, or, sacreligous funny when used in proper context.

Would that be counted as calling the poster stupid cuase that is the way I intended it. I was suggesting the holding the belief that there is such a thing a sactioned sex is stupid but I think I did add something to the debate.

"Because of the great diversity in shape, size, color and wattage, to employ just one type of lightbulb above the others would be discrimination; therefore, let us all hold hands in the dark and sing 'kumbaya'."

As a liberal of the type discribed in the joke I am not offended.

What if I showed you conclusive evidence to the contrary and you kept on believing that England won?

Well since I personally watched the England game where we lost, I know it cant be true. But I see the point you are trying to make. If there is enough conclusive proof then I may belive it. If it was something that could be proved by conclusive evidence.

WTF?? It's called stating a personal opinion, dude.And is therefore as useful as your STUPID lightbulb joke.
The rest of your post is just as uninformed and, as you'd attempted to extrovert, vapid. You waste air both breathing and attempting to qualify the echoes of your vacuous cranial cavity.
Back to school, whelp.

I see this mainly from non religious people to religious people. Basicly those of us with a belief (and holding the morals surrounding that belief) are labeled as stupid for simpley holding those beliefs. Frankly it doesnt get you anywhere and is no good for debate. How can anyone promote and argue their viewpoint if you will just dismiss whatever they say as stupid. For example, calling God an imaginary freind, thereby dismissing several thousand years of study and discussion into the areas of theology and metaphysics. And calling the people who oppose abortion stupid, thereby simply cicumventing any right they have to have their voice heard. Calling someone stupid for holding a belief does not do debate any service.

In many instances I would agree with the general idea you're expressing here. On the other hand, there are several other situations where at some point you just have to call a spade a spade.

Creationists for example. (Not the "I believe God was involved in some nebulous manner in the creation of the universe" variety... the "modern biological science doesn't know what it's talking about and evolution is a LIE" variety). When you're dealing with a group of people who are the effective equivalent of flat earthers you're pretty much left with stupid, ignorant, dishonest, or some truly frightening combination thereof. In such cases I generally take at least some time to try to determine if I'm dealing with a case of ignorance, and if so whether it's honest or willfully self-imposed.

I will cut people in the "honestly ignorant" category slack so long as they show some inclination to attempt to adequately inform themselves on the subject matter.

As for the other categories, after nearly a decade of dealing with them in online forums such as this I have absolutely no motivation whatsoever to sugarcoat my evaluation of them just to spare their delicate feelings. As for it being detrimental to debate on the subject... there isn't one. There hasn't been for about a century, not that anyone even passingly informed on the subject matter except for a small lunatic fringe takes seriously. It's not my problem if certain people haven't received the memo.

This thread is so stupid. Arguing religion is so passé.

This thread is so stupid. Arguing religion is so passé.
Obviously, it's not too passe' here. :rolleyes: