Is it intolerant to believe all religions and their devotees are stupid?

It's a belief system right? Say a belief system states that the sky is green, I would have every right to say that believing the sky is green is stupid. If that belief system; however, has 8 million followers its not PC to say "no the sky is not green you farkin' moron." I know this isn't the perfect parallel, spirituality - the belief that there is a god or a universal spirit which we all share in - is understandable, but why is it only the secular who aren't free to say "your belief system is evil" or dangerous or simply not reflective of reality?

Brilliant minds have worked very hard to justify their religious beliefs and scholars pour over those writings today.

The Jesuits said, "Give me a child till the age of 8, and we will give you the man."

I've had cats who were litter-trained by their mothers who would, for all their lives, ONLY use the litter mother used.

and no one person is all knowing. i am a firm atheist however i can not pretend to know everything and i believe there is a margin of error for everything.

just be polite!

:-)

Just glad that - whatever you believe - you have a belief system.

:-)

But I respect the faith of people who are. If they try to explain things that are obviously in the physical domain (sky color) by referring to faith, I have a big problem with that. That's the same problem I have with creationism. However, if they are referring to ethics and belief in an Almighty (things that aren't amenable to physical analysis), I say, that's their faith and I respect it.

Before you start claiming that everything is amenable to physical analysis, I ask you to prove via a scientific method (or disprove) the following statement: "William Shakespeare was a great writer." There's no physical analysis of his words, the letters he used, the ink he wrote with, the paper he wrote on that will prove or disprove that hypothesis, but you'll get virtually unanimous agreement that it's correct.

is that there may be a God or a universal spirit. Anything beyond that is speculation and indoctrination. I just feel I should be able to call any and all religions superstions without fear of reprecussion. I should be able to call the Catholic church a historically oppressive and corrupt institution without being considered a bad person. I should be able to refer to Muhammed as a brigand without being called an islamaphobe. I should be able to call the anti-medical beliefs of Christian Science child-abuse and neglect. I don't want to hear about "my right to believe" and so and so, but I think I should be able to criticize those beliefs whether they are based in religion or not. The most obvious example is the conflagration of anti-zionism with anti-semitism. These are ideas and instutions folks, just as valid targets of criticism as the government or a political book.

Labelling religious beleif as "superstition" oversimplifies something that is a lot more complex. So does labelling all who "beleive" stupid. First of all, there are levels of understanding in any beleif system, whether religious or scientific. I know people with limited intellect, for example, who "beleive" in darwinian evolution and nuclear physics, but they really don't understand it. It might as well be superstition to them, because they are scientifically illiterate and have no real comprehension of what they think they know.

Same goes with religion. There is the cartoonish beleif in a grey-bearded God sitting on a cloud surrounded by angels and my old grandpa. On the same level are the Tim LaHaye readers who are waiting for Jesus to snatch them up in the air so they can enjoy a better view of the torture of all the evil bad people in their lives (these people aren't just stupid, of course, they are sick fucks, too).

Within Buddhism, a religion which many westerners feel is oh so elevated and enlightened compared to evil christianity, there is this literalist, stupid level of beleif, filled with stories of various demons and devils, requiring arcane and silly rituals and ceremonies.

To me, this form of beleif is "superstitious," it is beleif without understanding.

The thing to remember is, that 50% of the people on earth are below average in intelligence. Not everyone will ever truly "understand" general relativity, and not everyone can understand the complexities of higher theology. These people need their simplistic beleifs and I personally don't feel its morally acceptable to mock them or even to feel superior to them just because in the big lottery of birth you were blessed with more intelligence.

Now the other side of the coin is that there are more complex levels of religious belief. Most of those who don't believe tend to base their opinions about religion on the stupid and cartoonish level of religious understanding, and not on the higher levels of understanding. I think Buddhism gets a pass from so many who are otherwise anti-religion for this reason; Buddhism entered western culture via intellectuals, and the only form of Buddhism westerners encounter is the highest, most intellectual variety. People in the US and Europe simply haven't seen the Buddhism of the common, average, and below average Buddhist. Whereas, here in the US you are surrounded by many idiot christians, so you judge christianity by their christianity.

The fact is that at its higher levels, as studied in seminaries, catholic and mainstream protestant theology is very very far from stupid. It borders on organized agnosticism. It is very very well accepted that most of the bible consists of superstitions and stories. Nothing is taken literally. It is the most basic premise of every aspect of faith that God is unknowable and our beleifs are only symbols and metaphors, imperfect and not to be taken literally.

Here is a question for you, since you raise what is basically a moral question (is it "right") regarding people who are less intelligent. Its actually two questions. First, is it "right" (moral) for a larger, stronger person to use his or her greater physical strength to overpower, enslave, and exploit a smaller, weaker person? Second, is it "right" (moral) for a more intelligent person to use their greater intellectual ability to manoeuver a less intelligent person into the same relationship of subjegation and exploitation?

By which I mean to point out, since when is intelligence a virtue? I mean, intelligence is a wonderful thing, a blessing to those that have it, but since when is it a morally positive attribute, with the status of a "virtue," a good thing in and of itself? I think it should be considered in exactly the same way as physical strength, it is morally nuetral. "smarter" is not the same as "better," any more than "stronger" is the same as "better."

And that being my belief, of course I will say to you that it is not morally "right" to be "intolerant" of people based on their intellectual ability. And its equally wrong to assume people are stupid based on their profession of religious faith.

In the end, you are juxtaposing two different and distinct fields of human experience. Its like criticising Aesops fables because foxes don't talk. Of course foxes don't talk, a fable isn't natural history, its a literary device pointing to a truth which is not literal. Religious faith is similar in many ways. Its not the specifics of the stories, its the underlying truths they illustrate, that matters.

Wow. It really crystalized how I feel about religions. I really have noticed that people that there is advanced practice of religion (almost as philosophy and metaphor) and then the 'common' religion which involves a lot of superstition. You are just dead on!

you?

:D

But anyway to address your question: no, it's not intolerant, as long as you say "that's okay". It's your belief, see?

As opposed to the "You're a Christian, therefore you must be aligned with the BFEE" gibberish that you often get from some people.

Christian = right wing for some people and the truth is not like that at all.

between religion and creed as Jung uses the terms.
He defines creed as being any unthinking belief, a dogmatic belief.
Argues that creed is the real problem, not religion.

I know the argument is far-fetched but I'll use it just to illustrate:

What if the sky is actually colorless, but we see it blue?

I believe no one has the right of forcing onto another a belief system, but I also think we all should respect the beliefs of others, AS LONG AS THESE are not forced upon a whole nation, which the christian right is trying to do.

IMO the real issue is not about judging if a sect/cult has stupid beliefs but if it's physically or mentally harming their followers and if it's trying to force itself onto others.

An atheist is just as religious to me as a christian or what not

An atheist is just as religious to me as a christian or what not

Absence of faith is not itself a faith!

grr.

you make choices based on lack of faith as others make choices based on faith. I used the term religious in a loose sense. IN MY OPINION being atheist is having a belief system. BELIEF SYSTEM, not FAITH.

And I'm agnostic.

First, let me clarify: I, as an atheist, do not believe in any god. That is not the same as asserting that no god does or can exist. I do not have the complete knowledge of the universe which would be required to make that statement.

What choices do i, as an atheist, make that a theist wouldn't?

One obvious candidate is whether or not i go to church. I know plenty of theists who do not. And I actually do go to a church: a UU church. It's a social thing for me.

What other choices could i make that depend on whether or not i believe in a god? Moral choices? God is not required for morality.

And I still contend that lack of a belief system is not a belief system, just as 'colorless' is not a color.

When we don't say anything, we're just being polite.
Secretly we think they're nuts.

You lump together two things that should be separated. It is not OK for me to think that people are stupid because of what they believe (however, it is OK for me to think people are stupid if they do stupid things) because that is intolerant, which is not only wrong, but holds me back from a better understanding of my fellow humans. But as for a religion itself, no holds barred. Any system of thought should be held up to scrutiny, especially if it is used as a blueprint for how one lives one's life. As for your assertion that we secularists are not free to say "Your belief system is dangerous/evil," well, I say it and no one has arrested me yet. I've been yelled at, sure, but not stopped from speaking.

Otherwise, it's just your thoughts.

just the same as it's intolerant to believe that those who are secular are stupid

your analogy is not parallel because, while you can decide pretty definitively that the earth isn't flat or that the sky is not green, no one will ever be able to have definitive proof about faith.

personally, as an agnostic, i think it's just as bigoted to despise religion as it is for those who are religious to despise those who don't have it

I wouldn't begin to question anyone's faith, or lack thereof, as a measure of intelligence. It's apples and oranges.

And yes, I do think it's intolerant for anyone to do so.

I don't care if they believe or not - though I know there are some fundies that do - but that's a whole other story.

I would just like the same back as I give others. simple.

of all faiths and their adherents. But you are entitled to your opinion. The only way we have a problem in a pluraistic society is if you try to pass laws based upon your intolerance.

If you firmly believe that your child is the most beautiful child in the world, that's jake with me. Likewise if you believe that Norman Rockwell was the greatest painter who ever lived. Fine. Great. Whatever. If, on the other hand, you firmly believe that your religion is the only "true" one, and you insist that others convert to your way of thinking, going so far as to kill to convert, then I have a problem with that. We'd have far fewer problems and violence in the world today (and for the last, oh, 1500 years) if believers of one faith or another simply lived their lives as they see fit without trying to impose their beliefs on others. Or, as Woody Allen put it in "Hannah and Her Sisters": "If Jesus Christ came back and saw what was being done in his name, he'd never stop throwing up." I'm not singling out Christianity, by the way. The people who want to come to New York City now and kill me and my wife and our cats, just because we're here, aren' t Christian. Frankly, I'm sick of the whole fucking lot of them. Religious zealots live their lives based, in my opinion, on fairy tales and fables. Which is okay with me in theory, but not okay when they insist I do the same. Sorry for the rant, so much less articulate than what others have written here. But I have a heavy heart and a sinking feeling these days. And it ain't all Bush's fault.

I'm not certain how a broad generalisation about a group or subgroup of people could be anything else. Especially one based on such relatively unmeasurable things as opinion, belief and innate intelligence.

You have a right to your opinion and to express your opinion.

Even bigots and hate-mongers have a right to express their opinion which is guaranteed and protected by our constitution. What they don't have is the right to persecute or discriminate based on their opinions. You may think me stupid, but you don't have the right to deny me employment based on my Christianity. You don't have the right to do violence against me or to cause me harm, nor to incite others to do so in the name of your rationale.

I, in turn, do not have the right to persecute, discriminate against or do harm to Atheists.

It is worth noting that:

a) While freedom of speech guarantees that you may hold and express any opinion you like, you do not have the freedom from speech. If you get to call those of us with Faith idiots, we get to call Atheists godless poopyheads. Personally, I don't like hurling epithets at people and I chose not to make myself adversarial to groups that hold differing opinions.

b) While you may say anything you like, we're all free to judge you unkindly for having said it.

She said poopyhead...

Seriously, though, once again, SOteric says pretty much what I intended to say, but in a much nicer, more intelligent, and non-confrontational way. Even if she did use the word "poopyhead".

SOteric, I bow once again to your extraordinary communication skills...

belief structures are complex. there are times when we feel or know something without being able to explain How or Why. I feel energy from nature. There are plenty of people who would call me a quack, do i care, no. arrogance, simple arrogance.
there are no absolutes.

Shhhh!

Just like you have to let kids find out on their own that there is no Santa Claus. Telling them is mean.

Also rude, stupid & boring.

If you really wish to be free of religion--be free! Constant whining will cause your audience to wonder what childhood trauma you're reliving. And you audience will continue to shrink.

I never thought of that, when you define yourself by what you oppose, you make yourself a slave to that which you hate. How ironic!

Ever notice that the far right is entirely a party of opposition? They aren't actually FOR anything, its all reaction. They are against affirmative action, against welfare, against taxes, against big government, against activist judges, against homosexuals, against liberals, against atheists, against environmentalists. It gets tired.

What seems blazingly obvious to some is amazingly delusional to others. Its the nature of our brains. The way our brain comes to believe things is not always the same path for different people. Thus the vary foundations of how each sees the world can be drastically different.

It doesn't help matters that our society (and incidently many belief systems) rejects the idea of exchanging thoughts on the subject. Many religions reject even talking to someone that has a different idea. It perculates through the society. We each fall into our little niches and the distance between beliefs grows more every day.

Thus when two opposed belief systems collide they have no idea how to communicate in this particular subject. Our taboo on talking about religion has effectively killed any chance of people talking things through and getting anywhere productive.

We don't have to agree. But we should be talking about things. Otherwise we will each be sitting in our own little groups thinking how terrible it is that the other camps are so deluded.