Your perception of theists

[rado84]

That's the thing. Very often, the scepticism is there. All you have to do is wave around a different holy book and suddenly there's questions, demands for evidence, "standards"...

Just not for their own religion. That's how it goes.

Yes, which shows a lack of consistency in the application of their own standards, which shows them to be irrational, about that one thing at least.

If you know that a person is irrational about at least one thing, and that is all you know about the person, does that affect your opinion of the person?  Well, it should.

Their standards are double by default. Something is allowed for some but for others it's forbidden, starting with the Vatican.
Popes and priests can fuck each other every night but LGBT people can't because we're "unnatural".
Supposedly god created animals too and animals can be gay but humans can't.





That's called "double standard" in my world.

[robvalue]

Well yes, if someone accepts things on faith I will be suspicious that they will also succumb to similarly irrational thoughts. That doesn't necessarily mean I think less of them as a person though. That will depend on how they act regarding their religion. I'll take a pleasant, (partially) irrational person over a rational arse hole any day.

Some people just aren't that logical or rational, and if it's something they can't help, I wouldn't hold it against them. I get more annoyed by those I can see are quite capable of seeing the flaws in their own arguments yet they present them anyway.

[Pyrrho]

...
Supposedly god created animals too and animals can be gay but humans can't.
...

The idea that homosexuality is unnatural is idiotic.  As you rightly point out, there are animals that engage in such behavior.  It has been observed in a variety of animals.  In fact, it is quite common.  So it is obviously natural.

I think claiming that homosexuality is unnatural is normally just a bullshit attempt by religionists to pretend that their antigay bigotry is not simply an arbitrary religious rule.  They want it to somehow make sense in order to impose their religious views on others.

It means they are lying fascist assholes who have no regard for the truth.



Furthermore, even if it were unnatural, that would not mean that it must be bad.  It is unnatural to have a doctor set your leg if you break it.  It is unnatural to wear clothing or live in a house or apartment.  There are many unnatural things that people do, that are not generally regarded as bad, and are usually regarded as right and proper.

[Cephus]

When it comes to evaluating people's rationality, absolutely.  Believing in gods is not a rational act.  It's like asking if someone who believes in leprechauns is less rational than someone who does not.  Absolutely they are.

While agree that believing in gods is irrational it depends on how you define rational - For someone less educated, without scientific knowledge or perhaps in a deeply depressive life episode it may make sense to believe in god or some higher power. We don't really pick to believe or not, I would never be able to believe as much as I tried because I simply don't, and my brain doesn't want to.

Rational has a single definition: "based on or in accordance with reason or logic.".  Just because one is uneducated doesn't give them a pass when it comes to irrationality. They still are.  They might have an excuse because they don't know any better, that doesn't change reality.  People may not choose their beliefs, that doesn't make their beliefs any less irrational.

[ignoramus]

You've only provided enough data for me to conclude that theists have an illogical approach when it comes to approaching the idea of "God".

You sir, are genuinely hilarious!

[doomed]

I wouldn't say that I think less from them, just that I'd possibly have problems involving religion with them. I've met some theists that are actually very intelligent in my opinion.

[IATIA]

... theists have an illogical approach when it comes to approaching the idea of "God".

That is the picture. Welcome to the club. You ought to see them try to define a god, that is more ambiguous than their beliefs.

[Cephus]

I wouldn't say that I think less from them, just that I'd possibly have problems involving religion with them. I've met some theists that are actually very intelligent in my opinion.

Unfortunately, a lot of people seem to think that an individual is either wholly intelligent or wholly non-intelligent, they don't see that intelligence is a continuum that applies to different things differently.  You can get some really smart people who believe in some really stupid things, from conspiracy theories to alien abductions to gods. Just because they are intelligent in some things, that doesn't mean they are intelligent in all things.  Just because they are rational in some things, that doesn't mean they are rational in all things.  Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health, is an incredible brilliant man who goes entirely off the reservation when he says that finding a waterfall frozen into three parts proves there's a god.

[Mudhammam]

My initial thought is, "Oh boy, what bullshit have you convinced yourself of and what shoddy illogic have you used to arrive there?" but then I remember that it is possible to be an intelligent theist and make a few poor inferences that wind up inoculating a person within a self-contained system that appears entirely rational to them.

My final thought is usually, "Ironic! MY gut feeling also told me the truth!"

[Jackalope]

If you know that a person is irrational about at least one thing, and that is all you know about the person, does that affect your opinion of the person?  Well, it should.

How many people do you figure aren't irrational about at least one thing? You show me a person who thinks they're rational about everything, and I'll show you someone who is probably wrong.