• TooSoon
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    That requires at least a mediocre amount of critical thinking skills and those are taboo in religious organizations, so doubt it.

      • VoxAdActa@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Can we please move beyond this 2010 New Atheism view that every religious leader/person is stupid and unable to critically think?

        Why? They clearly choose not to apply that ability to a big part of their lives. In this specific case under discussion, their entire career requires not applying any critical thinking. Their paycheck depends on their ability to convince other people of things that are not and can never be supported by any actual evidence.

        It’s the reason that crowd is so susceptible, as a trend, to con men, malicious misinformation, and developing entire belief systems off a Facebook meme that pairs one politician’s face with a fake quote or a quote from a totally different politician. They’re trained, often from birth, that evidence is not necessary in the process of deciding what you want to believe; in fact, that evidence is often the bad guy (in that it opposes “faith”).

        So, no. We’ll drop the characterization if and only if it stops being relevant to our day-to-day lives in America. It’s not the atheists who are saying they think I should get the death penalty (DeSantis’s preacher), that I should be shot in the back of the head (Texas Baptist Church), that God should kill me slowly (Pure Words Baptist Church), and that I should be hunted with dogs (governor of SC).

          • VoxAdActa@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            you honestly believe EVERY SINGLE RELIGIOUS PERSON EVER has no critical thinking skills?

            I honestly believe the ones that matter certainly don’t. The ones who are paying the church’s bills and showing up to their pep rallies every week are very clearly not spending any time thinking about it.

            The LGBTQIA+ pastors that started a socialist christian church in Kentucky?

            Who? Let me know when they start affecting actual government policy, or even just going on TV and saying “We condemn those other Christians who say gay people should be shot in the back of the head.” That’s what we’ve been demanding from Muslims since 2001, why are you special?

            MLK? Malcom X? Johann Bernoulli, Blaise Pascal, and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz,

            Blah blah blah, fallacious appeal to authority, blah blah blah. Name-dropping is not “critical thinking”, and you really shouldn’t have included a literal, straight-up alchemist in that list if you were trying to use it to make a point.

            all of whom are some of the most important mathematicians in history and were religious, all couldn’t think for themselves?

            MLK and Malcom X were mathematicians? TIL.

            Immanuel Kant, famous influential philosopher, no critical thinking.

            So what I’m hearing you say here is: “If smart people believe in magic sky fairy, magic sky fairy must be logical to believe in,” which is about the level of discourse I’d expect from someone unfamiliar with the concept of critical thinking. Thanks for being an object lesson.

            • Gaywallet (they/it)@beehaw.org
              shield
              M
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              Please disengage, this is simply not productive. I understand you may have been tangibly hurt by religious folks who have persecuted you or your loved ones. I have suffered real harm from this as well. But making sweeping statements about broad categories of people is generally not a great take and being confrontational with a moderator asking for some civility in a thread and appealing to humanity is not a good look.

                • Gaywallet (they/it)@beehaw.orgM
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  The top level comment from the mod was not aggressive or accusatory. They escalated.

                  Ultimately it doesn’t matter who’s in the wrong, it’s time for everyone to disengage. This is not productive.

                  • Azure@beehaw.org
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    9
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    You don’t see an issue with a MOD starting with

                    Can we please move beyond this 2010 New Atheism view

                    That’s really not something a mod should say and pretty much dismissing an opinion without even engaging it. I guess atheists are just ok to dismiss and deny an opinion?

                  • VoxAdActa@beehaw.org
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    5
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I apologize for being a little annoyed right now. I feel like I’m being moderated for defending myself against their escalation.

                    The top level comment from the mod was not aggressive or accusatory.

                    My response to that top level comment was measured and nuanced, with specific examples of real events and an analysis of the mindset behind those events.

                    Their reply to me included all caps, excessive punctuation, extremely bad-faith arguments (the actual religious views of every single one of the names they dropped are incredibly complicated, not just “was Christian”; again, one member of that esteemed list literally believed he could turn lead into gold with magic), and that’s assuming calling the question of critical thinking outdated and childish (“2010 New Atheist”) is not an aggressive escalation.

                    Furthermore, you told me to disengage, and then the mod continued to engage. I’d appreciate it if they received a similar request, because right now it feels like you’re holding my arms behind my back while they get to keep punching me.

            • violetsareblue@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              You know, it’s fine to dislike religious people and believe different things. But you’re acting pretty intolerant here. Insulting others beliefs and intelligence isn’t cool just cause you disagree with it.

              “Level of discourse…from someone unfamiliar with the concept of critical thinking.” “Magical sky faerie” “fallacious appeal to authority”. You sound like a pseudo-intellectual who gets off on putting down others and you found a population that you feel you’re allowed to do this to.

              Reported your comment as well. You don’t have to be nasty just cause you dislike someone’s perspective on life. And don’t hit me with “well they hate xyz people”. I know you know not all religious folks share the same view - or I’d at least hope so.

            • SlamDrag@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              So what I’m hearing you say here is: “If smart people believe in magic sky fairy, magic sky fairy must be logical to believe in,” which is about the level of discourse I’d expect from someone unfamiliar with the concept of critical thinking. Thanks for being an object lesson.

              This is such a bad reading of the comment that I can only imagine you’re acting in bad faith. You have made the assumption that reason will inevitably lead people to the same conclusions about the world, but that is not true, and that is what the OP is bringing up. How is it that many people, when presented with the same sets of facts, and using the same reasonable principles, can come to differing conclusions? This question should keep you up at night, but instead it seems you’re only interested in saying “those other people are dumb, I am smart.”

              • VoxAdActa@beehaw.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                This question should keep you up at night

                I’m sorry. The question that keeps me up at night is “How are people able to just decide to believe something with no (or less than no) practical evidence?”. Just because a lot of people have managed it, even people who are very evidence-based in every other part of their life, doesn’t mean I can just do it. I’d literally have to think less about the implications of such a thing on the everyday world. I’d have to stop asking questions (like: “Does God help anyone? If so, how does he choose? If not, why pray?”, and no, “we just can’t understand him” is not an answer I can just choose to believe because I like it).

                So yeah, this is obviously a “me” problem, since everyone else on this instance seems to intuitively grasp the idea that one can actually come to a valid, reality-based conclusion that God exists and I’m the “2010 New Atheist” for not being able to get on board.

          • Azure@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I think 75% of the population literally try not to have critical thinking in one major aspect of their life that literally says don’t think, have faith.

            It’s a part of religion to not think, to follow and obey. It’s sweet you want to defend them in other avenues, but cognitive dissonance is also causing a lot of sorrow and pain while religious people on majority are standing back and following their leaders, even the progressive ones, aren’t willing to progress fast enough. They’re still following something that’s usually mostly historically been oppressive and regressive to maintain power over the masses.

        • davehtaylor@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          The issue is the framing of “organized religion” when what you really mean is “Christianity”. This has been the problem with new atheism for a long time: take valid criticisms of Christianity, along with the trauma and experiences in Christian churches, and then try to paint all religion with that same brush. And you can’t do that.

          You’re angry at Christianity and its hegemony in American life. I get it and I share many of those fears and frustrations. You mentioned things happening in FL. I’m in FL, and as a queer person it’s fucking terrifying here. But the momentum behind that push isn’t coming from synagogues or mosques, or from Hindus or Buddhists or Taoists. It’s an explicit white Christian supremacist movement.

          Christianity’s dogma, style of worship, mindsets, etc don’t map to other faiths. And even inside of Christianity there’s people who are trying to push back. But saying that things like this are characteristic of all religions shows a complete lack of understanding of faiths outside of Christianity.

      • WaterChi@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Probably not. Atheistic fundamentalists are still fundamentalists. Their thinking is just as flawed

      • Azure@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I mean. They’re doubling down on stupid i think it’s fair to call them out on it. In order to follow most organized religion, you are taught to kill critical thinking and have faith. It’s literally a part of the whole thing

        • violetsareblue@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          You’re in a thread that literally is about churches not going along with homophobic takes. People keep saying “religious people should stand up against the bigots” and because they are in the example, you have bigots splitting off. And then turn around and insult the intelligence of said religious people still.

          Who really is the person showing a lack of critical thinking skills? I’d argue the one whose take lacks any nuance.

          • Azure@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s about one small group. And one that couldn’t stop being taken over by assholes and has a schism because the more conversative left.

            Among those who say they were raised exclusively by Protestants, roughly eight-in-ten now identify with Protestantism, including 80% of those raised by two Protestant parents and 75% of those raised by a single parent who was Protestant. Most who were raised exclusively by Protestants but who no longer identify as such are now religious “nones,” with smaller numbers now identifying with Catholicism or other religions.

            I have done a lot of research and could have a nuanced discussion. I don’t think claiming people who have negative options are “2010 Atheists” is the bit of a bigot in this case. I think religion has enough people carrying water who were just raised in it and don’t think critically.

      • Stoneykins@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Not all religious people are unable to think critically, but all religious people are able and willing to think uncritically, that is what “faith” is.