That we may be too polite to call this other belief absurd doesn’t mean that it isn’t absurd. The amount that adherents of a religion try to spread it makes it more or less annoying, but has no impact on whether it is ridiculous or not. No cargo cultist has ever come to my door, after all.
Perhaps it is best approaching the question from the other direction- not what sort of religion is ‘crazy’. but what ‘crazy’ is in itself.
Psychiatric definitions of a delusion are something along the lines of a fixed false belief that is not open to any contradictory argument. That then has a rider which says: except when normative for the society that the person comes from!
Slightly circular but eminently practical.
And you Genesis was intended as a parable how? Remember, that the world was created in a week had a very direct influence on how people lived and how and when they celebrated the Sabbath. Your premises seem to be:
- We know the universe was not created in 6 days.
- We know God inspired the Bible, and wouldn’t give false information
which leads to your conclusion that the story was a parable. However, if premise 2 is not correct, you cannot conclude this. Since they did not know how the universe was actually created, why do you think the author of Genesis couldn’t have been telling the story he thought was true?
Science never claims to have the truth, fully incorporates the principle that any experiment can be botched, and that every scientist is human. Self-correction is built into the system, and those who overturn what is accepted (with adequate evidence) are acclaimed as heroes.
Religion claims inspiration from an all-knowing source. If this were actually true, self-correction would not be necessary. In fact, self correction happens when religion falls behind the moral development of secular society. The more power religion has, the harder this is to do. In the middle ages, those attempting self-correction got burned if they weren’t lucky. Today they would be told to shut up or excommunicated, since secular society puts limits on what the church is allowed to do to control its members.
In short, science rewards skepticism, while religion rewards faith.
The cut off point has always been, and will always be, the amount of people believing the same thing
No matter how ridiculous, if a lot of people believe it, people will see it less insane.
The only real difference in craziness between Christianity and Scientology is the length of it’s history and the amount of believers
Except for the little detail that science produces tangible results that prove it works. We are communicating by computer, not prayer; anyone who wants proof that science as a whole is valid just has to look around. And as pointed out science examines itself and corrects its errors; religion only does so when forced by external forces. You are confusing earned, evidence based trust with unearned, evidence free faith.
And only one of them practices ritualized cannibalism.
Well, there are the two separate versions of the creation story in Genesis, for one.
And who says God wouldn’t give false information?* Even if you choose to take the bible as literally true, the story of Abraham & Issac demonstrates that the God described is perfectly willing to give false information to serve some goal that is not necessarily immediately apparent. If you don’t take the bible as literally true, then nothing* says the authors couldn’t add their own beliefs & prejudices into it.
Many people do so, however, and ascribe it to science. I’ve repeatedly seen the claim that science has “proved god cannot exist” on these boards…no actual evidence ever provided, of course.
Do some research, maybe? There was no shortage of theological growth or doctrinal changes in the middle ages. Was it bloodless? No. But so very little of human history is.
*Except evangelistic atheists of course, who frequently have remarkably exact definitions of the abilities, properties, and requirements of something they don’t believe in.
Beware of hyperbole. Science has disproven various specific creation myths and various other claims, but it does not disprove noninterventionist gods themselves. Logic (coupled those definitions you mention) disproves certain subsets of possible gods, but not all of them either.
Usually when an atheist says that God has been disproven, he’s speaking of a specific conception of God that falls afoul of one or both of the above types of disproofs.
All such definitions come straight from the theists, of course, when the theists use the words to describe their gods.
Yes, there are two stories of the Creation, written by two authors. The editor clearly chose to include them both, no doubt because each was known to part of his audience. I have no idea if the editor believed it or not.
I don’t know your opinion about the utility of the Bible, but if you think God could be lying, it is a rather untrustworthy document. Maybe he wants us to covet our neighbor’s wife. I accept that most people around here at least don’t consider the Bible to be literally true. The problem is, none of them have ever given me an algorithm or criteria which lets them decide what is true or what is not, except based on their pre-existing beliefs. The gay rights advocate tosses out the prohibitions and focuses on the god loves everyone bit. The gay rights opponent says god loves everyone, but not so much as to let someone find happiness their way. I can draw my own conclusions based on ethical principles without pretending the ruler of the universe is involved - and it comes out the same way.
Pretty much universally in the way you just did - by ascribing something to atheists none of us actually support. Science has removed the need for god. Some versions of God can be proved to not exist, but that is through logic and inherent contradictory properties, not through science.
I was referring to the kind of revolution created by Einstein - or Martin Luther. Which also helps to illustrate the difference. All real scientists are behind Einstein, since his hypotheses can be and were proven. The split Luther initiated continues to this day, since there is no way of telling if he was right or the Pope was right.