Huh??
Expliquez, s’il vous plait.
This whole mess started because I posted in another thread that a large segment of Christians in America are gullible and gave examples:
Instead of acknowledging that there are a lot of clueless sheep in the churches but that there are also thoughtful intelligent Christians, with which I would have agreed, Yosemite Babe decided to turn this into a flame war.
Do you really expect me to believe that the intelligent Christian Dopers are representative of the average churchgoer? That nobody is buying the Left Behind series? That nobody supports the Religious Right? Please.
gobear, I’m on record at considerable length, on this board and at the Pizza Parlor, with my opinion of the critical thinking skills of many of my co-religionists. So I think your claim of my dishonesty on this point is unwarranted and out of line.
My problem with your post in the original thread (which I haven’t yet seen a retraction of) is your statement that Christians are all inherently gullible, as a consequence of believing in “an invisible man in the sky who likes them to sing to Him on Sundays.”
You are of course free to believe whatever you want about other people’s beliefs, but if you’re going to offer it up as fact on a message board dedicated to fighting ignorance, I’d highly recommend you do a tad more research first. And ditto with respect to your alleged direct consequences of those beliefs.
And once again, you are a poor, misunderstood victim. Of course! It’s all my fault! Because after all, none of your own statements prompted the responses you are getting!
And while I am irritated and annoyed with you, have I been as insulting to you as you have been to me? I certainly do not think so.
If I were the only one who disagreed with you on this thread, then that would be one thing. But am I? It does not appear so.
If you’re admitting my point that a large number of Christians lack critical thinking skills, then I apologize for suggesting that you were being dishonest.
People who believe in invisible spirits, angels, devils and the like, are ipso facto gullible, or credulous if you prefer. That’s not presented as a fact, but as my opinion. As one of your boys once said, “Hier Ich stehe, Ich kann nicht anders.”
What evidence do you have for belief in God other than taking someone else’s word for it? Is that not the definition of gullibility? What is the difference between faith in Jesus and faith in John Edward?
t-keela said, “As long as the answers provided console them and benefit humanity…what’s your beef?”
Christian belief frequently DOESN’T benefit humanity. Only the parts of humanity they like. The homosexuals of the world are out. The athiests are out. Sometimes, even people who like to dance are out.
Then she said, “fear of God” is the only thing that keeps some people in check."
But “fear” of god isn’t necessary for most people to behave in a civil manner toward each other.
I don’t think it is disrespectful to disagree with the core beliefs of any religion. The magical aspect of it is simply unbelievable and I have difficulty understanding how an otherwise analytical person would not apply that system of analysis to this part of his or her life.
I am, because I’ve frequently made the same point.
Apology accepted.
Whoa, gobear, you really need to learn a bit about what you’re criticizing. It’s been over 32 years since I’ve taken anyone else’s word on the existence of God. I don’t believe in God because of anything I was told; I believe in God because I believe I regularly experience Him.
This is what it means to be a “born-again Christian.”
(btw, that’s Jonathan Edwards, not John Edward; at least, that’s who I assume you’re referring to. And I can’t read German. A little help?)
Nope, I meant John Edward, the cold reader on “Crossing Over,” not the fiery 17c minister who wrote “Sinner in the Hands of an Angry God.”
The German was from Martin Luther’s response to Charles V’s demand for a recantation of his beliefs at the Diet of Worms in 1521, “Here I stand, I can do nothing else.”
How do you know you are experiencing God and not an internal ecstatic state?
DING DING DING! We have a winner!
I live in Salem, Massachusetts… one of the New Age Meccas (of the East Coast anyway). Our city’s economy is fueled in part by turistas frequenting “ye olde magick shoppes”. If we had a dollar for every Willow-wannabe who… oh, never mind, we do 
Who knew so much psychic energy was contained in China (cause that’s from where most of the dreck in these shops hails).
Is it indicative of a higher level of critical thinking if someone thinks a jeezly rock or candle or seasoning mix has the ability to align their consciousness with some Greater Power? Is there a difference between giving money to Miss Cleo or Creflo Dollar?
Atheists also support causes that support their belief systems. Does this make them gullible? Madelyn Murray O’Hair took in a lot of money over the years, and embezzled millions.
How many members of the tin-foil hat brigade think the Supreme Being is an alien? Wouldn’t that be a form of atheism?
People will latch onto whatever belief system meets their psychological needs. Monotheism, polytheism, atheism, animism, consumerism, whatever. There is no essential difference!
-Rav
“You’ve got to work it out for yourselves!”
-Graham Chapman
No, atheism supposes that there is no Supreme Being**.
gobear -
I will assume you are aware that Madlyn Murray O’Hair was apparently murdered by someone she accepted into her home, and hired as a handy man.
So the most prominent atheist in America died, because she was gullible enough to be cozened into accepting a murderer into her home.
The Lysenko example has already been cited on this messageboard.
Now - what was that you were saying about how Christians are the only ones who were harmed by their gullibility?
Regards,
Shodan
Can’t say I’ve heard of him, so I can’t be taking his word on much of anything.
Other than the reality that ecstatic states in my prayer life are far more the exception than the rule:
Of course we Christians could be deluding ourselves. Can I prove that I’m not? Of course not. I can’t even prove that other people really exist, and aren’t creations of my own twisted imagination. So if I can’t even prove it to myself, I sure can’t prove it to you. Hell, I can’t even prove to someone else that I’ve got a headache.
The point is, whether I’m deluding myself or not, I’m not taking anyone else’s word on the existence of God, as you seemed to think.
Anyway, since it is merely your opinion that people who believe in a God are ipso facto gullible, I won’t bother to argue against it. I’ll just say that your opinion’s based on demonstrably inaccurate ideas about the very thing you’re opining on, based on no respectable evidence, and fundamentally based on your faith that you’re right with respect to the question of existence/nonexistence of God, which speaks to a certain fundamental closemindedness on your part.
FWIW, I’ve got lots of opinions, but I rarely throw them out as assertions here.
Fine, if it bothers you guys that much, I’ll retract the attribution of gullibility.
[sub]Eppur si muove[/sub]
Howdy. I’m in Lynn! 
I was thinking of that stuff too when I posted but couldn’t think of a handle for it…maybe “New Agers.” (?)
Ahhh! An example of gullibility! Galileo never said that and the church never said that the earth stood still. It is simply an example of pre-20th century anti-church propaganda, (in this case from a certain Abbè Irailh 120 years after Galileo’s death).
Ahhh! An example of gullibility! Galileo never said that and the church never said that the earth stood still. It is simply an example of pre-20th century anti-church propaganda, (in this case from a certain Abbè Irailh 120 years after Galileo’s death).
In the thread Why DON’T you believe in a God?, I posted the following:
That’s why, even though I am firmly an atheist, I am not an evangelical atheist.
I think all o’ y’all need to take a deep breath.
I’m with Cervaise. Everybody breathe.
I read gobear’s original point in the thread it originated in, and it didn’t bother me. I was trying to figure out why. After reading through this entire thread, I think I know.
It doesn’t bother me because he’s right. Now, before anyone jumps down my neck, please read on.
Here’s what gobear said:
I’m going to change one word. I’m not trying to misrepresent gobear’s position. This change better reflects my own feelings on the matter:
I’m defining “large segment” here essentially as “greater than half.” And I’m saying that a large segment of the largest possible set of humanity (everybody) is astonishingly gullible and willing to believe anything they are told, as long as its told convincingly (and sometimes not even that).
Now, gobear’s statement is true because if you look at just about any decently-sized subset of humanity, the same rule applies. A large segment of straight people are gullible, a large segment of homosexuals are gullible, a large segment of Christians are gullible, a large segment of atheists are gullible… the list goes on. I belong to two of the groups above, but I’m offended by none of these statements. Because the way I look at it, they’re all true.
However, the rule itself means that there are exceptions to this general rule, often significant ones. So, when gobear sticks to his guns but says that Libertarian, Polycarp, beagledave, and others are intelligent, well-informed folks, I don’t see any conflict. And more, I agree with him. Those people are exceptions to the general rule… many more exist, and they come in all colors.
Here’s the thing: some people say some pretty stupid things, and hold some pretty ill-informed opinions. These people represent a significant (“large”) segment of humanity. Any way you slice that particular pie, you’re going to get a lot of gullible people in with the more cautious ones.
This may not be exactly what gobear is saying, but it’s why I don’t have a problem with what he’s saying. I try not to single out specific groups for being more gullible than others, but I do think there are an awful lot of gullible people out there in general.
And for what it’s worth, my little theory comes with the knowledge that I myself may well belong to that large segment of folks… but I like to think that I don’t.
So, does anyone disagree? Are we done yet?
Avalonian -
Nicely done. You should work at the UN.
Thanks…
On second thought, given the treatment of the U.N. here at the SDMB, I’m not sure whether to take that as a compliment or an insult!