Exactly. And stupid people can have smart beliefs.
I’ll bite.
If you define “stupid” as “applies patently fallacious reasoning,” and “religion” as “faith in that which is not motivated by sound logic, scientific evidence, or parsimony,” then yes, I would certainly say that “anyone who is religious is stupid.”
As an example, in this thread I have debunked (1,2) magellan01’s thesis as patently fallacious. He has not responded.
Blind faith is stupid, period.
By its very nature you cannot examine it to see if you should believe-you just do. Thus blind faith in a deity is exactly equal to blind faith that if you jump off a cliff a sudden gust of wind will safely and gently carry you down.
Okay, **iamnotbatman **has provided a qualified answer.
Perhaps the rest of you don’t understand formal logic. (Although I’m guessing you do.)
Let’s start with this from Law of excluded middle:
Do you accept the Law of excluded middle?
Do you understand the fallacy of composition?
This is a perfect example of the depths someone defending religion has to descend in order to deflect attention away from their lack of substantive arguments.
By the way, are you saying that everyone who does a stupid action is stupid? Aren’t you leaving out the option that someone may be smart but doing something stupid?
What is that fallacy called again… 
Yes. Please explain how it applies to a question.
Here is the question: Is the statement “Anyone who believes in any religion is stupid” true or false?
I had cut you guys some slack by allowing a qualified answer to the question, but I retract that condition.
And, I’ll excuse myself from this thread.
This is quite an interesting clique you got here. You defend each other, with rarely a negative word to those who conform.
I’ll leave with a suggestion for a GD thread: What is the most effective way of arguing against theism?
You can address how effective your current methods are, and explore the effectiveness of various alternatives. Your conclusions will be based on evidence-backed, statistically validated, peer-reviewed research based on a falsfiable hypothesis.
Of course, that’s assuming that debating against theism should be effective.
Thanks for the entertainment.
Then you leave apparently having learnt nothing.
Why worry how effective my arguments are against theism? it is for the proponents of theism to argue* for* it.
Then we can talk. Until evidence is presented we don’t need to give it any thought at all.
I thought you might have grasped that at least after 600+ posts.
I already told you upthread. A generally smart person can nevertheless hold a stupid belief. So the question “Is anyone who believes in religion stupid?” is leveraging the fallacy of composition. If I answer “yes”, then you respond by pointing to someone who is religious but clearly not stupid – Thomas Aquinas, for example. If I answer “no”, then you say “Aha … so then we’re in agreement that it’s not stupid to believe in religion!” Either way you win the point.
But those of us who have argued this sort of thing a lot spotted the trap you were laying and pointed out that the question itself is misleading. It conflates “holding a stupid belief” with “being a stupid person”, i.e. the fallacy of composition.
See?
Is it even theoretically possible for there to be evidence of supernatural entities? For example, if someone were to produce ironclad evidence that ghosts exist then wouldn’t that in and of itself show that ghosts are natural phenomena?
In other words: AFAICT, it is impossible for anything supernatural to exist because if it existed it would be natural.
First of all, Lobohan didn’t make such a wildly sweeping statement as that. He or she mentioned acts of stupidity–not unqualified, overall stupidity.
Secondly, I will play the little game and answer your question. One could easily posit a religion which had only one simple tenet, such as: “Be kind to others if you possibly can”, or maybe, “2 + 2=4”.
I don’t think any rational person would say that I am a stupid person because I “believe” in such a religion. Therefore I will say the answer to your question is false.
Of course, that is neither here nor there because, IMO, you only posed the question (and rather crudely and transparently so) to try to trap Lobohan into some sort of intellectual cul-de-sac.
Wrong.
An informed theist is an atheist as it relates to any flavor of God not his own.
He simply doesn’t believe they exist.
You don’t get it do you? Not knocking on the door is a form of prosletyzing.
Religious practice is a way to keep you thinking about god and religion more. To make it a continuing part of your life. Since atheists have no religious practice, they spend no time at all thinking about the subject .
That is what theists don’t get. Atheists spend almost zero time thinking about god and religion. The idea does not exist.
If it weren’t for Dope threads, most atheists would not discuss it or think about it at all.
What if I ding and ditch? What then?
This.
My wife and I are both atheists. We talk about LOTS of things – art, culture, philosophy, mythology, the book she’s writing, the book I just wrote – but we never talk about theology. What’s there to say?
“Still think it’s a lot of crap?”
“Yup.”
Religion is absent from my life the way cricket is absent from my life. I’m aware that somewhere a lot of people are very interested in it, but I don’t spend any time at all thinking about not being a cricket fan. If a particularly aggressive cricket fan tries to get me to justify my disinterest in cricket, I may oblige. But if cricket completely vanished tomorrow it wouldn’t change things for me in the slightest.
BURN THE HERETIC!!! 
I wonder if sexuality is a good analogy?
Somebody might be really attracted to her husband, but also attracted to a lot of other folks. Pantheist, that one.
Her friend is attracted to her own husband, and not to other people. Monotheist.
Her friend is attracted to women, not to men. That’s my sort of atheist, who has that sexual attraction thing going on, but in a different way. (I have beliefs, but they have a different foundation from a theist’s).
Her friend has no sexual feelings at all. That’s a Czarcasm atheist, who doesn’t have any sexuality/belief system.
How does that work?
Without belief in the existence God or gods is so simple, there’s no need for analogies. Only theists with agendas have a problem with it. Bringing up “even atheists have beliefs about things” is a non sequitur also stated for an agenda.
Well, if you’re German, you have an argument about the relationship between “things” and “you”.