‘Done got my ass whupped!’

Jason, I think I made if fairly clear that I believe that one can have what I consider an idiotic or irrational belief without being an idiotic or irrational person generally. In fact, it was my first point. I know that I could probably talk to a person who believes in the creation about many subjects; the economy, world affairs, sports or even some limited aspects of science that don’t require an old earth and evolution (like computing). But that doesn’t change the fact that belief in the creation is ridiculous, irrational and idiotic. Maybe it’s not the most gentle way to put it true. If you wish I can change it to “patently, categorically, demonstrably false”.

Just because one believes a story that has it’s basis in religion it deserves no less critical analysis than any other story. An adult who believes in unicorns would be laughed at. The only real difference between denying evolution and affirming unicorns is that with the unicorns what we have is a total lack of evidence of their existence, whereas with the creation 10.000 years ago story we have mountains of active, mutually exclusive evidence that proves it to be utter hogwash. I can certainly attempt to be patient with the individual who believes in creation, since it’s not really their fault, they were most likely taught it before they were old enough to question, but there is a point beyond which a belief does NOT warrant my respect. I don’t believe women are property that belong to men and that the punishment of mens crimes can be paid by the woman. I will not respect this view and have no problem calling it idiotic and it is a hell of a lot more subjective than evolution.

Who was referring to all religious people? Many religious people do recognize the scientific basis for believing that evolution is the best explanation for how we came to be what we are and that evolution is a scientific fact. Those religious people who reject anything but Biblical literalism are in fact by definition being irrational.

So are psychosis, paranoia, and schizophrenia. But these inner effects affect the outer life.

And none are immune from scientific inquiry.

Are they, Jason?

My comment (9?) states my view pretty well.
Spiritual experience is a ‘real’ part of life, but it can not be arrived at by the deductive process of reason. You can only surmise it by its affect on the inner life. To believe in the Holy Spirit requires a leap of blind faith.
Science, and the physical side of life, can be disucssed by the use of reaon. So, if you reject scientific findings out of hand, you are jrejecting the reasoning process that entails.

As I said, life of the spirit, or faith, and life of the physical world (reason) are not mutually exclusive. To exclude either one is to take a shortcut to conclusions.
The post addressed only evolution, not the entirety of the human experience. My first comment stayed wtihin the confines of the post.

Show me an accusation. I asked questions. This is called paranoia.

What would you call a belief in an immaterial, all-powerful being BUT, ‘a fundamental derangement of the mind’?

So, again, please answer, ‘Are you as outraged when people label alien abductees as loons? Or is it just YOUR [or some, if you will] irrational beliefs that are a cause for outrage?’

Even though I am not myself religious, I do think it is outrageous to refer to all religious believers as having a “fundamental derangement of mind” or having a mental illness comparable to schizophrenia. I believe this is outrageous in the same way that I believe racial prejudice is outrageous even though I am not black.

I am not religious nor am I a Republican. I therefore have no response to make to your accusations.

Wanna defend that claim?

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=psychosis

Main Entry: psy·cho·sis
Pronunciation: sI-’kO-s&s
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural psy·cho·ses /-”sEz/
Etymology: New Latin
: fundamental derangement of the mind (as in schizophrenia) characterized by defective or lost contact with reality especially as evidenced by delusions, hallucinations, and disorganized speech and behavior

How does that not describe religion or a belief in supernatural beings?

Are you as outraged when people label alien abductees as loons? Or is it just YOUR irrational beliefs that are a cause for outrage?

This does not strike me as the same as saying “I disagree”. “I disagree” leaves room for legitimacy on both sides, a difference of opinion that is principled. “Idiotic” seems to me to leave no such room, as the other person stands condemned as not merely wrong, but also mentally deficient.

If I’m misconstruing the meaning of your comment, I’d be interested to hear how, because it seemed very clear-cut.

To avoid being misundersstood, it would help if you made clear to whose comment or to which comment you are objecting. What seems the most likely case, in following your posts, is that you lump together all comments and commenters who dare to defy your opinions.

What results is confusion and an impossiblity to follow the discussion in a meningful way.

Jason Steck said,

No, Steve, that wasn’t “all” you said.

Jason,

To quote another post on this board, “I am really sick of you misrepresenting my position and mis-representing them as something that is either absurd or monstrous.”

I know it’s not subtle but I’m learning from a pro.

cosmoetica said,

Also, wit is sorely missing in most exchanges.

cosmoetica,

Does nitwit count? There’s plenty of that here… myself included.

All SteveK said was, “It’s probably a good idea to consider the source before jumping to any conclusions.”… Do you have a problem with that?