30th December 2010

“I can't help feeling that the defensiveness of the religious is a symptom of religion's intellectual weakness. Believers feel far more threatened by the godlessness of infidels than vice versa.”

Adam Wolstenholme

4 Responses to “30th December 2010”

  1. GreatEighthSin Says:

    Sadly, the answer to the author’s feelings are quite blatantly obvious. Those that are active in the religious community are trained by their superiors to believe that anyone who doesn’t believe in what they do, is both inferior, and can never do any good for society.

  2. reetBob Says:

    The godless infidels have usually based their belief on evidence or lack thereof.

    As discussed yesterday believers are often ignorant of the words of their holy book. Of course they will be insecure: they have built the foundations of their belief on sandy ground, they follow the revered faiths of their elders over any independent conclusions.

  3. Doubting Thomas Says:

    Its a fact that any desease needs host bodies to continue to exist. If it runs out of new flesh it dies. Ignorance is the perfect battery farm for its continuance. That is why those preaching their particular mumbo-jumbo can make the Koran/Bible/Talmud mean anything they want to to the birdbrained chickens.

  4. CaptainZero Says:

    It is the intellectual weakness of the proposition that is the reason it was once, not long ago in the scheme of things, a capital offense to posses a bible printed in anything but Latin. The church elders knew (and know!) that in order for their religions to be successful people must be ignorant of the particulars. Where are religions growing fastest today? Among the illiterate and barely literate. Where you have people capable of critical thinking, things like transsubstantiation, flying horses, faith healing and virgin births are increasingly difficult to peddle.

    And no, Tech, we don’t know everything and we don’t claim to. You accuse atheists of that conceit from time to time. Just because we won’t go along with fantastic (but unproved) claims made by people that haven’t bothered to think things through does not mean we claim any special knowledge. In matters religious, we claim ignorance and are persuadable by evidence.

    On the contrary, you and your brethren actually ARE making claims of special knowledge but you offer nothing but personal experience as evidence that what you believe is true. Here-say isn’t sufficient to prove a point in a traffic ticket proceeding. Why would we, or you, give it such central importance? Therein lies a difference between the religious mode of thinking and the materialistic: When I hold a position or an idea it is amenable to being changed by new information. Scientists are forced to give up on cherished ideas all the time. Progress.