4 ms·
Irrational for sure. Everyone's an athiest when they're born. The natural position is non-belief. Religion is a faith based belief system for something that can
by fingerprinter 14y ago
Irrational for sure. Everyone's an athiest when they're born. The natural position is non-belief. Religion is a faith based belief system for something that cannot be proven. Hence, belief in religion is by definition irrational.
Now, if you are saying 'religion' to mean 'societal construct' or something like that, well, that is a different ballgame. Though I don't think you mean that, so the above applies.
Bottom line, the major religions of the world demand someone to suspend rationality to believe. Otherwise the followers would not be followers.
And as for educated. Perhaps there isn't a conclusive study on the subject, but it is safe to say that the more educated you are, the less likely you are to be religious, particularly fundamental. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence
- mseebach2 14y agoNo, nobody is an atheist when they're born. Atheism is the conscious rejection of the existence of god. Agnostic, more likely. Yes, religion is by definition irrational. Humans generally aren't very rational beings. Love is irrational, it makes us do irrational things, but I'm sure we can agree, on the balance, love is a good thing. Thus dismissing religion on irrationality grounds is not very meaningful.
- fingerprinter 14y agoThere is confusion over what atheism actually is. Look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Implicit_vs._explicit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Implicit_vs._explicit We are born (implicit) atheists. I also didn't say we should dismiss religion because it is irrational, I said people who were religious were irrational. I believe that still stands. If anyone asked, I would say we should dismiss religion because it is harmful. Harmful to our stability, harmful to our advancement, harmful to the people that follow it and harmful to the people stuck in it against their will (either country, family or society). Today the negatives of religion far outweigh any good it can do. There was a time and place for religion, but we have outgrown it.
- mseebach2 14y agoMost of the negatives you mention are perhaps styled in the language of religion, but they're underpinned by deeper causes. The Middle East isn't solely a religious conflict, it's very much an ethnic one as well. Oppressive countries are oppressive, they're not liberal countries that just happened to read in a book that they should kill and maim those that worship in the wrong way. Closely knit groups (families, societies) are going to sanction deviators regardless of religion.
- mylittlepony 14y agoI disagree with both. We are born atheists, but we can create our own god(s) even without the influence of others. How else would religions come to existence? It might even be an evolutionary trait or something. Having bigger brains, larger set of emotions etc, we needed something to protect us from the sensation of a meaningless life, injustice, the concept of death, the ending of our consciousness, etc.
- jlgreco 14y agoAgnosticism is an epistemological position that many (most?) atheists (such as myself) hold.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- Volpe 14y agoA number of buddhist sects/schools hold no belief in any god... It is a religion, they are not irrational. It is a major religion. > And as for educated. Perhaps there isn't a conclusive study on the subject, but it is safe to say that the more educated you are, the less likely you are to be religious, particularly fundamental. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence Correlation or causation? I don't really have time to read through all the studies, but St Thomas Aquinas is a good counter example of that premise, very analytical, very religious...