3 ms·

I really don't like it when religion is attacked. Not all religions believe the same thing. Sure you got some forms of Christianity that believe in creationism

I really don't like it when religion is attacked. Not all religions believe the same thing. Sure you got some forms of Christianity that believe in creationism and others in evolution. Some that don't want vaccination and others that do. You'll find it is the radical religions that you have to watch out for, not the moderate ones. Not every religion is the same.

jqm 12y ago
I didn't really see the article as "attacking" religion and am surprised you do. I have however noticed some religions have a pervasive tendency to claim they are under attack.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
ChrisLomont 12y ago
What if every (or even most) religion also has radicals following it? Can you think of a religion without a radical flavor? Maybe it's some people that are radical, and are attracted to local religions, and then religion gives them an outlet for belief that doesn't require the feedback with reality cycle that shapes many other actions, letting them become more unhinged over time.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
jsweojtj 12y ago
> Not all religions believe the same thing. ... Not every religion is the same. The article doesn't even suggest anything of the sort. Further, it extends "religious thinking" to include things that aren't religious in the usual sense (anti-vaxxers, for example). The entire point of the article is that there is a different kind of thinking going on when the belief is "religious" vs when it's a belief about reality. As the article states: > when people consider the truth of a religious belief, what the belief does for their lives matters more than, well, the facts. > ... > scholars have determined that people don’t use rational, instrumental reasoning when they deal with religious beliefs. Which, if true, should be: 1) fully grappled with, and 2) actively opposed. Magical/religious/superstitious thinking leads to strongly held beliefs that are impervious to being updated by evidence in a rational manner. Some of these beliefs might be benign or even pro-social -- true -- but at best this process of gaining beliefs is definitely unreliable. At worst, well, we know how it ends at worst.

jqm 12y ago

I didn't really see the article as "attacking" religion and am surprised you do. I have however noticed some religions have a pervasive tendency to claim they are under attack.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

ChrisLomont 12y ago

What if every (or even most) religion also has radicals following it? Can you think of a religion without a radical flavor? Maybe it's some people that are radical, and are attracted to local religions, and then religion gives them an outlet for belief that doesn't require the feedback with reality cycle that shapes many other actions, letting them become more unhinged over time.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

jsweojtj 12y ago

> Not all religions believe the same thing. ... Not every religion is the same. The article doesn't even suggest anything of the sort. Further, it extends "religious thinking" to include things that aren't religious in the usual sense (anti-vaxxers, for example). The entire point of the article is that there is a different kind of thinking going on when the belief is "religious" vs when it's a belief about reality. As the article states: > when people consider the truth of a religious belief, what the belief does for their lives matters more than, well, the facts. > ... > scholars have determined that people don’t use rational, instrumental reasoning when they deal with religious beliefs. Which, if true, should be: 1) fully grappled with, and 2) actively opposed. Magical/religious/superstitious thinking leads to strongly held beliefs that are impervious to being updated by evidence in a rational manner. Some of these beliefs might be benign or even pro-social -- true -- but at best this process of gaining beliefs is definitely unreliable. At worst, well, we know how it ends at worst.