Glass Fractal wrote:
sje46 wrote:I'm intolerant of irrational beliefs, not of irrational people.
Sounds like the Christian line: Hate the sin, not the sinner.
You say that as if I'm being hypocritical, but that's exactly what I mean. I don't hate people because they make mistakes. I hate the mistakes themselves. There is absolutely nothing wrong with choosing to hate the sin instead of the sinner, as long as the sin is actually, you know, something you are justified in hating. If we're talking about homosexuality, that isn't justified!
CorruptUser wrote:Better argument would be "Newton was a devout Christian. Newton was a genius. Therefore not all devout Christians are idiots".
bad argument. [edit: actually. it's not a bad argument. whoops] idiocy and genius are not mutually exclusive.
What? Idiocy and genius are mutually exclusive. Idiocy refers to somebody with low general intelligence. Genius refers to someone with high intelligence. The term idiot was originally meant to refer to people with severe mental retardation (I think below 30) whereas genius has (does?) refer to someone with high IQ (above 130). Now I know the IQ scale is controversial in itself. But general intelligence is a thing, and it is correlated with the other various intelligences. As your other intelligences go up, so does your general intelligence. There are idiot savants of course, too, but just because they're intelligent in one specific thing doesn't mean their general intelligence is high.
The point is that idiocy and genius are not only mutually exclusive but are opposites. You can't be both at the same time. You can, however, be an idiot with talents. You can also be a genius who is completely deficit with some things. Bill Mayer, I think, is a pretty intelligent guy...until he starts talking about inoculations. And this is my point. You can't just call someone stupid just because they hold a belief you find stupid.
TheKrikkitWars wrote:Kant was and is largely irrelivant, certainly no genius to my mind... The only reason i have to be thankful for him is for creating the field of study that got so horribly divorced from reality in the 20th century as to irk Alan Sokal into first writing a sardonic article, then embarrasing a major journal, and finally writing a scathing and interesting book.
To your mind? See, that's what I'm talking about. Just because you disagree with his theory doesn't mean he's an idiot! Jesus, you don't survive in that field while being considered one of the greatest philosophers of all time if you have average intelligence. This is closed-mindedness. Get it?
Le1bn1z wrote:On the topic of Atheism, I thought Colbert said it best: "Atheism: the worship of one's own smug sense of superiority." Or, as I've sometimes thought "Well, the Christians were stupid because they pretended to know everything about the universe based on an incomplete set of data. Fortunately, since we now have complete data explaining everything, we really do know everything about the universe and can be immediately dismissive of others! Horray!...oh. Wait..."
You are aware that you're being way more smug than any other atheist (lowercase) here? And, not only that, but you're relying on stereotypes? ?Smugness is not an inherent part of atheism.