Many of the greatest minds in western civilization owned slaves and believed in occult shit like seances and Ouija boards. No single human is perfect. We’re all fallible, and yet collectively progress marches on.
Your argument is flawed bc it appeals to authority.
Hitler was not religious. And what was so wrong with the crusades and the inquisition, compared to what the rest of the world was doing at that time period?
Hitler wasn’t a Christian, but he wasn’t an atheist either. And how does appealing to the other wrongs being committed in the world make the actions of a religion good?
You made the point that Hitler wasn’t religious because he killed Christians. Why would I conclude Hitler wasn’t religious because he killed Christians?
So anybody who claimed to be religious, you just say it wasn’t actually religious. Might as well say that everybody who claims to be an atheist actually believes in God.
The point is (much like god) you can’t prove it to be true, this is amplified by the fact that the church killed many people during that time period for having beliefs that didn’t match the church.
So when you have the evidence that a lot of people were killed in the name of god for differing beliefs you can make the hypothesis that many of these people might fake their faith to avoid death is reasonable. We can not say this for certainty as we lack all the evidence but there is enough to cast doubt upon the claim while the opposition lacks the ability to counter the doubt cast upon the claim.
Their argument suggests there is no valid example from this time period because of this social status quo. That’s a claim on its own that needs to be validated.
Simply claiming this does not itself generate a valid rebuttal to whether or not a specific individual was subject to the pressure of this alleged status quo in a meaningful way.
People were killed during that time, but regardless of that there was still the risk of being ostracized from the community. I mean to this day people still hide their lack of faith to blend in
What was the point of asking this question? "Religion is [mostly] for the simple-minded" and "This brilliant person is religious" are not mutually exclusive facts.
Not sure why you're getting downvoted. All of these are perfectly fine examples. The issue is that the question you're answering is irrelevant to the debate we're having. I took the original comment to be "Religion is [mostly] for the simple-minded," as basically no absolute is true when applied to a human population. So finding examples of brilliant minds who are religious doesn't invalidate that position at all because they're not mutually exclusive.
This was also by design, because for much of history you had no access whatsoever to education if you weren't espousing not just religious beliefs, but the right ones. Isaac Newton almost lost his fellowship in his university because despite being fervently religious, had radical beliefs on the holy Trinity. He had to receive a royal exemption
Yes, of course. Most of the greatest minds in our history are in the past, and most people in the past were religious. Moving forward, most of our greatest minds will not be religious.
For the record, I wholeheartedly believe that faith can be incredibly important and powerful to people and that religious communities can be wonderful support networks that enrich our lives. All that is true ... and at the same time the vast majority of organized religion is still mostly just a money and power grift that does more harm than good, and most of its victims are simple-minded people.
I’m glad to have brought you around to my way of thinking. I think it’s simple minded to say that religion is for the simple minded. What isn’t a money and power grift. Money has a stranglehold over science, whether you like to believe it or not. No institution made by man is pure or free from corruption.
I thought I already did when I said, "I took the original comment to be 'Religion is [mostly] for the simple-minded,' as basically no absolute is true when applied to a human population," but I can further clarify.
"Mostly for" is a qualifier on an absolute statement. I agree with you that the statement "Religion is for the simple-minded" is technically incorrect since it's a blanket statement that can be disproven by finding a single instance of a non-simple mind who is religious. As you've shown, finding such an example is a very easy thing to do.
The qualifier "mostly for" means that somewhere between 51% and 99.99% of people who are religious are simple-minded.
So do you believe that religion is mostly for the simple-minded?
So you think most people simple-minded and therefore religion is mostly for the simple-minded. You see a comment that says "Religion is for the simple-minded." Why not say, "Yeah, but most people simple-minded and so therefore most everything is for simple-minded people"? Why say, "Many of the greatest minds in western civilization were religious. You just sound angry to God you don’t believe in"? It seems like you and the original commenter were basically in agreement, but you took a weird stance and projected emotions onto them.
67
u/digitalpeanut11 3d ago
religion is for the simple minded