EVERY IRRATIONAL RELIGION THINKS EACH OTHER RELIGION IS IRRATIONAL
Each single religion thinks other religions are irrational. Freethinkers
simply take an extra step and instead of regarding all religions but one
irrational regards them all as non-rational and/or irrational.
A belief when stated can be obviously irrational. The only proof that somebody
is irrational is when they open their mouths. The notion that rational people
can believe in irrational things and still be rational is dangerous. Usually
what happens is the person says something insane and people judge him rational
because of his genius in many matters and his use of logic. But the fact remains
that none of that proves his insane belief is rationally held. His rationality
has to do with other things not this one. And you would have to be him and see
his thinking processes and see how he arrived at the absurd belief before you
can say he at least thinks he is rational. Nobody can do that so a belief that
looks irrational or to be at least non-rational should be considered guilty of
irrationality until proven innocent.
Saying somebody is convinced about their belief being true is a way of arguing
that their position should be considered. That may not be the intention but it
is obvious that a belief held deeply and in a very convinced way may have
something to it. That is why if a belief that is too far-fetched or dangerous or
held too strongly it needs to be challenged.
Somebody has an irrational belief. The evidence in logical order of importance
and usefulness for the person being irrational at least with this particular
belief is:
The clear irrationality of the belief and the terrible or non-existence evidence
for it. Remember that evidence for the irrational is an abuse of evidence and is
not evidence at all.
The evidence that the person is holding the belief rationally though it is still
wrong is more of an indication than evidence and thus is not very strong. It
cannot be strong.
And you cannot know if there is evidence or if the evidence is understood
properly for you cannot become that person to think like they do.
And the proof that they are rational in so many things is irrelevant.
So the buck stops here: an irrational belief needs to be taken as a reflection
on the irrationality of the holder.
If religious belief is irrational then it follows that the people were not
reasoned into belief. Some say that you cannot be reasoned out of beliefs you
were not reasoned into. Only luck then can help you. Others say you can be
reasoned out but it can be a long difficult process. The latter considering how
much each generation changes its mind about stuff that seemed set in stone
forever before is probably the correct view. People accept this view for if they
didn't nobody would bother trying to talk sense to anybody. People need help in
reasoning before they can be reasoned out of anything. They need to be shown how
to think coherently. But we can be sure that there are many no matter how much
help they get will still accept religious nonsense. And a child or very young
person will be hard to reason out of religious belief for they believe for they
are conditioned and programmed to.
Not all religions claim to be rational. Incredibly Christianity despite its
outrageous doctrines claims to be rational. Having reasons to believe something
does not prove that the belief is rational only that the belief is trying to be.
An irrational religion believes in things, things may be true or false, for
stupid reasons. A correct and good belief can be irrational if it is accepted
for the wrong reasons. No religion should claim to be rational - no rational
religion would! It should demonstrate its rationality.
Many faiths are just polar opposites. There is the belief that there is no
spirit but only matter. There is the belief that a man and woman should marry
and be monogamous and there is the belief that a man can take as many wives as
he wishes. There is the belief that capital punishment is fundamentally wrong
and the belief that it should be allowed for lots of "crimes" including losing
your faith. There is the belief that messages from God should be full of peace
and love and wishy washy and there is the belief that God wrote the Bible
despite the fact that it contains abusive and nasty messages and advocates
murder in his name. The people that hold these beliefs cannot be equally
rational. People judged as educated and intelligent defend them. It could be
that a person believing in any messages alleged from God is irrational but
surely the one who believes the pro-violence ones is more irrational than the
person who believes in sweetness and light messages? Religion has got power and
credibility through having educated and intelligent members. People believe
because of this. But in fact it is totally irrelevant. And besides you cannot
believe in religion and the huge claims it makes because intelligent people seem
to believe or proclaim their faith. If you believe say in God and what he has
supposedly said because smarter people than you seem to, then you are idolising
those smart people. You are believing because of them. That is glorifying a
human interpretation. God and how he is interpreted are not necessarily the same
thing. Interpretation is risky. It is always about wanting to believe what
somebody else says and thus making a God out of their religious speculations. It
is idolatry.
Christianity does not like to be called irrational. But it is. It makes
assumptions and makes serious claims but cheats people by not giving them or by
being unable to give them good enough evidence to back up the claims. It is
strange that Satan and the Demons as the letter of James tells us, have the
evidence that God exists. We do not. The demons have witnessed the miracles done
by God while we have to depend on what people who fancy themselves as historians
say. If God finds it okay to let evil beings have the evidence then why not us?
He is inferring that there is something evil about having suitable evidence.
Christianity, and Roman Catholicism is very vocal in this issue as is Bible
based Christianity, teaches that to fail to believe in what it teaches is a sin
that will lead to damnation in Hell forever. Catholics call it a mortal sin and
say it is so serious for you cannot connect to God who is goodness itself
without understanding and accepting enough of what he has said or revealed. The
only possible way one could take such a position on unbelief is that: "If people
who don't believe thought about it enough they would believe." For that to
happen, it has to be reasonably straightforward to show the faith is a plausible
and good thing, the best faith to have. But it is not. The evidence for any
specific set of revelations be it Mormon or Catholic or whatever is simply
insulting. The real purpose of the doctrine that unbelief is a sin is to scare
people into belief and to insulate them against the insights of unbelievers and
other religions. Ecumenism is just a window dressing. So we see that because
there are so many differing faiths that disagree on what doctrines matter most
and what don't and on what God has revealed, if there is a true religion, the
evidence for its having a genuine divine revelation will be impeccable or at
least of a standard that outranks all the the rest. It would mean however that
most religions if not all are irrational.
I borrowed the following paragraph from an ex-Christadelphian website.
Humans are not “rational” thinkers; they are “rationalising” thinkers. They
spend 99% of their time seeking to find evidence to support what they already
believe about their choice of partners, choice of school, car, home, political
allegiance, household appliance, favourite brands etc AND their choice of
religion. We “rationalise” the evidence to support what we have already decided.
We also “rationalise” evidence to suit conclusions that we have decided on the
basis of emotional decision-making, which is how most of our decisions are made.
That’s why we make so many “human” mistakes; because we are not clever enough to
adequately assess all of the available evidence, so we take short cuts and use
our emotions to make the decisions on the basis of passion instead. We are not
slaves of reason, we are slaves of passion.