Would that not require hypocrisy in a lot of areas?

Right, that’s the type of microbial evolution I mean

So after accusing me of everything under the sun in a few comments based on lies, you now claim you don’t know me at all. Well if you don’t know me at all then stop categorizing me as a democrat and trump-like because you could not be further from the truth. You’re not using any logic as evidenced by your random accusations, you’re acting purely on emotion because you feel that I am attacking religious people even though you can read the conversations I’ve had with theists capable of being pleasant in this thread.

The words logical, irrational, and unintelligent are used because that is literally the topic of the post. If that bothers you I recommend you move on and reply to some other posts more relatable for you.

Again, ad hominem fallacies all over your comments because you are not arguing with me because you believe I’m wrong, you are arguing with me because you’ve projected a personality onto me that is not based on truths. You are the type of person to give religion a bad name because you’re unable to hold a converation like an adult and prefer to throw a tantrum if someone’s beliefs don’t align with yours. Don’t waste my time

Ah I see what the problem is, you think you know me and you’ve created an entire personality based on things I never said. Then when I give you proof of your false accusations you try to paint me as a villain that is harassing all religious people even though I haven’t. Ad hominem. Have a good night buddy

You really don’t need to go far to find proof that what you just said was false. I said people who claim with certainty that matter came before conciousness are as unintelligent as someone claiming they know what happens in the afterlife.

Sounds incredible! Enjoy!

Nothing like 4 sets of couch raises and 2 sets of window wiping to get the blood pumping. Big fan of food, what you making?

I’m clarifying why I said unintelligent because I think this is your second time pointing out the word in separate comments so it comes off as you having an issue with the word

How are your chores going?

I get what you mean, my mom is the same way. She continued going to church and church functions after I left because that was her community. She couldn’t name all 10 commandments but she’s so used to that life and those people that it would be like losing her entire social network if she stopped going.

I think you may be taking the word unintelligent as an insult, which it of course can be used as one but in this context I’m not using it as an insult.

They mentioned that science minded people will confidently say matter comes before conciousness as proof that logical people are confident in unproveable things as well. That statement was false to begin with because it was based on that science minded person being logical.

Being confident in something unproven is not the logical or intelligent thing to do so I was explaining why that example doesn’t work as the example they gave was not of a logical intelligent thinker that I was asking about in my title.

Yes adam and eve are a good example

I get your sentiment but all the rituals I picked up in life are nowhere near the seriousness of a religion though. You’re talking about choosing something that could potentially affect you for eternity vs me not wanting to eat guinea pigs because I didn’t grow up in Peru.

I understand that people find comfort in religion and a lot do it as a way to calm their existential crises but my question is how someone who is otherwise logical can separate religious beliefs into another folder. They knowingly fool themselves into believing something that may not be true or possibly even being tricked into following a false idol but they don’t apply those rules elsewhere.

A big part of intelligence is understanding when you don’t know something. You’ll find that there are a lot of people who will make things up as they go because they don’t want to admit they don’t know something, which is unwise. So being confident in something that noone can know is not typically an intelligent thing to do.

Most people can be taught knowledge but your intelligence potential is mostly genetic, set at birth based on how well your processes run. Environmental factors will affect how much of your potential you will achieve.

If I don’t know something then im going to say I don’t know, am I supposed to make up an answer? I call it irrational and illogical to be confident in something noone can know, which is the opposite of my stance.

What exactly are you reading as “not calm”? I’ve talked nothing but logic, no emotion involved in this at all yet the other guy is taking leaps and bounds to make assumptions of me that have all been incorrect guesses.

What exactly is it that confuses you so I can clear it up?

In the sense that people who aren’t really religious go to church to conform?

Evolution in complex organisms takes millions of years so no it’s not something you’ll witness in your life time. The evolutions you do witness are in faster aging, less complex organisms such as microbes which we can practically witness evolving in real time. Evolution isn’t a theory, it is an inevitability, those that survive their surroundings pass on their genes, that is all that evolution is.

By drop their skepticism I mean dropping their scientific mindset of theories are not facts, an experiment needs to be reproduceable, etc. I don’t believe that science disproves religion but I do believe there are too many unproveable aspects of most religions for me to be too skeptical to believe in fully

Can you point out what specifically makes you think I believe that? If it will clear things up I will give you my opinion about the subject outright, I would say it depends on whether there is a creator or not, does this creator have a physical form, where did they come from, what allows them to create life, and many more questions. This question can’t be answered with our knowledge and it is built on other unanswerable concepts so any answer is just a guess.

Could you explain what that has to do with understanding objective and subjective means? I cannot prove to you that anything exists, I can’t even prove to you that we live in the same reality, or that you are a sentient being and not a figment of my imagination. “I think, therefore I am”, I can observe my reality but I can neither prove my existence nor confirm my observations are correct. The only conclusion that leaves me with is, I know that I don’t know.

I don’t value objectivity over subjectivity unless we’re talking about logic because logic is about overcoming subjective beliefs to find the objective truth, so it should follow that I hold your logic to the rigidity that it’s defined by no?

And again, you are making assumptions about me with no truth behind them.

You might be thinking of a personal definition of logic. Mood, nutrition, and health can affect a person’s ability to use logic, it does not affect logic itself. Having faith that you’ll wake up tomorrow and understanding there is a possibility you won’t is not an example of logic, that is an example of understanding mortality.

Logic is reasoning based on proveable facts so no it’s not going to tell you what something is, just how probable something is.

That wouldn’t be the logical conclusion because we are limited as humans. We make mistakes, we don’t understand everything, we misremember, we can even gaslight ourselves such as the mandela effect. If 50 people told me they experienced an alien abduction, that doesn’t make it logically true, now if they were to show me proveable facts of the abduction then I would be more inclined to believe.

I’m not sure what you mean with the last paragraph, you are clearly describing illogical subjective experiences but calling them “very reasonable logic of it’s own”. What you are describing isn’t logic, what you’re describing is the opposite of logic. Someone claiming something they believe is true but can’t provide validity.