@xris,
xris;151953 wrote:The point I was trying to make was that if someone arrived asking a question about a proposed god, could we should we simply call them stupid.
Usually, it is not going to be productive to simply call someone "stupid".
xris;151953 wrote: It in my opinion, this subject, has the effect of being classified as rather silly and anyone who may have a belief in aliens as stupid.
I think you are grouping too many things together, or you are not writing with adequate precision. It is not stupid to think that there might be aliens somewhere in the universe (as it may have similar causes to life here), but it is an entirely different thing to suppose that every unidentified thing that flies is an alien, which would be stupid, as there is no reason to believe that. (If I am wrong about that last point, naturally, someone may point it out if they wish, by providing the evidence for the claim.)
xris;151953 wrote: They may well be but we dont make or say the faithful are stupid, do we?
Who are the "we" you are referring to? I am quite willing to say, of anyone who believes things without evidence or contrary to the evidence that they have, that person is being stupid with regard to that thing.
I find it funny that my attitude on this point is associated with atheism, as that suggests that theists have no good reason for their beliefs at all, and that everyone knows this. No theists should be afraid of looking at evidence fairly and objectively, unless they really believe that they are believing a lie and want to believe a lie, which is a very peculiar thing, as it suggests that deep down somewhere they are really atheists themselves.
A.J. Burger makes an interesting point that relates to this:
Quote:Or in matters of religion, if one chooses to be a Muslim, rather than a Christian or some other alternative, by faith, rather than with evidence, why choose those beliefs rather than any others? To see the need for evidence in matters of religion, one need only consider that the various religions all contradict each other, and, therefore, they cannot all be true. And why choose one religion rather than another? When a believer is attempting to convert others, what can be said to someone who claims faith in another religion? The believer can say that only his or her faith is faith in something true, but that is no evidence at all, and the prospective convert can make the same claim about his or her own religion. The religionist who advocates faith is, therefore, in a rather interesting position-he or she must also advocate rejecting faith. The reason for this is clear from the above remarks-one must reject all conflicting faiths if one is to embrace a particular faith. This may be obscured by the fact that people are often inconsistent (and consequently they are necessarily wrong no matter what the truth might be), but it does not alter the fact that, for example, it is impossible to fully embrace both Catholicism and Buddhism, or even Catholicism and Lutheranism. Anyone who is acquainted with the doctrines of each of these religions will be able to come up with examples of how the doctrine of each conflicts with that of the others. And, indeed, all different religions have conflicting doctrines, for, after all, if their doctrines were all the same, then they would not be different religions.
burger-book
What is particularly odd about this is the fact that many people say that these matters are the most important things in the world, and yet they generally are so careless about them. Many people are not very consistent about these things at all, and consequently they are necessarily wrong, no matter what the truth might be. It is a curious thing, when one purports to want to find great truths, to choose a course of action such that one guarantees failure no matter what the truth might be. It is odd that so many people, who are smart enough to look both ways before crossing the street, are so careless about what they claim is infinitely more important, the fate of their immortal souls. I would say that that shows great stupidity.
xris;151953 wrote: So why call someone who has in their opinion developed the belief that they could be aliens, be treated differently to the ardent believer in god?
Who said that they should be treated differently? Of course, it is a different subject, and so there will be some differences that will result from that, but otherwise, I see no reason to regard the one as different from the other. In both cases, it is all a question of evidence and reasoning, whether the person is being stupid about the matter or not.
xris;151953 wrote: Just try going to the religious section and make the comment with no debate,all those that believe in god are stupid.
It is unlikely to be useful to simply call people "stupid" without any kind of argument given. In most cases, it is best to simply comment on the arguments and not comment on the stupidity of the arguer, even though believing based upon fallacious reasoning is stupid, as far as that point goes.
I suppose I may as well add, that pretty much everyone does or believes something stupid occasionally, but to do so habitually is what causes one to truly deserve being called a stupid person. Perhaps that is a source of some issue you have with what I have been saying, though I tried to head that off with my previous comment about a person being stupid about one thing does not necessarily mean that that person is stupid about everything else.
.
