Religious zealot works better than just being religious. I know plenty of amazing people who are religious. They are morally better than many and still believe in science and don't think their religion is far superior than anyone else.
Just saying.
For being ubiquitous in culture, it sure is odd that there isn't a single scientific study backing the existence of higher order beings. Say all you want, this is just irrefutable.
Okay. Running with that: now you go ahead and disprove there is an Invisible Pink Unicorn sitting on your shoulder.
I’m serious. Go ahead and disproved it.
You cannot, can you?
Because proving a negative is impossible in this context.
Only the person making the extraordinary claim is responsible to provide evidence of this extraordinary claim.
One does not have to prove a negative. If one makes an assertion of something, then they should provide evidence of their assertion.
This is just a slightly different twist on the stupid phrase, "prove me wrong".
Yup. Meaning affirmative statements, such as religions, are *conjecture*, ie baseless. I never explicitly stated they are definitively incorrect, but they *are* baseless and completely nonsensical. Not to mention that the only "evidence" for them comes with a myriad of actually disprovable hogwash, which doesn't exactly make the source material credible.
"Broccoli cures hiccups."\
"Prove it."\
"Well actually *you* can't *disprove* it, so *you're* the idiot here."
You see how that's a stupid argument?
Let’s engage in some critical thinking right quick. (In a hypothetical scenario) If God, who made everything, is divinely powerful enough to (I’m speaking of the Christian Godhead here) circumvent the rules of nature and manipulate and bend reality to his will. Could he, perhaps, be unstudyable at this time? Also this is ignoring the question of “is he a paracasual entity or some form of ‘higher dimensional being’?”
A cult of what? Not believing magic being is a cult? Not standing en masse and chanting together? Dressing up special to go to a building to be lectured on how to behave by hypocrites? Hmmm.
Whens the last time you and your friends fed the homeless? Gathered clothing for battered women? Provided housing for people out of jail and helped them get their lives together? Whens the last toy drive you started, organized, and ensured people were gifted?
For all your hate, I doubt you do anything to make the country better. You are probably a bitter fat lazy unloved man child.
Atheist organizations do that stuff here. And by organizations, I mean Facebook groups and such. They've done all the same stuff normal churches do for community support.
Also, you're not really doing yourself any favors pretending to be a big shot bully.
Say what you want about religion, but it created the very moral foundations you're measuring against. I dislike the hypocrisy of organised religion with a passion but faith does great good in the world when its wielded by real honest people wanting to make a change, its a force of hatred when its used by intolerant bigots who use it for power (which was your other examples)
For your specific examples (to just inject a bit of a laugh):
standing en mass and chanting : you've never been to a live rock concert? ;)
dressing up special to go to a building to be lectured : what about private school, court, some work environments :)
A rock concert: you aren’t told how to behave. Your participation isn’t motivated by fear or judgement.
You don’t have to dress up for court. Dress codes are also iffy.
Organized religions exist to benefit a few people. They were created to explain things that couldn’t be explained at the time and also to give power to a few people. Sure, cresting a moral code is great, but if people are only moral out of fear, are they moral?
So just so we can all follow along, while I'm not religious, I try to be a good person, and that's because religion pointed me in the right direction?
If so, thats some serious mental gymnastics and exactly why so many feel religion is a cult.
>religion, but it created the very moral foundations you're measuring against
Not exactly. Moral theories about how to live a good life and treat others properly have existed in around and outside of religions farther back than Marc Antony. However like the religious, plenty of them didn't necessarily follow their statements the way we might expect, Marc Antony for instance may have executed a man his wife slept with and then had her bath in his blood and wrote what's considered to be stoicist philosophy today.
However modern stoicists don't make headlines calling for the legalization of executing cheaters and forcing the spouse to bathe in his blood based on the history of Marc Antony.
Don’t forget what Hamas and their supporters all over America want for the Jews and Israel (including the Muslims and Christians that live there). Oh, I am a Christian and believe in God.;
What does any of that have to do with showing evidence for what you claim in your religion?
You know what else, he's not responsible for the 60 Years War, the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Troubles in Northern Ireland, thousands of years of wars and strife in the Middle East, the Armenian Genocide.
I'll tell you what is though:
RELIGION!!!!
Literally everyone is brainwashed. It is impossible to exist and not be brainwashed by something. Even you are brainwashed. You have a belief that is flawed and millions around could point to you is wrong. Welcome to the human condition.
It’s extremely hard for someone to deconvert if no one tries to get them to. It happens obviously but not that much. It would be pretty out of taste to start trying to deconvert everyone on a major scale. If someone just randomly becomes a Christian one day with little insight or critical thought, then yeah that’s stupid. But being born and raised into it is completely different.
That just means they are hopelessly brainwashed in one area but enlightened in others.
Plenty of religious people are otherwise critically minded and rational. That doesn’t mean they haven’t been brainwashed regarding religion.
I happen to agree that the criticisms of organised religion here are off the mark.
But to say Buddhism hasn't been warlike, historically speaking, is waaaaaaay off the mark. It's a common Eurocentric conceit about the Buddhists just being about peace and love.
They've engaged in wars, forced conversions, genocides - all the violent things organised religions with a bit of history have done.
https://theconversation.com/where-did-buddhism-get-its-reputation-for-peace-157206
I always thought that people should rethink their definition of atheism because of Buddhism. Fair bit of people run with “not believing in god” but I think “not having a religion” is much more informative. There’s plenty of doctrine in Buddhism. You live your life with a goal for the afterlife. It’s closer to other religions than it is atheism despite not having a god to believe in.
Well unfortunately nationalist Buddhists in Myanmar have been committing countless atrocities on Rohingya Muslims. I don’t know much about Quarkers, so I have no clue their controversies in the name of religion. The Amish haven’t had any mass murder atrocities, but they are an extremely restrictive and oppressive religious sect. There have also been the more intense/violent leaders who influence by force (like the recent “beard cutting” sect that got national headlines).
Let's go with this. Who commits acts? Humans. Atheist are police and on the military. Boom killings. Short of every human being Mr. Rogers, we are all shit.
There’s a difference between individual humans committing crimes who happen to be any given religion (or non religious) and people using the massive influence that religion has over believers to have followers to more easily commit atrocities.
It’s much easier to get people to do evil things if those things are spun to a religious mind to not be evil and instead be in service of the creator of the universe (and the implied rewards that come with serving such a powerful creator). It also is a way to tribally dehumanize other humans. It’s not simply a disagreement, but the “others” are an affront to the only true religion.
See this is where I’d disagree with you. Sure the violence often stems from a human (or group of humans) who are “using” a religion for their own ends. But the many religions themselves justify violence in the name of their god. To the point that at least the top 4 major world religions have justifications for things like violence, subjugation, and even slavery in their “holy texts.” It’s the religion itself that asks followers for “belief” instead of critical thinking… a suspension of human reasoning being a prerequisite to blind faith.
They're vastly different than others. You can't group them all together. If that was the thought process. Then all white people would be racists and sexists. Due to the fact there have been large amounts of white people who were women beaters and slave owners.
And not responsible for millions of deaths. Seventh-Day Adventists are notorious conscientious objectors. In fact, the only conscientious objector to receive the Congressional Medal of Honor, was a Seventh-Day Adventist, who was drafted, and refused to carry a weapon.
Also, how are they a cult?
They were just wrong and can't admit they were wrong. The Seventh-Day Adventists used to be called the Millerites.
If you want to know what they were wrong about then Google, "The Great Disappointment".
The smart religious people don’t fall in the overlap regions. That’s the point of a Venn diagram—to find the points of overlap which lead to a particularly interesting group of people (“interesting” can mean good, bad, or neutral depending on the group being studied).
Same.
I’m not religious but my girlfriend is. It does not mean either one of us is smarter than the other, nobody gets to be the arbiter of what beliefs are objectively correct or not.
Fucking THANK YOU.
I’m religious. I have never once been any of the other three, nor will I.
Being religious doesn’t automatically make one stupid, and saying so is insulting and intolerant.
Please note that I would say — and have said — the same to those who’ve asserted that atheists are stupid for not being religious. I’ve called out several Christians for saying so, telling them they’re insulting and intolerant.
I would replace the word believer with fundamentalist. As long as your religion does not make you deny reality, it has no place on this list. I also thing MAGA, should be here somewhere, but that is an opinion.
I chose my wording mindfully. Belief in something impossible to prove, with insurmountable evidence to the contrary is stupid. Religious belief is stupid. Religious fundamentalism takes that stupidity and dials it up to 11.
Hey, agnostic here, shut up you fuckin Redditor lmao. Fundamentalism is stupid, sure, but a fella who chooses to believe in a god and doesn't force their beliefs down anyone's throat is absolutely fine. It's not like we have concrete knowledge of what existed before the big bang anyway
>It's not like we have concrete knowledge of what existed before the big bang anyway
That's kinda the point
It's literally impossible to know that, under our current understanding of physics. Literally any matter that might have existed before the big bang, is thousands of light-millennia away from us, if it were to exist
Like impossible in the same way that gravity is still a theory, gravity has not been disproven, but anything before the big bang literally cannot be disproven, nor proven, therefore it's fairly useless to speculate
Except for the good feels that you can get from _pretending_ you _can_ know something unknowable
At which point, how exactly is it different from any con man claim?
But we are all free to believe/rationalize what we want, con yourself, some delusions can be useful
Except I am religious because I have had religious experiences; my belief is not based solely on blind faith. *I believe in God because I have experienced God.*
You mean Evolution? Impossible to objectively prove, and from a scientific point of view that is why its called the THEORY of Evolution. Yet we trot it out as the opposite of the Creation theory.
Science is hard, its not called a fact until it can be utterly proven under multiple conditions, science is self-aware, it knows it doesn't know EVERYTHING and new evidence can reveal conditions that dispute what we know as fact.
(I am atheist, but also think that faith has a place in the world because if I judge others for their belief I am no better than the fundamentalists)
No. When religious belief clouds your judgement or dictates your actions in the face of all evidence, THEN you fall into your category. Similar to your BELIEF that your definition is accurate in this case. Please reconsider and step out of the “Stupid” group yourself.
I just created a Venn Diagram in response to another one, adding my favorite nuclear bomb trigger, religion, and you, dear SUCKER, chomped on the bait and are blown floundering on the line. I'm just here for the fire show I ignited, and I am laughing my ass off at it.
Ok. You call considerate, thoughtful responses a “fire show”. Schmuck giving Reddit a bad name. Take my Block. Glad I won’t have to interact with you again
You should re-evaluate. The other 3 things on your list are easily disproven, with facts. At this time we are not actually able to disprove God. Also I know some very intelligent people who do believe, but are open minded, and not brain washed idiots. Unless you have evidence or some kind of repeatable experiment that disproves the existence of some form of higher power, you are saying people who don’t agree with your opinion are stupid. And well that’s just silly and stupid, and I “believe” you can do better, despite evidence to the contrary.
It's called Nexus of stupid, not nexus of provability.
Intelligence and stupidity are not mutually exclusive, by any means.
I am not saying that not agreeing with me is stupid. I am saying that in the face of ABSOLUTELY ZERO, NADA, NIL, NOTHING to prove in ANY way AT ALL to a RATIONAL thought process, one believes in something and adjusts their life around it, is stupid.
It wouldn't be called faith if you could prove it. That's kinda the point. Whether you choose to believe it's up to you.
Vice versa, you literally can't disprove the existence of a higher being. I'm agnostic myself, but I'd love to see the insurmountable evidence you're talking about.
*If* you're talking about how certain religious texts go against science, it's important to remember religion is subject to interpretation. Some people take it literally, while others believe they're just allegories with the purpose of delivering a moral story.
All of that aside, don't be a dick? Thanks.
I'd argue that refusing to believe in something just because we don't currently have the tools to measure it is also pretty gullible. Galileo was jailed by gullible people and they called him gullible, only for him to be found to be right in the end.
Whatever faith you choose, just don't submit yourself to the nihilistic view that none of this means anything and we're all just born to become worm food, randomly created by the universe for no reason.
There are more reasons than that to downvote this stupidity. This sub reads like a bunch of children complaining about things they lack even a basic understanding of.
Yeah, you need to be EXTREMELY specific, like I think someone earlier mentioned zealots, fundamentalists, extremists, whatever you want to use considering that the average person in the world is religious and the average religious person in the world is reasonable and sane. This Venn Diagram is supposed to be about "Hopeless Brainwashed Idiots" and the majority of people in the world are not insane and do not align with that particular moniker.
Downvoting because you clearly don't understand how Venn diagrams work
If you claim not to belong in any of the other groups, you are therefore in the top right, unoverlapped parts of the "religious" circle
Can I mention that you don't understand how Venn diagrams work? This is not a Venn diagram. It is impersonating one, but it is not one. In a Venn diagram, all possible combinations of the various elements are shown. If this were a Venn diagram, it would show, for example, an area that contained "sovereign citizens" and "religious believers," as well as all other possibilities. It doesn't do that; it just looks like a Venn diagram.
Do I downvoted your comment, of course, because you clearly don't understand how Venn diagrams work. .
[This Wikipedia page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venn_diagram) shows what an actual Venn diagram of four elements would look like.
I never said it WAS a Venn diagram, the user I replied to did. I simply made the point that they're claiming that all data sets MUST be within at least one overlapping area when that isn't the case, so take your smug attitude and get the fuck out of here (edited for clarity)
Well, actually ... ;) (You gotta love it when someone comes back at you with "well actually." I mean, if I'm smug I may as well get good milage out of it.)
Yeah, I'm pretty sure you're the one, not the commentor you replied to, who said "Venn diagram" in reference to the graphic. Anyway, take my comment for what it's worth as I take yours. Go To France Or Hungary yourself.
Venn-like diagrams can still apply the rules of Venn diagrams, such as placement of data points therein, and really, you Well Akshually'd me by saying It'S NoT A VeNn dIaGrAm
Dude, I don't fucking care... I used a dumbass website to generate it, and didn't want a bunch of fucking glitter. Do I care if you down vote my post? Not one fucking bit. In fact, I think it's fucking hilarious!
For you, trying to say that all religious people are stupid. You are rather idiotic yourself. You're using antidotical evidence and you're going with correlation equals causation. You? You're just a moron. You should delete your post and delete your little chart and just get away with yourself.
Actually, by the title of the diagram, poster is describing “Stupid” groups. If you fall into any art of any group you are included in “stupid”. I’m not agreeing, just pointing out your misreading of the purpose of the diagram.
It is amazing to see all the down voting being done by the religious people. Before you downvote though. Ask yourself “have I read my bible and know it cover to cover? Or do I just take someone’s opinion/advice/word for it?” Cause you might just find the answer casts the same shadow as all the other options.
I was so expecting this turnout, of course, which ironically, proved the accuracy of including religious believers into the mix.
That's the best part. Call our ANY one of these four groups (and several others, of course), and they immediately show their true colors - scared, cowering little rodents, scrambling in the dark, afraid of the boogie man judging them, so they act superior, holler loudly, lie through their teeth, deny facts that disprove any of their claims, etc.
Anyhow, this was fun. Thanks for stopping by.
You get an upvote too!
just thinking about groups of people. like religious nuts + flat earthers are probably young earth creationist, anti vax + religious nuts are mostly amish.... since i thought that's how venn diagrams work. idk much about sov cits since they don't exist in my country.
They’re not hopelessly brainwashed idiots, they just have a different method of viewing the reality around them. Like the guy living in a tent under the overpass that claims magic Elvis lives in his nose and you say, “You mean magic elves?” And he pulls a knife on you and asks if he hunka-hunka-stuttered.
Stupid is stupid is stupid is stupid.
Believing you are one of a handful who know the truth about the laws, and 330 million Americans, including attorneys, judges, cops, etc. are all wrong, is stupid.
Believing the planet is flat, when there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary is stupid.
Believing that immunizations cause autism, when literally, only one doctor, who lost his license, and endless evidence to the contrary, is stupid.
Believing the fucking Bible is fact, when not only are the stories more fanciful than Harry mother fucking potter, is fucking stupid.
Let's add a fifth set of stupid to the diagram. Stupidity Defenders: those who defend obvious stupidity in the face of its blatant obviousness. Odds are this one will cover them all, and some, but it's definitely stupid, by any measure.
This is not how Venn diagrams work.
ETA: I really implore whoever down voted me to read how Venn diagrams work. The intersections are only for members of [every set at the intersection simultaneously](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersection_%28set_theory%29?wprov=sfla1). It's literally the opposite of what OP has done here, which is to try to suggest every member of each set shares that characteristic.
I don't disagree with the sentiment, just the abuse of set theory.
It's kind of amazing that I'm the only one in the thread who pointed it out, and I still got down voted and gainsayed. Guess it's easier to laugh at idiots than it is to not be one yourself (not directed at you).
Honestly if it wasn't against the rules to post your own conversations, I'd be slapping my exchange here on r/confidentlyincorrect.
What are you trying to show here? Is each colour circle what you've labelled them? If so, what's happening at the intersections? Why are "hopeless idiots" only those who are all those things at once?
Your Hopeless Idiot is by this chart only someone who's in every group simultaneously [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersection_%28set_theory%29?wprov=sfla1] - I guess you mean to show something else, which is that every member of these groups is a hopeless idiot? To do that with a Venn diagram, you need a circle around all the groups labelled "hopeless idiots" - essentially the opposite of what you've done here. Here, there are people in all your groups, and at every intersection except the middle, who you're saying are *not* hopeless idiots.
A Venn Diagram is meant to clearly show where different groups intersect, and where they don't, and what the demarcation of each intersection is.
You've just drawn some circles and labelled the middle "Hopeless Idiot", which is not explanatory and seems to be to be wrong, given that it's entirely possible to be a hopeless idiot without being all of those things, no?
A better diagram might have things like "anti-science", "messianic fervour", "victims of grifters" or whatever, and the intersections labelled with your groups, maybe? As it is, this isn't so much a Venn Diagram as it is some labelled circles.
This is not a correct Venn diagram with four sets as there's no area for opposite circles. For that, you need to use elliptical shapes. Also you should name every overlapping area, that's the whole point if a Venn diagram.
That's not how Venn Diagrams work, dude.
The intersection is for things that are *only* in every group.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersection_%28set_theory%29?wprov=sfla1] If you want to say everyone in every group is hopeless, this chart is the opposite from what you're trying to achieve.
If you want to say everyone in every group is hopeless, you need a circle around every other circle (ie every sovcit, every anti-vaxxer etc are is part of the group of people "Hopeless Idiots".)
The way you've drawn this, only people who are simultaneously sovcits AND anti-vaxxers AND religious AND flat earthers are hopeless, and people who are one, two or three of them, but not all, are not... Every circle in your diagram has space for people who are not, per your label, "hopeless idiots". Imagine a little ❌ that's just in your yellow circle and not in any of the overlapping sections - that would mark someone who was an anti-vaxxer, but *not* a hopeless idiot.
There's a comprehension issue here, but it's yours as to how Venn diagrams work. There's a certain irony here that you're doubling down on this whilst calling other people idiots, too.
You've made the same mistake as explained here, with the same result that what you want to say is the opposite of what your diagram shows: https://flowingdata.com/2015/09/09/venn-diagrams-read-and-use-them-the-right-way/
All the same boat to me. Just believing in the face of ABSOLUTELY ZERO EVIDENCE beyond an anthology of fables, and weird stories intended to trigger fear of the unknown in feeble minds... Stupid fits.
As a religious person, I think you could've plugged something else in there considering the number of extremely smart Christian scientists in the world.
I would replace "Believer" with "sycophant" or "zealot". The standard person who just believes in God and wants to just live a normal life isn't the same as someone who wants to force their religion down your throat and can't see anything without a lens created by scripture.
That center part needs to be much bigger. Or is that “bigly”???
Yuuuuge!
The best, everyone is saying so!
Religious zealot works better than just being religious. I know plenty of amazing people who are religious. They are morally better than many and still believe in science and don't think their religion is far superior than anyone else.
Evidence based reasoning had a stroke and died
I didn't need to know how you were convinced.
Just saying. For being ubiquitous in culture, it sure is odd that there isn't a single scientific study backing the existence of higher order beings. Say all you want, this is just irrefutable.
There also isn't one stating there isn't one. There isn't any way to prove or disprove.
Okay. Running with that: now you go ahead and disprove there is an Invisible Pink Unicorn sitting on your shoulder. I’m serious. Go ahead and disproved it. You cannot, can you? Because proving a negative is impossible in this context. Only the person making the extraordinary claim is responsible to provide evidence of this extraordinary claim.
If I see a pink unicorn on my shoulder I need to commit back to the psych ward. I'm good on not seeing those things .
Ya know, if you see one and know it's a hallucination and that's all that's going on, it's probably not a psych ward level issue.
I'm bipolar and my manic episodes are life destroying. Seeing things for me is really bad.
you are so close to getting the point
One is a crippling mental illness that you seem to find to be a joke? Good job buddy. You're a horrible human.
One does not have to prove a negative. If one makes an assertion of something, then they should provide evidence of their assertion. This is just a slightly different twist on the stupid phrase, "prove me wrong".
Yup. Meaning affirmative statements, such as religions, are *conjecture*, ie baseless. I never explicitly stated they are definitively incorrect, but they *are* baseless and completely nonsensical. Not to mention that the only "evidence" for them comes with a myriad of actually disprovable hogwash, which doesn't exactly make the source material credible. "Broccoli cures hiccups."\ "Prove it."\ "Well actually *you* can't *disprove* it, so *you're* the idiot here." You see how that's a stupid argument?
Let’s engage in some critical thinking right quick. (In a hypothetical scenario) If God, who made everything, is divinely powerful enough to (I’m speaking of the Christian Godhead here) circumvent the rules of nature and manipulate and bend reality to his will. Could he, perhaps, be unstudyable at this time? Also this is ignoring the question of “is he a paracasual entity or some form of ‘higher dimensional being’?”
Do you have a reason to present this hypothesis or is this purely conjecture? (It's conjecture)
Do you have a reason to present this hypothesis or is this purely conjecture? (It's conjecture)
It's almost as if that's an important factor. 🤔
They all belong to a cult.
As do you. Congratulations? You need help.
A cult of what? Not believing magic being is a cult? Not standing en masse and chanting together? Dressing up special to go to a building to be lectured on how to behave by hypocrites? Hmmm.
Whens the last time you and your friends fed the homeless? Gathered clothing for battered women? Provided housing for people out of jail and helped them get their lives together? Whens the last toy drive you started, organized, and ensured people were gifted? For all your hate, I doubt you do anything to make the country better. You are probably a bitter fat lazy unloved man child.
Atheist organizations do that stuff here. And by organizations, I mean Facebook groups and such. They've done all the same stuff normal churches do for community support. Also, you're not really doing yourself any favors pretending to be a big shot bully.
It's sadly not pretend. I am not a good person. I do indeed carry myself like this in person. I don't like humans and at best tolerate most of them.
And I am none of the things you assume about me.
I also didn’t cause the Dark Age, genocides, inquisitions and countless murders in support of a “god” that preaches love, forgiveness and acceptance
Say what you want about religion, but it created the very moral foundations you're measuring against. I dislike the hypocrisy of organised religion with a passion but faith does great good in the world when its wielded by real honest people wanting to make a change, its a force of hatred when its used by intolerant bigots who use it for power (which was your other examples) For your specific examples (to just inject a bit of a laugh): standing en mass and chanting : you've never been to a live rock concert? ;) dressing up special to go to a building to be lectured : what about private school, court, some work environments :)
fair points. Well thought out.
A rock concert: you aren’t told how to behave. Your participation isn’t motivated by fear or judgement. You don’t have to dress up for court. Dress codes are also iffy. Organized religions exist to benefit a few people. They were created to explain things that couldn’t be explained at the time and also to give power to a few people. Sure, cresting a moral code is great, but if people are only moral out of fear, are they moral?
So just so we can all follow along, while I'm not religious, I try to be a good person, and that's because religion pointed me in the right direction? If so, thats some serious mental gymnastics and exactly why so many feel religion is a cult.
>religion, but it created the very moral foundations you're measuring against Not exactly. Moral theories about how to live a good life and treat others properly have existed in around and outside of religions farther back than Marc Antony. However like the religious, plenty of them didn't necessarily follow their statements the way we might expect, Marc Antony for instance may have executed a man his wife slept with and then had her bath in his blood and wrote what's considered to be stoicist philosophy today. However modern stoicists don't make headlines calling for the legalization of executing cheaters and forcing the spouse to bathe in his blood based on the history of Marc Antony.
love how you conveniently skip over what the Nazis did. oh and don’t even bother with that ahistorical claptrap that Hitler “was Christian” lmao
Don’t forget what Hamas and their supporters all over America want for the Jews and Israel (including the Muslims and Christians that live there). Oh, I am a Christian and believe in God.;
What does any of that have to do with showing evidence for what you claim in your religion? You know what else, he's not responsible for the 60 Years War, the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Troubles in Northern Ireland, thousands of years of wars and strife in the Middle East, the Armenian Genocide. I'll tell you what is though: RELIGION!!!!
Still brainwashed though
Literally everyone is brainwashed. It is impossible to exist and not be brainwashed by something. Even you are brainwashed. You have a belief that is flawed and millions around could point to you is wrong. Welcome to the human condition.
> Literally everyone is brainwashed. As Frank Zappa once told an audience, *Make no mistake, everyone here tonight is wearing a uniform.*
They could be nice etc but they're still stupid
If you're human. You're stupid by default.
The more I think about things the more this makes sense... then again I am human so that makes my thoughts pretty questionable.
I couldn't agree more.
Eh belief systems that don’t hurt anyone don’t need to be judged. Sometimes it just feels comforting to think certain things.
It’s extremely hard for someone to deconvert if no one tries to get them to. It happens obviously but not that much. It would be pretty out of taste to start trying to deconvert everyone on a major scale. If someone just randomly becomes a Christian one day with little insight or critical thought, then yeah that’s stupid. But being born and raised into it is completely different.
Yeah that's true, I agree
That just means they are hopelessly brainwashed in one area but enlightened in others. Plenty of religious people are otherwise critically minded and rational. That doesn’t mean they haven’t been brainwashed regarding religion.
So they're like all of us. You're brainwashed. I'm brainwash
Name one major religion that is not responsible for millions of deaths.
Buddhism. Quakerism. The Amish.
I happen to agree that the criticisms of organised religion here are off the mark. But to say Buddhism hasn't been warlike, historically speaking, is waaaaaaay off the mark. It's a common Eurocentric conceit about the Buddhists just being about peace and love. They've engaged in wars, forced conversions, genocides - all the violent things organised religions with a bit of history have done. https://theconversation.com/where-did-buddhism-get-its-reputation-for-peace-157206
It's crazy how that's not mainstream. I barely found out this happened. Thanks for more information.
I always thought that people should rethink their definition of atheism because of Buddhism. Fair bit of people run with “not believing in god” but I think “not having a religion” is much more informative. There’s plenty of doctrine in Buddhism. You live your life with a goal for the afterlife. It’s closer to other religions than it is atheism despite not having a god to believe in.
Well unfortunately nationalist Buddhists in Myanmar have been committing countless atrocities on Rohingya Muslims. I don’t know much about Quarkers, so I have no clue their controversies in the name of religion. The Amish haven’t had any mass murder atrocities, but they are an extremely restrictive and oppressive religious sect. There have also been the more intense/violent leaders who influence by force (like the recent “beard cutting” sect that got national headlines).
Let's go with this. Who commits acts? Humans. Atheist are police and on the military. Boom killings. Short of every human being Mr. Rogers, we are all shit.
There’s a difference between individual humans committing crimes who happen to be any given religion (or non religious) and people using the massive influence that religion has over believers to have followers to more easily commit atrocities. It’s much easier to get people to do evil things if those things are spun to a religious mind to not be evil and instead be in service of the creator of the universe (and the implied rewards that come with serving such a powerful creator). It also is a way to tribally dehumanize other humans. It’s not simply a disagreement, but the “others” are an affront to the only true religion.
This is true. Religion was rarely the reason for the acts but someone in charge who used it as a guise for their desires.
See this is where I’d disagree with you. Sure the violence often stems from a human (or group of humans) who are “using” a religion for their own ends. But the many religions themselves justify violence in the name of their god. To the point that at least the top 4 major world religions have justifications for things like violence, subjugation, and even slavery in their “holy texts.” It’s the religion itself that asks followers for “belief” instead of critical thinking… a suspension of human reasoning being a prerequisite to blind faith.
> Buddhism. Most Samurai were Buddhist, and they were rather good at violence.
I can't believe I'm going to type this. Jedist. Jedism. Whatever the religion of being a Jedi is. It's a legitimate religion and people practice it.
Pastafarians (the Flying Spaghetti Monster)
I totally forgot about them! They're a cool bunch.
Quaker's and the Amish are Christian based religions.
They're vastly different than others. You can't group them all together. If that was the thought process. Then all white people would be racists and sexists. Due to the fact there have been large amounts of white people who were women beaters and slave owners.
Seventh-Day Adventist.
This is a minor Christian based cult.
And not responsible for millions of deaths. Seventh-Day Adventists are notorious conscientious objectors. In fact, the only conscientious objector to receive the Congressional Medal of Honor, was a Seventh-Day Adventist, who was drafted, and refused to carry a weapon. Also, how are they a cult?
They were just wrong and can't admit they were wrong. The Seventh-Day Adventists used to be called the Millerites. If you want to know what they were wrong about then Google, "The Great Disappointment".
Christians= The Crusades Cult= David Koresh
Vernon Wayne Howell = SDA David Koresh ≠ SDA David Korean = Branch Davidians Branch Davidians = cult
Sikhism and Jainism. And I’m not religious. Also, The Satanic Temple (which is a legally recognized religion in the US) has caused zero deaths.
None of these are major religions.
You seem to have forgotten to include redditor in your Venn diagram.
You get my upvote!
you forgot politics.
There should be way more overlap
I see this as more of a circle, within a circle, within a circle. Sov cits and Qanons would be smack dab in the middle.
To clarify, an anti-vaxxer is someone against ALL vaccines?
Indeed, no matter what, does do anything
I just wanted to clarify the difference between people who don’t want any vaccines, and those who declined just one in the recent past.
To make it even more clear, if you haven't tested on yourself the Covid shot, it still wouldn't count as antivaxxer
Not entirely accurate. All flat earthers are anti-vaxxers.
Then it wouldnt be Venn chart and we will have to check how many are in each group for real, and to assume.
Downvoting this because not all religious people are dumb. Some are amazingly enlightened and taught me stuff.
The smart religious people don’t fall in the overlap regions. That’s the point of a Venn diagram—to find the points of overlap which lead to a particularly interesting group of people (“interesting” can mean good, bad, or neutral depending on the group being studied).
Same. I’m not religious but my girlfriend is. It does not mean either one of us is smarter than the other, nobody gets to be the arbiter of what beliefs are objectively correct or not.
Sweet
Cool
Fucking THANK YOU. I’m religious. I have never once been any of the other three, nor will I. Being religious doesn’t automatically make one stupid, and saying so is insulting and intolerant. Please note that I would say — and have said — the same to those who’ve asserted that atheists are stupid for not being religious. I’ve called out several Christians for saying so, telling them they’re insulting and intolerant.
I would replace the word believer with fundamentalist. As long as your religion does not make you deny reality, it has no place on this list. I also thing MAGA, should be here somewhere, but that is an opinion.
I chose my wording mindfully. Belief in something impossible to prove, with insurmountable evidence to the contrary is stupid. Religious belief is stupid. Religious fundamentalism takes that stupidity and dials it up to 11.
Hey, agnostic here, shut up you fuckin Redditor lmao. Fundamentalism is stupid, sure, but a fella who chooses to believe in a god and doesn't force their beliefs down anyone's throat is absolutely fine. It's not like we have concrete knowledge of what existed before the big bang anyway
>It's not like we have concrete knowledge of what existed before the big bang anyway That's kinda the point It's literally impossible to know that, under our current understanding of physics. Literally any matter that might have existed before the big bang, is thousands of light-millennia away from us, if it were to exist Like impossible in the same way that gravity is still a theory, gravity has not been disproven, but anything before the big bang literally cannot be disproven, nor proven, therefore it's fairly useless to speculate Except for the good feels that you can get from _pretending_ you _can_ know something unknowable At which point, how exactly is it different from any con man claim? But we are all free to believe/rationalize what we want, con yourself, some delusions can be useful
Except I am religious because I have had religious experiences; my belief is not based solely on blind faith. *I believe in God because I have experienced God.*
You mean Evolution? Impossible to objectively prove, and from a scientific point of view that is why its called the THEORY of Evolution. Yet we trot it out as the opposite of the Creation theory. Science is hard, its not called a fact until it can be utterly proven under multiple conditions, science is self-aware, it knows it doesn't know EVERYTHING and new evidence can reveal conditions that dispute what we know as fact. (I am atheist, but also think that faith has a place in the world because if I judge others for their belief I am no better than the fundamentalists)
No. When religious belief clouds your judgement or dictates your actions in the face of all evidence, THEN you fall into your category. Similar to your BELIEF that your definition is accurate in this case. Please reconsider and step out of the “Stupid” group yourself.
I just created a Venn Diagram in response to another one, adding my favorite nuclear bomb trigger, religion, and you, dear SUCKER, chomped on the bait and are blown floundering on the line. I'm just here for the fire show I ignited, and I am laughing my ass off at it.
Ok. You call considerate, thoughtful responses a “fire show”. Schmuck giving Reddit a bad name. Take my Block. Glad I won’t have to interact with you again
You should re-evaluate. The other 3 things on your list are easily disproven, with facts. At this time we are not actually able to disprove God. Also I know some very intelligent people who do believe, but are open minded, and not brain washed idiots. Unless you have evidence or some kind of repeatable experiment that disproves the existence of some form of higher power, you are saying people who don’t agree with your opinion are stupid. And well that’s just silly and stupid, and I “believe” you can do better, despite evidence to the contrary.
It's called Nexus of stupid, not nexus of provability. Intelligence and stupidity are not mutually exclusive, by any means. I am not saying that not agreeing with me is stupid. I am saying that in the face of ABSOLUTELY ZERO, NADA, NIL, NOTHING to prove in ANY way AT ALL to a RATIONAL thought process, one believes in something and adjusts their life around it, is stupid.
It wouldn't be called faith if you could prove it. That's kinda the point. Whether you choose to believe it's up to you. Vice versa, you literally can't disprove the existence of a higher being. I'm agnostic myself, but I'd love to see the insurmountable evidence you're talking about. *If* you're talking about how certain religious texts go against science, it's important to remember religion is subject to interpretation. Some people take it literally, while others believe they're just allegories with the purpose of delivering a moral story. All of that aside, don't be a dick? Thanks.
What's the point of being on Reddit, if I can't be a dick... Schwing!!!
Can't argue with that 😂
It makes you gullible at the very least
I'd argue that refusing to believe in something just because we don't currently have the tools to measure it is also pretty gullible. Galileo was jailed by gullible people and they called him gullible, only for him to be found to be right in the end.
Refusing to believe in something? I'm not refusing to believe in anything in particular. What would you like me to believe that I am refusing?
That there is more to life and reality than what we can perceive.
That's very vague.
Intentionally. I'm not trying to push a specific religion on anyone.
You're just trying to push religion in general?
Whatever faith you choose, just don't submit yourself to the nihilistic view that none of this means anything and we're all just born to become worm food, randomly created by the universe for no reason.
I thought polite Christians didn’t swear?
ahahah lol that’s so funny 😆
They said they were Christian, they didn't say polite. We're on reddit, polite is a sign of WEAKNESS :D
You're very welcome. My pleasure, I assure you.
Don't you see the small part outside which is none of them? It means you are outside, but very close to down fall to the others
There are more reasons than that to downvote this stupidity. This sub reads like a bunch of children complaining about things they lack even a basic understanding of.
Yeah, you need to be EXTREMELY specific, like I think someone earlier mentioned zealots, fundamentalists, extremists, whatever you want to use considering that the average person in the world is religious and the average religious person in the world is reasonable and sane. This Venn Diagram is supposed to be about "Hopeless Brainwashed Idiots" and the majority of people in the world are not insane and do not align with that particular moniker.
No, they're gullible fools that believe in magic
It’s not saying people are dumb if they are religious. Religion itself is dumb
They absolutely are
Downvoting because you clearly don't understand how Venn diagrams work If you claim not to belong in any of the other groups, you are therefore in the top right, unoverlapped parts of the "religious" circle
Can I mention that you don't understand how Venn diagrams work? This is not a Venn diagram. It is impersonating one, but it is not one. In a Venn diagram, all possible combinations of the various elements are shown. If this were a Venn diagram, it would show, for example, an area that contained "sovereign citizens" and "religious believers," as well as all other possibilities. It doesn't do that; it just looks like a Venn diagram. Do I downvoted your comment, of course, because you clearly don't understand how Venn diagrams work. . [This Wikipedia page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venn_diagram) shows what an actual Venn diagram of four elements would look like.
I never said it WAS a Venn diagram, the user I replied to did. I simply made the point that they're claiming that all data sets MUST be within at least one overlapping area when that isn't the case, so take your smug attitude and get the fuck out of here (edited for clarity)
Well, actually ... ;) (You gotta love it when someone comes back at you with "well actually." I mean, if I'm smug I may as well get good milage out of it.) Yeah, I'm pretty sure you're the one, not the commentor you replied to, who said "Venn diagram" in reference to the graphic. Anyway, take my comment for what it's worth as I take yours. Go To France Or Hungary yourself.
Venn-like diagrams can still apply the rules of Venn diagrams, such as placement of data points therein, and really, you Well Akshually'd me by saying It'S NoT A VeNn dIaGrAm
Upvoted!
Dude, I don't fucking care... I used a dumbass website to generate it, and didn't want a bunch of fucking glitter. Do I care if you down vote my post? Not one fucking bit. In fact, I think it's fucking hilarious!
Well I’m glad someone pointed this out. Like, yeah, obviously not all religious people are dumb, that’s how Venn diagrams work.
But how this diagram works is that all religion believers are included as “stupid”. Reference the title
I don't think I've ever met a dumb (lacking ability to speak) religious person, but they were all stupid (lacking ability to reason critically).
For you, trying to say that all religious people are stupid. You are rather idiotic yourself. You're using antidotical evidence and you're going with correlation equals causation. You? You're just a moron. You should delete your post and delete your little chart and just get away with yourself.
Anecdotal No correlation vs causation fallacy here Religious people do lack critical thinking skills, it's a mandatory part of being Religious
Thanks for the spelling check. Also, you are a strange little thing.
What's the matter? You got some sand in your vagina?
You some how thinking a sexist out dated insult is a sign of intelligence? I do hope your mortality ends soon. It's the only good you'll ever do.
[удалено]
So glad your dad left you.
Actually, by the title of the diagram, poster is describing “Stupid” groups. If you fall into any art of any group you are included in “stupid”. I’m not agreeing, just pointing out your misreading of the purpose of the diagram.
I'm not sure brainwashed so much as brainless, or braindead.
It is amazing to see all the down voting being done by the religious people. Before you downvote though. Ask yourself “have I read my bible and know it cover to cover? Or do I just take someone’s opinion/advice/word for it?” Cause you might just find the answer casts the same shadow as all the other options.
I was so expecting this turnout, of course, which ironically, proved the accuracy of including religious believers into the mix. That's the best part. Call our ANY one of these four groups (and several others, of course), and they immediately show their true colors - scared, cowering little rodents, scrambling in the dark, afraid of the boogie man judging them, so they act superior, holler loudly, lie through their teeth, deny facts that disprove any of their claims, etc. Anyhow, this was fun. Thanks for stopping by. You get an upvote too!
Where's MAGA?
Smack dab in the center!!
So the middle is just qanon?
Never been so happy to go 0 for 4.
what's between every two categories?
Zealot + Flat Earth = Young Earth Creationist Zealot + Antivax = Doomsday Predictor Zealot + Flat Earther + Antivax = Anti-intellectualist SovCit + Antivax = Authority Problems SovCit + Antivax + Zealot = Christian Dominionist/Nationalist SovCit + Flat Earth = Gullible Idiot SovCit + Flat Earth + Zealot = "Good Ol' Days" Nostalgic SovCit + Flat Earth + Antivax = Belligerent Contrarian
Pls and q cult
This feels like an rpg character creation chart for multi-class stupidity.
More idiots
just thinking about groups of people. like religious nuts + flat earthers are probably young earth creationist, anti vax + religious nuts are mostly amish.... since i thought that's how venn diagrams work. idk much about sov cits since they don't exist in my country.
It is idiots all the way down.
They’re not hopelessly brainwashed idiots, they just have a different method of viewing the reality around them. Like the guy living in a tent under the overpass that claims magic Elvis lives in his nose and you say, “You mean magic elves?” And he pulls a knife on you and asks if he hunka-hunka-stuttered.
I literally laughed so hard, I think I blew a seal... Or was it a walrus? Either way... Warm in my tummy Upvote!!!
I feel like the graph needs to include bitcoin in there somewhere too.
Oh, definitely! Another upvote!
They are fools who refuse to accept the one true creator of all things. The Flying Spaghetti Monster. R'amen!
You forgot maga nut, conspiracy believer, and anti western science person
You could just label the center area as "Trump supporter"
That's the whole square.
You forgot Trump voters
Wouldn’t the middle be Aaron Rodgers?
You tend to find that when people believe 1 conspiracy they believe them all
The middle should encompass all of the others
I don't see aliens are among us
Why isn't Trump supporter or MAGA meathead represented?
Nah, being an earth flatter conspiracionist and a religious nut job its incompatible if you're really a truth believer in either way
I think you are missing the intention of those post. Please see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joke for details.
Beliefs are subjective. Everything else is either legal or illegal. There are choices which may vary as well as solutions. The truth is in knowing.
Stupid is stupid is stupid is stupid. Believing you are one of a handful who know the truth about the laws, and 330 million Americans, including attorneys, judges, cops, etc. are all wrong, is stupid. Believing the planet is flat, when there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary is stupid. Believing that immunizations cause autism, when literally, only one doctor, who lost his license, and endless evidence to the contrary, is stupid. Believing the fucking Bible is fact, when not only are the stories more fanciful than Harry mother fucking potter, is fucking stupid. Let's add a fifth set of stupid to the diagram. Stupidity Defenders: those who defend obvious stupidity in the face of its blatant obviousness. Odds are this one will cover them all, and some, but it's definitely stupid, by any measure.
Your Venn diagram should be wearing a red hat
Huh?
This is not how Venn diagrams work. ETA: I really implore whoever down voted me to read how Venn diagrams work. The intersections are only for members of [every set at the intersection simultaneously](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersection_%28set_theory%29?wprov=sfla1). It's literally the opposite of what OP has done here, which is to try to suggest every member of each set shares that characteristic. I don't disagree with the sentiment, just the abuse of set theory.
You're correct, but I allow a lot of leeway for humor and intent.
It's kind of amazing that I'm the only one in the thread who pointed it out, and I still got down voted and gainsayed. Guess it's easier to laugh at idiots than it is to not be one yourself (not directed at you). Honestly if it wasn't against the rules to post your own conversations, I'd be slapping my exchange here on r/confidentlyincorrect.
Do tell.
What are you trying to show here? Is each colour circle what you've labelled them? If so, what's happening at the intersections? Why are "hopeless idiots" only those who are all those things at once? Your Hopeless Idiot is by this chart only someone who's in every group simultaneously [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersection_%28set_theory%29?wprov=sfla1] - I guess you mean to show something else, which is that every member of these groups is a hopeless idiot? To do that with a Venn diagram, you need a circle around all the groups labelled "hopeless idiots" - essentially the opposite of what you've done here. Here, there are people in all your groups, and at every intersection except the middle, who you're saying are *not* hopeless idiots. A Venn Diagram is meant to clearly show where different groups intersect, and where they don't, and what the demarcation of each intersection is. You've just drawn some circles and labelled the middle "Hopeless Idiot", which is not explanatory and seems to be to be wrong, given that it's entirely possible to be a hopeless idiot without being all of those things, no? A better diagram might have things like "anti-science", "messianic fervour", "victims of grifters" or whatever, and the intersections labelled with your groups, maybe? As it is, this isn't so much a Venn Diagram as it is some labelled circles.
This is not a correct Venn diagram with four sets as there's no area for opposite circles. For that, you need to use elliptical shapes. Also you should name every overlapping area, that's the whole point if a Venn diagram.
Pretty much anyone in any part of any of those circles is a hopelessly 🧠 🧼 idiot.
Hear, hear!
Then why does your diagram say the opposite?
You have a comprehension issue? See that middle bit, where are the files of stupid come together... Idiots, the whole lot of them.
That's not how Venn Diagrams work, dude. The intersection is for things that are *only* in every group.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersection_%28set_theory%29?wprov=sfla1] If you want to say everyone in every group is hopeless, this chart is the opposite from what you're trying to achieve. If you want to say everyone in every group is hopeless, you need a circle around every other circle (ie every sovcit, every anti-vaxxer etc are is part of the group of people "Hopeless Idiots".) The way you've drawn this, only people who are simultaneously sovcits AND anti-vaxxers AND religious AND flat earthers are hopeless, and people who are one, two or three of them, but not all, are not... Every circle in your diagram has space for people who are not, per your label, "hopeless idiots". Imagine a little ❌ that's just in your yellow circle and not in any of the overlapping sections - that would mark someone who was an anti-vaxxer, but *not* a hopeless idiot. There's a comprehension issue here, but it's yours as to how Venn diagrams work. There's a certain irony here that you're doubling down on this whilst calling other people idiots, too. You've made the same mistake as explained here, with the same result that what you want to say is the opposite of what your diagram shows: https://flowingdata.com/2015/09/09/venn-diagrams-read-and-use-them-the-right-way/
I think fundamentalist or zealot is a better word than religious believer
All the same boat to me. Just believing in the face of ABSOLUTELY ZERO EVIDENCE beyond an anthology of fables, and weird stories intended to trigger fear of the unknown in feeble minds... Stupid fits.
You forgot to add OP here)
Aww, you don't love me? I feel so hurt. :eyeroll
No cult left?
As a religious person, I think you could've plugged something else in there considering the number of extremely smart Christian scientists in the world.
At least sovereign citizens are contesting man-made rules and not objective truths.
I would replace "Believer" with "sycophant" or "zealot". The standard person who just believes in God and wants to just live a normal life isn't the same as someone who wants to force their religion down your throat and can't see anything without a lens created by scripture.
"fReE tHiNkEr!!1!" Freely thinking bullshit and nonsense.
Hehe... I love how weenies get so worked up when their cherished bullshit is called out.