What's with the hostility towards Christians?

[Tokzic]

Originally Posted by funmonkey54

Scientist: Here is what I believe to be true based entirely on theories I choose to confirm as correct. I believe X changed and developed due to a series of forced adaptations into Y.

Christian: And that is very well. You can believe that, but here is what I believe based on theories I have chosen to confirm as fact in my own opinion. I believe we were created as we are or at least very similar by a greater being, similar to how we as beings create elements.

At this point, both people are stating their opinions and beliefs in a non-confrontational way. Both are admitting it to be theory, seeing as how nearly everything we consider to be fact in science is indeed theory.

There's a very large problem with your model: A scientist's "belief" when it comes to evolution is actual knowledge. As I said in my initial post, when presented with so much evidence supporting a piece of information that it must be true beyond a reasonable doubt, we can classify that information as knowledge.

And here's a beautiful example of what I was saying about lowering IQ. You're saying that when presented with knowledge, with facts - facts are NOT SUBJECTIVE, as you are making them out to be - you shrug them off as beliefs and say that your beliefs are different.

When you are rejecting truth in favour of an opinion, you are being unintelligent, and your thinking needs to be repaired.

[funmonkey54]

Originally Posted by qqwref

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

There are enough examples of Christian-raised people committing terrible or violent crimes that I don't think I need to list any. And there are even examples of Christians committing crimes just as a matter of rebellion against authority - crimes that they wouldn't commit if they believed that they were morally wrong on their own. Saying all Christians are moral, non-violent saints is just as closed-minded and incorrect as saying all atheists are immoral, violent beasts.

Besides, would you rather be a good person because you believe it in your heart to be right, or because you are threatened with eternal torture if you don't?

Saying any group of people is exactly the same is wrong, regardless of religious orientation. Although, anyone can say they are something they are not. So, surveys as to what religion has more suicides and such is just ridiculous.

[justin_ator]

It isn't so much a threat of eternal torture that gets you to into Christianity. At least it shouldn't be. Really, if you think about it, what is there to lose anyway? If we as Christians are wrong, then there is nothing more, and we all just pass off. But if we are right, seriously, that means eternity for lots of people in Hell. And people can say 'eh, my friends will all be there', but the truth of the matter is that Hell is not a fun place. There will be no friends. It is ETERNAL torture and condemnation. Not cool stuff.

[gnr61]

conditioning your mind to believe in a christian god as an insurance policy against an undesirable afterlife is a pretty cool idea.

more like if you are wrong and any one of dozens of other religions (and infinite noninstitutionalized possibilities) is correct you will suffer whatever fate theirs has in store for you. in essence you are taking pride in your 'educated guess' in selecting a deity to worship

[funmonkey54]

Originally Posted by justin_ator

It isn't so much a threat of eternal torture that gets you to into Christianity. At least it shouldn't be. Really, if you think about it, what is there to lose anyway? If we as Christians are wrong, then there is nothing more, and we all just pass off. But if we are right, seriously, that means eternity for lots of people in Hell. And people can say 'eh, my friends will all be there', but the truth of the matter is that Hell is not a fun place. There will be no friends. It is ETERNAL torture and condemnation. Not cool stuff.

The following is just a Christian to Christian statement:

I can appreciate this point of view, although I disagree with it. This goes along with the idea that people who do good things get into heaven. While, in all actuality, Christianity based on the bible is more about a relationship with the lord than doing good things. Notice, his chosen people were those that took the time to develop a relationship with him, and through that wanted to please him. Thus, they did "good" things in order to please him. At the time, there were millions of people doing good things but did not believe what he claimed and thus went to hell.

[GuidoHunter]

@EVERYONE: LEAVE THE VALIDITY OF EVOLUTION OUT OF THIS THREAD

Originally Posted by Tokzic

No. My statistics pointed out that christian people have a higher tendency of being a bad person, and this from people who like to pretend they have better morals than the non-religious, as bolth believes. My statistics pointed out that christians are especially bad at violating their moral code.

Did you forget to link or copy a few studies in that post? Because your quotes don't say this at all.

Take #2 for example. For all we know, all the records of social ills, murder, and general bad people could have come entirely from the non-Christian population of those "Christian heavy" areas. The information you have given us just doesn't point, in any way, to the claim that Christians have a higher tendency of being a bad person. Using #1 is closer, but would still be a stretch to draw that conclusion.

I misspoke a bit. What I meant to say is that christianity is not a particularly powerful means of instilling good morals.

Again, it certainly can be. You have absolutely no grounds on which to make such a statement.

Again, as my statistics point out, christianity is actually worse than coming to your own morals.

Strong claim. Care to show me the study of a large-scale side-by-side comparison of people who grew up Christian and people who grew up without religion and how their lives turned out with respect to their moral guidance from which you drew this conclusion?

I'm not trying to argue any particular point here; I'm just trying to keep you intellectually honest.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[Tokzic]

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter

@EVERYONE: LEAVE THE VALIDITY OF EVOLUTION OUT OF THIS THREAD

I don't see why it isn't relevant, it's a powerful example of why there is hostility towards christians. The actual argument itself is not something to bring into the thread, yes, but I mentioned earlier that my main reason for being anti-religious is because I find it destroys normal logical thought patterns. Whether it's evolution or anything else doesn't matter so much - the point is, religion causes people to reject truth in favour of blind faith. And thus, hostility.

Again, it certainly can be. You have absolutely no grounds on which to make such a statement.

You wanted direct comparison, and here you go:

http://www.holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm

While only 78% of the US population is Christian, 83% of inmates in prison are Christian. Also, despite the US being approximately 8-16% atheist, they only make up 0.21% of all US inmates!

And the non-religious are supposedly the ones in need of moral guidance?

[gnr61]

from which you can draw myriad correlations and absolutely zero concrete evidence indicating belief in christianity to be a causative factor in crime nor refuting the postulation that christian exposure and/or upbringing has the potential to be a powerful mean of instilling strong morals

[GuidoHunter]

Originally Posted by Tokzic

I don't see why it isn't relevant, it's a powerful example of why there is hostility towards christians. The actual argument itself is not something to bring into the thread, yes, but...

That's what I'm trying to say. I just want to keep it related to the hostility and the OP, not whether or not it's true (aka its validity). I wasn't directing the warning at anyone specifically; it was just a precaution as hints of leaning that way were appearing.

You wanted direct comparison, and here you go:

http://www.holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm

While only 78% of the US population is Christian, 83% of inmates in prison are Christian. Also, despite the US being approximately 8-16% atheist, they only make up 0.21% of all US inmates!

This is a totally different point. You were talking about the strength of Christianity's being a good moral beacon ("instilling good morals"). Any born-again Christian can tell you that it is.

That link (while better evidence than before, so thank you) shows that mere affiliation with a religion may not instill strongly enough the morals to stay out of jail.

EDIT: ninja'd by gnr. Also well said there.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[Grandiagod]

People don't like christianity because in the eyes of the rational populace it's frankly retarded. Plus it's the driving force behind a lot of bigotry and the conservative right christian movement which practically anyone with a brain hates.

/endthread

[Squeek]

Originally Posted by funmonkey54

Now, I am assuming you are an atheist of some sort by the way you talk about it, so I will not argue about what religion is right or wrong. We are both stubborn in that we both believe we are right and it most likely is not going to change, but I see a lot of value in backing our government with a set of morals. Whether that moral value be backed by a religion, an idea, or whatever it may be, I see the value in it. The constant political correctness BS REALLY gets annoying because when push comes to shove, we want to say certain things are right or wrong, but not others. By that I mean we want to say murder is wrong, but then we ask who is to say something like gay marriage is ok or wrong. In my opinion, if we do not have some set of morals to back what we say with, then we have no right to say what is and isn't right or wrong. People will argue and bicker over anything the government does. Our government will never do anything that makes everyone happy, so a stand must be made and a line must be drawn at some point.

Morals are not what I am concerned about. It's when these people listen to the words of the Pope over the words of the President.

What kind of idiot doesn't know murder is wrong? We as a society knew murder was wrong long before religion, especially long before Christianity.

But these same people get this piece of paper in front of them asking for their vote on a piece of scientific research that will save billions of lives, and they say 'nay' because their religion says it's wrong.

Scientist: Here is what I believe to be true based entirely on theories I choose to confirm as correct. I believe X changed and developed due to a series of forced adaptations into Y.

Christian: And that is very well. You can believe that, but here is what I believe based on theories I have chosen to confirm as fact in my own opinion. I believe we were created as we are or at least very similar by a greater being, similar to how we as beings create elements.

Sorry guido but this is ridiculous and I cannot have him have the last word.

Scientists don't have to believe in something we know to be true. We've tested it. We know it's true. This is not a faith-based initiative. Someone posited a hypothesis, a bunch of people tested it, and now we know it's the truth. The old Pope (JP2) even said it was credible!

Religion must believe in something, because there's no proof in religion whatsoever. Trying to prove anything from the Bible as truthful is just meaningless. There was no science in those days. Modern science began so long after Christianity got underway. So, you're literally forced to take everything the Bible says as truth based on faith. You have no hope of proving any of it to be true.

Here's the problem you and many other Christians have with science: you simply don't understand science. There is no debate among scientists as to whether evolution happened or not. IT DID. WE KNOW IT DID. It's called a theory because that's what scientists call things that are known to be true but are not 100% testable. We know gravity is true, but it's still a theory. We know the Earth revolves around the Sun, but it's still a theory.

Science is about creating a model so that anyone can test your hypothesis and confirm it for themselves to be true. When we did this and thousands of scientists confirmed it to be true, it became more than a hypothesis. It became scientific theory--one step short of fact because it is not a fully testable series of events. Compare this rigorous testing and multiple recorded sources of confirmation to "god did it", and you'll see why I'm a little peeved that you try to discredit science.

To tie this in to the OP so guido doesn't get mad at me: this is one of the reasons I have hostility toward christians. Attempting to overthrow science. I know you don't, guido, and I'm not about to say that religion's goal is to overthrow science, but these people who discredit science have a way of getting the attention of governors, senators, and congresspeople, and swaying their opinions away from allowing scientific research to be done. Hell, look at Cobb County! The religious right convinced the school board that religion was a teachable science! That's just preposterous.

Originally Posted by flipsta_lombax

These people as you mean as the disciples did not just hear him. They followed him and his teachings, hence why there is a New Testament.

They followed some guy who claimed he could hear God.

Do you follow people in New York who claim they can hear God?

I wasn't talking about the 12 disciples either. I'm talking about everyone in the Bible. They all hear God. God never teleports himself down to them to talk face to face. God talks through burning shubbery and things like that.

My point is simple. People today claiming to hear God? They're insane. That mother who stoned her two children to death because God told her to? We filed her as clinically insane. But two thousand years ago, those people are PROPHETS! They're doing God's work!

[qqwref]

Originally Posted by funmonkey54

Saying any group of people is exactly the same is wrong, regardless of religious orientation. Although, anyone can say they are something they are not. So, surveys as to what religion has more suicides and such is just ridiculous.

Not true. It's almost always incorrect to say that a particular group of people all have a particular characteristic, but it is always possible to perform a statistical analysis on different groups to find out which group has a higher *prevalence* of a particular characteristic.

[Buttoxin]

Why do people concentrate on religion anyway? Christianity is all about what happened 2000 years ago when a zombie actually existed. The only reason Christians love him so much is cause they didn't have shotguns back in that era. (joking)

In all seriousness Christians don't pay attention to their current life or the present. The thing they mainly care about is God, Jesus, and their own after life. They wish, hope, and "pray" that they don't get sent to Hell when, if you think about it, was never proven. For those who care, I'm not trying to hate on anybody, that's just my own opinion.

[zoogarama]

Originally Posted by Buttoxin

Why do people concentrate on religion anyway? Christianity is all about what happened 2000 years ago when a zombie actually existed. The only reason Christians love him so much is cause they didn't have shotguns back in that era. (joking)

In all seriousness Christians don't pay attention to their current life or the present. The thing they mainly care about is God, Jesus, and their own after life. They wish, hope, and "pray" that they don't get sent to Hell when, if you think about it, was never proven. For those who care, I'm not trying to hate on anybody, that's just my own opinion.

I only have one thing to say in response to that because I do agree with you that there are some Christians that go along in life just wishing, hoping, and praying that things will turn out alright and don't do anything else. Though granted I don't know very many so that isn't the case for a lot of Christians.

What I do want to say in response to your comment about Hell not being proven is that while this is true, not a whole lot in the Bible or the Christian faith can be proven, outside of historical sites and other things, the Christian faith is just that, Faith. Faith that one day God will return and renew this earth and that there is a heaven and hell. Which is also the reason why I think a lot of people can't deal with being in a religion that requires you to rely so much on the unproven when we have everyone around us like at school telling us to base our opinions on FACTS.

[funmonkey54]

Originally Posted by Squeek

Morals are not what I am concerned about. It's when these people listen to the words of the Pope over the words of the President.

I agree with this. Although, I think the whole idea of a pope is slightly ridiculous.

What kind of idiot doesn't know murder is wrong? We as a society knew murder was wrong long before religion, especially long before Christianity.

But the point is not that we know it is wrong, it is that if we wish to take political correctness to extremes and say no one should tell us what is and isn't wrong (That is, if we have no moral backing) then we cannot say things such as murder is wrong because after all, who gets the right to say what is wrong and right?

But these same people get this piece of paper in front of them asking for their vote on a piece of scientific research that will save billions of lives, and they say 'nay' because their religion says it's wrong.

Sorry guido but this is ridiculous and I cannot have him have the last word.

That is an awful reason. You continue bringing something up because you feel you must have the last word? But, this is another issue all together. Since you are also a mod and obviously approve having this still in play, response time.

Scientists don't have to believe in something we know to be true. We've tested it. We know it's true. This is not a faith-based initiative. Someone posited a hypothesis, a bunch of people tested it, and now we know it's the truth. The old Pope (JP2) even said it was credible!

I don't care what the pope says for one. So, don't bother bringing him up. He is fine and good for Catholics, but only Catholics. Christianity as a whole does not embrace every last word he says.

My point is this. We only "know" and say things are fact based on the limited knowledge we have. Christianity was presented and MILLIONS of people tested it and found it to be true. So can we also say we know that is the truth?

Religion must believe in something, because there's no proof in religion whatsoever. Trying to prove anything from the Bible as truthful is just meaningless. There was no science in those days. Modern science began so long after Christianity got underway. So, you're literally forced to take everything the Bible says as truth based on faith. You have no hope of proving any of it to be true.

And yet every day they find archeological evidence supporting different events listed, it correlates with Roman history CONSTANTLY, and you accept that as "documented history". Your idea of proof is flawed. Here is what the dictionary defines proof as:

"evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth."

So, enough evidence has obviously been provided to produce belief in its truth over and over and over again. So how can you go about saying we have no hope of proving any of it to be true when it has already been proved true to millions according to the definition of proof itself?

Here's the problem you and many other Christians have with science: you simply don't understand science. There is no debate among scientists as to whether evolution happened or not. IT DID. WE KNOW IT DID. It's called a theory because that's what scientists call things that are known to be true but are not 100% testable. We know gravity is true, but it's still a theory. We know the Earth revolves around the Sun, but it's still a theory.

Here's the problem with you and many other non-Christians have with Christianity: you simply don't understand Christianity. This is no debate among Christians as to whether or not we were created by God or not. IT DID. WE KNOW IT DID. It's called a theory because that's what scientists call things that are known to be true but are not 100% testable. We know he had disciples, but it's still a theory. We know he died on a cross for us, but it's still a theory.

You were saying?

Science is about creating a model so that anyone can test your hypothesis and confirm it for themselves to be true. When we did this and thousands of scientists confirmed it to be true, it became more than a hypothesis. It became scientific theory--one step short of fact because it is not a fully testable series of events. Compare this rigorous testing and multiple recorded sources of confirmation to "god did it", and you'll see why I'm a little peeved that you try to discredit science.

Christianity is about providing people with what we have found to be true and allowing them to see if they find truth in it themselves. When we did this and thousands of Christians confirmed it to be true, it became more than just a hypothesis. It becomes a religious theory--one step short of fact but it is not a fully testable series of events. Compare this rigorous testing and multiple recorded sources of confirmation to "it just does", and you'll see why I'm a little peeved that you try to discredit Christianity.

To tie this in to the OP so guido doesn't get mad at me: this is one of the reasons I have hostility toward Christians. Attempting to overthrow science. I know you don't, guido, and I'm not about to say that religion's goal is to overthrow science, but these people who discredit science have a way of getting the attention of governors, senators, and congresspeople, and swaying their opinions away from allowing scientific research to be done. Hell, look at Cobb County! The religious right convinced the school board that religion was a teachable science! That's just preposterous.

This is why I have hostility towards scientists. Attempting to overthrow Christianity. They believe that just because they don't think it is true, it isn't even a possibility. We base our beliefs on what we know and find to be true, just as they do. And yet, somehow, their findings and beliefs are superior? That is ridiculous! And then, when our equally valid theories get taught in schools and similar settings, they throw a fit!

They followed some guy who claimed he could hear God.

Do you follow people in New York who claim they can hear God?

I wasn't talking about the 12 disciples either. I'm talking about everyone in the Bible. They all hear God. God never teleports himself down to them to talk face to face. God talks through burning shubbery and things like that.

My point is simple. People today claiming to hear God? They're insane. That mother who stoned her two children to death because God told her to? We filed her as clinically insane. But two thousand years ago, those people are PROPHETS! They're doing God's work!

They believe that just because things don't occur in a simple and completely testable way, they can't happen. We base all of our science off of a counting system we developed and find patterns in. Just because one thing occurs one way, all things must occur in that same way. It is completely idiotic! But oh no, don't tell them they are wrong! They are doing Science!

Originally Posted by qqwref

Not true. It's almost always incorrect to say that a particular group of people all have a particular characteristic, but it is always possible to perform a statistical analysis on different groups to find out which group has a higher *prevalence* of a particular characteristic.

Yes, but be prepared for a biased answer depending on the people you test.

And my point was more in this respect anyway. If some random suicidal Joe Shmoe says he is a Christian, then kills himself, he gets added as a suicidal Christian. A simple title can be claimed and associated with him, but any sane Christian would tell you he most likely was not an actual Christian, just claimed the title.

[A2P]

People are hostile towards Christians because people, deep down inside, hate diversity. They cannot handle an opposing opinion, and therefore go on a needless defense. That is how this world has been functioning for the past 500 or so years.

[gnr61]

Originally Posted by funmonkey

Here's the problem with you and many other non-Christians have with Christianity: you simply don't understand Christianity. This is no debate among Christians as to whether or not we were created by God or not. IT DID. WE KNOW IT DID. It's called a theory because that's what scientists call things that are known to be true but are not 100% testable. We know he had disciples, but it's still a theory. We know he died on a cross for us, but it's still a theory.

this is an unfathomably weak semantic argument, i can't even begin to imagine how people of these modern times--with such access as they have to scientific information and higher education--continue to project this kind of mindset as being either logically sound or permissible in intelligent debate.

what you are doing is committing the fallacy of equating (using scientific diction far outside its realm of meaningful application) the rational legitimacy of an opinion supported by consensus within the realm of its own group of followers to that of one substantiated by hard physical evidence that is entirely devoid of subjectivity or bias. when a scientist attempts to answer a question he employs the scientific method to best reach a conclusion not founded on his own predisposition toward one set of beliefs, but on a desire to obtain scientific truth. such is the case with a theory like evolution; you can go with your gut feeling that it just certainly must be wrong (i mean c'mon....surely we didn't come from monkeys!!), but don't try to pass that off as a legitimate counterargument in intelligent debate

[Squeek]

Originally Posted by funmonkey54

But the point is not that we know it is wrong, it is that if we wish to take political correctness to extremes and say no one should tell us what is and isn't wrong (That is, if we have no moral backing) then we cannot say things such as murder is wrong because after all, who gets the right to say what is wrong and right?

So, listen to a book written 2000 years ago rather than establish a standard of society? Sorry, we did just fine on our own without using religion to establish our laws.

That is an awful reason. You continue bringing something up because you feel you must have the last word? But, this is another issue all together. Since you are also a mod and obviously approve having this still in play, response time.

No, I can't let a false claim be the last word. I was merely correcting you.

My point is this. We only "know" and say things are fact based on the limited knowledge we have. Christianity was presented and MILLIONS of people tested it and found it to be true. So can we also say we know that is the truth?

Wait, what? You're saying millions of people tested every historical aspect of the Bible and proved it to be true? You're confusing people who believe in God with people who believe in the science and history of the Bible. Scientists and Historians do not use the Bible as a source. There's no knowledge to be found in that book. It is a book that attempts to instill good moral values in people, so long as they ignore the horrible atrocities it also contains.

And yet every day they find archeological evidence supporting different events listed, it correlates with Roman history CONSTANTLY, and you accept that as "documented history". Your idea of proof is flawed. Here is what the dictionary defines proof as:

"evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth."

So, enough evidence has obviously been provided to produce belief in its truth over and over and over again. So how can you go about saying we have no hope of proving any of it to be true when it has already been proved true to millions according to the definition of proof itself?

So millions of people in the old ages thought the Earth was flat. The Earth is flat, right? RIGHT?

Ok, so the Great Flood happened, despite zero archeological evidence of it. There was a big flood somewhere in the world at that time, but nobody named Noah is recorded in history. The man who commandeered a ship to transport some goods downriver during this flood did not bring two of every species of the millions of species of animals on the planet and then accurately redistribute them to every country on the planet.

There's no archeological evidence of people wandering the desert for 40 years. There's no historical evidence that the Pharaoh lost to Moses's reasoning and that there was a mass exodus of Jews from Egypt. These events DID NOT HAPPEN.

There is little to no scientific or historical accuracy in the Bible. Stop trying to prove it. It's not there. Just because you and several millions of people believe it, YOU AREN'T SCIENTISTS! What you believe is irrelevant in the face of facts!

I have the feeling you're going to reply to this with resentment and claim that I put too much "faith" in scientists, but that's because historians and scientists have a system that allows EVERYBODY to discredit them! Want to prove that water is not H20? You can! You won't, but you can try! Likewise, you CAN try to disprove Evolution. You won't be able to, but you can try! Thousands of other Christians have tried, and they've all failed.

Here's the problem with you and many other non-Christians have with Christianity: you simply don't understand Christianity. This is no debate among Christians as to whether or not we were created by God or not. IT DID. WE KNOW IT DID. It's called a theory because that's what scientists call things that are known to be true but are not 100% testable. We know he had disciples, but it's still a theory. We know he died on a cross for us, but it's still a theory.

Christianity is about providing people with what we have found to be true and allowing them to see if they find truth in it themselves. When we did this and thousands of Christians confirmed it to be true, it became more than just a hypothesis. It becomes a religious theory--one step short of fact but it is not a fully testable series of events. Compare this rigorous testing and multiple recorded sources of confirmation to "it just does", and you'll see why I'm a little peeved that you try to discredit Christianity.

This is why I have hostility towards scientists. Attempting to overthrow Christianity. They believe that just because they don't think it is true, it isn't even a possibility. We base our beliefs on what we know and find to be true, just as they do. And yet, somehow, their findings and beliefs are superior? That is ridiculous! And then, when our equally valid theories get taught in schools and similar settings, they throw a fit!

They believe that just because things don't occur in a simple and completely testable way, they can't happen. We base all of our science off of a counting system we developed and find patterns in. Just because one thing occurs one way, all things must occur in that same way. It is completely idiotic! But oh no, don't tell them they are wrong! They are doing Science!

Seriously? You're using this? Do you have any idea how stupid this argument is? I don't think I have to respond to this, do I? If you honestly believe that this is a valid argument, then there's absolutely no reason to talk to you anymore, because you're blinded by faith and refuse to understand anything that goes against your religious tenets.

[Dorby]

The only reason I look down upon them is because they

1. Believe in someone that never existed
2. Some (not all are like this) base their life off of christianity, once again, something that is not real, it did not happen, etc.
3. Think less of others because they are not christian i.e. my ex's father disowned his own daughter because she married into a different religion... that's just going too far.

[ieatyourlvllol]

The problem is that many theists adhere too piously to sacred writ, resulting in beliefs that are incompatible with scientific findings. The presence of evolution is quite apparent (and again, I say that as a theist); we have more than enough evidence to support such a conclusion. Thus, rather than trying to deny (probable) fact established by empirical method, a devoted believer should acknowledge evolution and make the appropriate accommodations by reassessing his/her central ideologies. This aspect of adaptability should be applied universally to the entire extent of a person's religious belief. However, here a conflict stems from an absence of religious autonomy. In other words, because theological introspection entails questioning and possibly altering belief, religious establishments often perceive it as a threat to their institutionalized dogmas, and they denounce it accordingly. For them, religious belief is absolute, and concession to other possibilities is not an option. This principle is in turn communicated to followers. As a result, many theists are largely unversed in the historical reasoning that forms the foundation of theology. If you were to ask such people to defend their belief in a deity by utilizing rational thought, most of them would probably fall back upon circular logic, rather than employing legitimate devices such as Aquinas' cosmological argument or Paley's teleological analogy. The implication is clear - "irrational" theists aren't necessarily uneducated - instead, they are simply uninformed.

P.S. - I know I don't represent the majority of theists, but I respect all beliefs, so long as they are supported by sound reasoning and grounded by personal investment. In fact, one of my very good friends is the president of an atheist/agnostic student organization. We get along just fine. 8)