"Ridiculous beliefs, by definition, deserve ridicule"

actuallylike

How do,

Firstly, I may be an asshóle. I really don't want to be an asshóle and I really don't think I am but I can't help feel that if I was vocal to friends and family about my beliefs I would be labelled as such. The way I see it, anyone who has a belief in any established religion is an idiot. There it is, I'm sorry, it's how I feel.

I have tried searching for intellectual arguments against my belief as I don't want to be so arrogant to label the majority of the world as idiots. Closest I came was listening to John Lennox, a very smart man and doesn't fall into the usual pitfalls of circular arguments (i believe because it's written, etc.) but nonetheless his arguments still breakdown in the usual watchmaker/Pascal fallacies.

I can't help but see any argument for belief that can't be shot down with any cartoon posted in the funny side of religion thread (although labelled as funny, some really clever points raised in it) or the usual russell's teapot response. It's nonsense, I think we can all agree on that here.

My main issue though is atheists saying well believe in what you want and I'll leave you be. Now I don't condone forcing someone to believe in something. the entire premise is absurd but why do some people not have an issue with majority of the world believing in a fairytale? Richard Dawkins recently claimed a certain journalist should be discredited due to him believing Mohammed rose to the heavens on a flying horse. He was forced to retract after a response from the general public, with quite a few atheists involved, saying if it doesn't effect his work then it shouldn't be an issue. Yes it should be an issue! The man is insane! How anyone can take anyone seriously after making such a claim is as mad as someone who claims Elvis or John Lennon is still alive (shamelessly robbed from Sam Harris). If someone made this claim, they would be treated differently and rightly so. If someone believes Mohammed split the moon in two, they should be treated equally.

I don't want to be treated as singling out the Muslim faith though. It's all religions, anything established. When I see a turban, I see no difference between a tinfoil hat, at least the tinfoil brings some pseudo-science to it. when I see a rosary bead, crucifix or a shtreimel I think the same. I see them as no different from having faith in Zeus or Thor.

Now if it was all harmless, it would be a different issue but it's not. We welcome the local priests from my old school into the house every year for Christmas. I hate them, utterly despise them. When I was in their school, when I was susceptible to them, when I trusted them as you should a teacher, they betrayed me. 13 years old was when science was finally a subject for me. I was taught about evidence, collecting it independently, and forming conclusions based on it. Next class, a man walks on water and any queries were shot down. They fúcked me up mentally for quite a while with that shít. Not to mention the more extreme cases of religious hostility and discrimination which I don't need to mention here. I bring these things up sometimes with friends and family and I'm instantly dismissed and told let them believe what they want to believe and they just have a relatively calm manner about it. Why?

Their beliefs should be ridiculed, not because I don't believe them, not because I feel everyone should take my beliefs, but because they are completely and utterly absurd and dangerous to boot.

So, am I an asshóle for thinking this? I'm completely open to correction on everything I've written as I said I never really talk to people about it openly so this little rant has been created in the shower over the last week.

Manach

Personally my belief system has never caused me to compose posts in the shower, all that suds and soap around - far to dangerous.

Sarky

You're hardly an asshole for thinking it. Chances are you're right, after all. Take care that you don't become as entrenched and irritating and prone to emotional manipulation and bullying as the people who DO believe in all that rubbish. That's the stuff that'll make you an asshole.

actuallylike

Sarky wrote: »

You're hardly an asshole for thinking it. Chances are you're right, after all. Take care that you don't become as entrenched and irritating and prone to emotional manipulation and bullying as the people who DO believe in all that rubbish. That's the stuff that'll make you an asshole.

But it's not just a question of not believing. I know and you know that it's nonsense. the same way we know there's no Zeus and the same way we know there's no teapot orbiting Mars. These beliefs should be ridiculed to the highest degree shouldn't they?

gctest50

actuallylike wrote: »

..... Next class, a man walks on water and any queries were shot down....

actuallylike

gctest50 wrote: »

Finally, the other side offers some proof. I retract everything

gctest50

See, ya don't even have to be a beady git to manage that trick

Sarky

actuallylike wrote: »

But it's not just a question of not believing. I know and you know that it's nonsense. the same way we know there's no Zeus and the same way we know there's no teapot orbiting Mars. These beliefs should be ridiculed to the highest degree shouldn't they?

Well, yeah. But constantly telling people they're wrong is both tiring and unlikely to win friends or influence people, and life is short.

We're all prone to irrational behaviour of one sort or another. I firmly believe, for example, that Pacific Rim will be one of the greatest films of all time simply because it involves giant robots punching Lovecraftian monsters from another dimension. Much as I wish otherwise, Michael Bay has shown us that giant robot films can actually be turned into a rancid pile of ****, where once we thought giant robots were objectively awesome. But THIS time will be different. Right?

Ultimately, people will only change by themselves, you can't just make someone drop their stupid beliefs. That's the thing with belief, it's insidious, it wraps itself into the nooks and crannies of a person, gets them to invest so much in it that they'll hold on to an idea even when reality openly contradicts it. And the most insidious beliefs are the ones where such conflict actually reinforces them. If the bible hadn't contained the caveat "Guys, people will think you're crazy, but that's ok, it's a test of faith", then Christianity may well have been less popular. But it's got that little meme in there; evidence to the contrary will make most believers cling even tighter to their faith because clergy and assorted preachers tell them that even when they're wrong, they're actually right.

There's very little arguing with that kind of crazy. People have to make their own minds up. By all means point out the dead ends in their path, show them something that challenges this or that belief. But constantly back seat driving will just make them turn the car around and go home.

actuallylike

Sarky wrote: »

We're all prone to irrational behaviour of one sort or another. I firmly believe, for example, that Pacific Rim will be one of the greatest films of all time simply because it involves giant robots punching Lovecraftian monsters from another dimension. Much as I wish otherwise, Michael Bay has shown us that giant robot films can actually be turned into a rancid pile of ****, where once we thought giant robots were objectively awesome. But THIS time will be different. Right?

But this belief isn't irrational. It's perfectly plausible by evidence. Del Toro is an amazing film-maker especially in visual styles. you've no doubt seen and loved many of his movies. You're making an informed belief based on this but also smartly not cementing your belief by been open to correction, having not seen the film.

Sarky wrote: »

Ultimately, people will only change by themselves, you can't just make someone drop their stupid beliefs. That's the thing with belief, it's insidious, it wraps itself into the nooks and crannies of a person, gets them to invest so much in it that they'll hold on to an idea even when reality openly contradicts it. And the most insidious beliefs are the ones where such conflict actually reinforces them. If the bible hadn't contained the caveat "Guys, people will think you're crazy, but that's ok, it's a test of faith", then Christianity may well have been less popular. But it's got that little meme in there; evidence to the contrary will make most believers cling even tighter to their faith because clergy and assorted preachers tell them that even when they're wrong, they're actually right.

There's very little arguing with that kind of crazy. People have to make their own minds up. By all means point out the dead ends in their path, show them something that challenges this or that belief. But constantly back seat driving will just make them turn the car around and go home.

You talk about people holding onto ideas even when reality contradicts them and then saying people have to make their own mind up. Very hard to make your own mind up when you've been force fed these beliefs from a young age. Maybe if these beliefs are ridiculed more it might get through to people. If a family member started walking around with a tinfoil hat saying it protects him from aliens, surely you wouldn't 'let him make his own mind up'?

joseph brand

Sarky wrote: »

Ultimately, people will only change by themselves, you can't just make someone drop their stupid beliefs. That's the thing with belief, it's insidious, it wraps itself into the nooks and crannies of a person, gets them to invest so much in it that they'll hold on to an idea even when reality openly contradicts it. And the most insidious beliefs are the ones where such conflict actually reinforces them. If the bible hadn't contained the caveat "Guys, people will think you're crazy, but that's ok, it's a test of faith", then Christianity may well have been less popular. But it's got that little meme in there; evidence to the contrary will make most believers cling even tighter to their faith because clergy and assorted preachers tell them that even when they're wrong, they're actually right.

There's very little arguing with that kind of crazy. People have to make their own minds up. By all means point out the dead ends in their path, show them something that challenges this or that belief. But constantly back seat driving will just make them turn the car around and go home.

This reminds me of the way some older folks have dedicated so much time and money to their church, that the idea of admitting to others, and themselves, that it doesn't make any sense, is probably quite scary. Poor craters just need an arm around their shoulders to gently coax them out of the closet.

NegativeCreep

I think anyone who has a strong belief either way is an idiot. A strong belief in God = idiot and a strong belief that God doesn't exist = idiot!
No one knows exactly what the story is regarding the existence of a God so to develop a strong opinion about it makes no sense.

Sarky

actuallylike wrote: »

But this belief isn't irrational. It's perfectly plausible by evidence. Del Toro is an amazing film-maker especially in visual styles. you've no doubt seen and loved many of his movies. You're making an informed belief based on this but also smartly not cementing your belief by been open to correction, having not seen the film.

Not really, I'm basing my hopes on this movie purely on the fact that giant robots will be punching things in the face. Del Toro's involvement is entirely secondary. That's not very rational. And I don't care because giant robots :pac:

You talk about people holding onto ideas even when reality contradicts them and then saying people have to make their own mind up. Very hard to make your own mind up when you've been force fed these beliefs from a young age. Maybe if these beliefs are ridiculed more it might get through to people. If a family member started walking around with a tinfoil hat saying it protects him from aliens, surely you wouldn't 'let him make his own mind up'?

Oh, I know how hard it is to walk away from a belief you've had since you were a child, believe you me. People are complicated, and generally don't deal well with constant ridicule. Untangling the tendrils of a stupid belief from someone's mind is ultimately something only that person can do. You can help them along every now and then, but... Well, it's like removing a leech. If you just try to yank it off you'll probably do way more damage. It's easier to gently discourage the leech from hanging on. Or to let it eat its fill and then just drop off of its own accord.

Perhaps look at it this way: You've been Catholic since your parents baptised you, and the ridicule of your non-Catholic peers has only ever reinforced your belief. And then one day you realise it's all bollocks and that many of the people you trusted the most have been lying to you, manipulating you. You're gutted, and angry, and ashamed. Who will you turn to? The guys who've been ridiculing you all your life? They don't seem very nice, they were always mean and telling you how you were stupid, there's nothing at all to say they won't keep doing it.

I'd sooner turn to the chap who occasionally challenged your belief but never really made a big deal about it, being more interested in what you did as opposed to why you did it.

joseph brand

actuallylike wrote: »

You talk about people holding onto ideas even when reality contradicts them and then saying people have to make their own mind up. Very hard to make your own mind up when you've been force fed these beliefs from a young age. Maybe if these beliefs are ridiculed more it might get through to people. If a family member started walking around with a tinfoil hat saying it protects him from aliens, surely you wouldn't 'let him make his own mind up'?

My friend's gf told me a few weeks ago to 'stop pushing my non-beliefs'. This was in relation to me mocking an Irish psychic, who did a show in the Abberley Hotel in Tallaght. A bunch of girls I know, including the girl mentioned, went to see her. All my friends know it's a con, but they chose to keep shtum, but I couldn't hold my tongue.

These girls are my friends, and because of that, I obviously do not want to see them wasting their money on charlatans. If a person can believe in this crap, what else can they fall prey to?

Pointing out the total absurdity in someone's beliefs will always anger them, as it's almost like telling them they are stupid. I've discovered a new tactic, which is a little bit more dramatic. It involves grabbing a 'believer' by the shoulders, shaking them abruptly and shouting at them; "WAKE UP WAKE UP!"

Hotblack Desiato

On the 'mixed marriage' thread and similar, it's always the atheist who has to compromise with their religious partner about kids schools, etc, though, isn't it? There's an element of tolerance of atheism provided it's 'don't ask, don't tell' atheism, or perhaps even 'Uncle Tom atheism' :eek:, where believers expect us to basically shut up and keep our logic and reason to ourselves for the sake of domestic / familial harmony... it's one thing to agree to compromise with your spouse/partner on such matters but to have one's in-laws etc. sticking their oar in is something else!

endacl

Hi OP. Every time you find yourself stressed by the silly beliefs of other people, just come on here and talk about biscuits.

Oh, word of warning.... Jaffa Cakes are not biscuits.

Kivaro

endacl wrote: »

Oh, word of warning.... Jaffa Cakes are not biscuits.

Ah, that's just ridiculous.

Are ye satanists picking on Jaffa Cakes because the initials are JC?

endacl

Kivaro wrote: »

Ah, that's just ridiculous.

Are ye satanists picking on Jaffa Cakes because the initials are JC?

No. Because they're vile.

Hotblack Desiato

Lidl do RASPBERRY jaffa cakes. What is the world coming to?

endacl

Didn't take long to get back to food!

IT-Guy

endacl wrote: »

Hi OP. Every time you find yourself stressed by the silly beliefs of other people, just come on here and talk about biscuits.

Oh, word of warning.... Jaffa Cakes are not biscuits.

Oi! Cross-thread contamination! And Jaffa cakes rule...:D

OP, I've learned to gauge how deeply attached someone is to their beliefs before I decide whether or not to contradict them. Most people can handle a healthy critique/debate but beware those who've tied their beliefs into their identity and way of life. Been there, done that and it ain't pretty!

ShooterSF

This video popped up in my subscriptions just at the right time for this and he puts it best:

I just can't believe that Dawkins retracted such a statement.

nagirrac

actuallylike wrote: »

Their beliefs should be ridiculed, not because I don't believe them, not because I feel everyone should take my beliefs, but because they are completely and utterly absurd and dangerous to boot.

So, am I an asshóle for thinking this? I'm completely open to correction on everything I've written as I said I never really talk to people about it openly so this little rant has been created in the shower over the last week.

There is nothing wrong in thinking this, thinking is good, unless it becomes obsessive and then thinking is bad. However, you are trivializing a very complex topic, and rather than ridiculing beliefs you should try and understand why people hold religious beliefs or more importantly why they participate in religious practices or rituals.

Religious practices have been around for at least 300,000 years and perhaps 500,000 years when our brains evolved to roughly their current size. There is even some evidence that species before homo sapiens buried their dead which is a religious ritual. Why religion evolved in humans, why it was selected and retained, and why it is so prevalent across so many different cultures is a highly complex field of study with no consensus theory. Personally I believe that the simplest explanation is the community one, that people who participated in community religious practices were more likely to be part of a social family unit and more likely to procreate. There is a strong fertility element to most ancient religions. In terms of organized religions, there is cave drawing evidence for shamanic rituals going back 80,000 years.

There is also the suggestion that religious practice just makes people feel good, which in itself becomes a genetic selection criteria based on fitness. There are known benefits from religious practices such as meditation and group rituals that calm the mind and reduce stress, and perhaps this translated to longer lives and greater chance of procreation. In my view this is the main reason people today participate in religion and not because they believe in sky fairies. Sam Harris by the way practices Buddhist meditation techniques although he does not describe himself as religious.

Keep in mind unless you know someone really well they are unlikely to divulge what they actually believe. Beliefs also constantly evolve, which is one of the reasons people are reluctant to talk about them. Many people, maybe even most, go along with religion because of the feel good factor. If it makes them feel good, calms their minds, and makes some sense of this puzzling life experience of ours, then it is highly rational. It doesn't matter that it is all in people's minds, everything we experience is via our minds.

[-0-]

Deleted User wrote: »

I just can't believe that Dawkins retracted such a statement.

Frustrating. But he probably didn't want to be killed.

sephir0th

nagirrac wrote: »

If it makes them feel good, calms their minds, and makes some sense of this puzzling life experience of ours, then it is highly rational. It doesn't matter that it is all in people's minds, everything we experience is via our minds.

So anything I conjure in my head and believe that makes me feel good and calms my mind is rational?

ra·tion·al
/ˈraSHənl/
Adjective
Based on or in accordance with reason or logic: "a rational explanation".

pH

endacl wrote: »

Hi OP. Every time you find yourself stressed by the silly beliefs of other people, just come on here and talk about biscuits.

Oh, word of warning.... Jaffa Cakes are not biscuits.

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/vfoodmanual/vfood6260.htm

We live in a sad world.

Zombrex

sephir0th wrote: »

So anything I conjure in my head and believe that makes me feel good and calms my mind is rational?

ra·tion·al
/ˈraSHənl/
Adjective
Based on or in accordance with reason or logic: "a rational explanation".

+1

Some people don't like the stigma of being called irrational, but still want to believe in all these fanciful things . So they like to pretend that judgement is more fluid and open to interpretation than it really is (for example saying that we experience everything through the mind, which is like saying all painting is a beautiful as any other paint because it is all just painted by fingers.)

I just ask these people to build a plane using their "common sense" and see how far they get... :eek:

daveyeh

You'd love a good chat with Bono...

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056977606

nagirrac

sephir0th wrote: »

So anything I conjure in my head and believe that makes me feel good and calms my mind is rational?

ra·tion·al
/ˈraSHənl/
Adjective
Based on or in accordance with reason or logic: "a rational explanation".

In the context I am using the word rationality I mean based on reason or evidence, but is also involved in solving a problem i.e. the belief or practice gives the desired result. This is the psychological definition of rational.

Take the example of someone who is highly anxious and struggles to live a normal existence because of it. They embark on a meditation practice daily (something entirely in their head) and it brings enormous benefits. They believe meditation helps reduce their anxiety and allows them live a more normal life. That is an entirely rational belief for them, regardless of what anyone else thinks.

nagirrac

Zombrex wrote: »

Some people don't like the stigma of being called irrational, but still want to believe in all these fanciful things . So they like to pretend that judgement is more fluid and open to interpretation than it really is (for example saying that we experience everything through the mind, which is like saying all painting is a beautiful as any other paint because it is all just painted by fingers.)

We experience everything through our mind. You just need to think about it a little more critically. Obviously all our thoughts are in our mind. When you see something it is a mental construct produced in your brain, when you touch something the sensation of touch is created in your brain, pain is produced in your brain, etc. What you think of as solid when you push something with you hand for example is the repulsion between negative charge on your hand and the negative charge on what you push, this is translated by your brain into the sensation of touch.

The correct painting analogy is if you and I were to look at an abstract painting. You think its horrible and recoil from it and never wish to look at it again, I think its beautiful and stay looking at it and memorize the image as pleasing. Both beliefs about the painting are entirely rational as they are based on sensory evidence.

Delirium

nagirrac wrote: »

We experience everything through our mind. You just need to think about it a little more critically. Obviously all our thoughts are in our mind. When you see something it is a mental construct produced in your brain, when you touch something the sensation of touch is created in your brain, pain is produced in your brain, etc. What you think of as solid when you push something with you hand for example is the repulsion between negative charge on your hand and the negative charge on what you push, this is translated by your brain into the sensation of touch.

The correct painting analogy is if you and I were to look at an abstract painting. You think its horrible and recoil from it and never wish to look at it again, I think its beautiful and stay looking at it and memorize the image as pleasing. Both beliefs about the painting are entirely rational as they are based on sensory evidence.

Based on that reasoning, nothing can ever be considered irrational as we can only experience the world through our senses.

Sarky

Therefore magic.

nagirrac

koth wrote: »

Based on that reasoning, nothing can ever be considered irrational as we can only experience the world through our senses.

We can only experience the world through our senses, how do you propose experiencing it otherwise? Lots of things are irrational, for example compulsive negative thoughts that become obsessive and lead to negative outcomes for either oneself or in particular others is irrational. Religion can be irrational in this sense and there are plenty examples of it. It doesn't have to be though.

Unfortunately I have an appointment with Mickey Mouse, as it happens to indulge in some "feel good" fantasy, so will have to return to this. It is a fascinating topic.

nagirrac

Sarky wrote: »

Therefore magic.

Is this the right time to introduce, drum roll..... quantum

What quantum mechanics tells us is that "what we can observe about the world is only a tiny subset of what exists" (Sean Carroll, From Eternity to Here).

It is a very strange place out there sarky, and very magical.

Sarky

Oh dear.

Delirium

nagirrac wrote: »

We can only experience the world through our senses, how do you propose experiencing it otherwise?

I never said we have an alternative. Just that your reasoning seems faulty. Just because we experience something through our senses, doesn't means that it means the experience/consequence is rational. Plenty of people hallucinate strange things. I wouldn't consider that rational.

Lots of things are irrational, for example compulsive negative thoughts that become obsessive and lead to negative outcomes for either oneself or in particular others is irrational. Religion can be irrational in this sense and there are plenty examples of it. It doesn't have to be though.

Unfortunately I have an appointment with Mickey Mouse, as it happens to indulge in some "feel good" fantasy, so will have to return to this. It is a fascinating topic.

but you said that if something makes the person feel good, then it's rational.

You said:

If it makes them feel good, calms their minds, and makes some sense of this puzzling life experience of ours, then it is highly rational. It doesn't matter that it is all in people's minds, everything we experience is via our minds.

nagirrac

koth wrote: »

but you said that if something makes the person feel good, then it's rational.

..except the example I used doesn't make them feel good.

Beliefs that have a negative outcome for the individual or for others in particular are irrational. People who are obsessed about anything, whether religion or anything else they get mentally stuck in, are generally very unhappy. Many fundamentalists for example are very angry and unhappy people, this is highly irrational to allow a belief have such a negative outcome in your life.

My main point is that religious belief or practice can be rational or irrational, and have a positive or negative effect, depending on how you approach it. Meditation for example is a highly positive experience, for the individual and in many cases for those interacting with the individual.

Stuboyovo

actuallylike wrote: »

I see them as no different from having faith in Zeus or Thor.

Even Zeus and Thor probably have a root in alien visitors, have you not been watching Ancient Aliens on History Channel? It was actually quite a coherent argument. I was surprised.

Delirium

So ridiculous beliefs are rational if the believer is happy, otherwise they're irrational/ridiculous?

IT-Guy

nagirrac wrote: »

Is this the right time to introduce, drum roll..... quantum

What quantum mechanics tells us is that "what we can observe about the world is only a tiny subset of what exists" (Sean Carroll, From Eternity to Here).

It is a very strange place out there sarky, and very magical.

Just because we don't understand something doesn't make it weird or magical. It's unexplained, no need to adopt mystical affectations!

Turtwig

nagirrac wrote: »

People who are obsessed about anything, whether religion or anything else they get mentally stuck in, are generally very unhappy. Many fundamentalists for example are very angry and unhappy people,

This seems interesting. At the risk of derailing of this thread even further, what do you support this claim with?

IT-Guy

Jernal wrote: »

This seems interesting. At the risk of derailing of this thread even further, what do you support this claim with?

Drum roll...quantum :pac:

nagirrac

Jernal wrote: »

This seems interesting. At the risk of derailing of this thread even further, what do you support this claim with?

Unfortunately I have to run, but in my experience people who become obsessed with their beliefs are generally unhappy. Most people who visit therapists are there due to obsessive thinking patterns which can have a negative impact on their lives. I don't know many fundamentalists but the ones I have met were generally angry and seemed quite unhappy. I think you have see examples of this in Ireland recently with how irrational some people got on the abortion issue.

sephir0th

Your definition of 'rational' does not align with the general consensus of what the word means. It allows you to say religious belief is rational, but it's misleading. I've seen so many arguments on this forum where both sides are arguing using different definitions of the word.

If we go by your definition of: rational = makes you overall happier, then yes, I might agree with you. If I believed that my teddy bear came to life every night, and that made me feel warm and fuzzy inside, then that is rational by your definition right? If so, I'm just going to bow out of this conversation.

Geomy

Jernal wrote: »

This seems interesting. At the risk of derailing of this thread even further, what do you support this claim with?

I don't think any one needs to support this claim with any explanation. ..

If you're obsessed with anything it means you're obsessed, therfore an obsessed person spends more time acting out obsessively.

Having less time to live a more normal lifestyle because the obsession has taken over their life. ..

Cognitive therapy is supposed to work well with obsessional behaviour and thinking :-)

Sarky

I'm obsessed with giant robots, zombies, pirates, ninjas and puppies, but these things make me obscenely happy. There goes that argument.

PopePalpatine

sephir0th wrote: »

If I believed that my teddy bear came to life every night, and that made me feel warm and fuzzy inside, then that is rational by your definition right?

What if that teddy is an alcoholic pothead that sounds like Peter Griffin? :pac:

Geomy

Sarky wrote: »

I'm obsessed with giant robots, zombies, pirates, ninjas and puppies, but these things make me obscenely happy. There goes that argument.

Lol sure you have a nice mixed bag to keep yourself contented....

nagirrac

Sarky wrote: »

I'm obsessed with giant robots, zombies, pirates, ninjas and puppies, but these things make me obscenely happy. There goes that argument.

That's not the argument. Do you wake up every morning thinking about zombies? No matter how you try do they continuously invade your thoughts all day? Are you miserable because thinking about anything other than zombies is literally a huge effort?
That's obsession and it is a very negative mental state and can be dehabilitating for many people.

nagirrac

sephir0th wrote: »

Your definition of 'rational' does not align with the general consensus of what the word means. It allows you to say religious belief is rational, but it's misleading. I've seen so many arguments on this forum where both sides are arguing using different definitions of the word.

If we go by your definition of: rational = makes you overall happier, then yes, I might agree with you. If I believed that my teddy bear came to life every night, and that made me feel warm and fuzzy inside, then that is rational by your definition right? If so, I'm just going to bow out of this conversation.

The word rational has different meanings depending on the subject. Religious belief or religious practice is best understood in the psychology realm rather than the philosophy realm. What is irrational in terms of logic can be entirely rational in terms of psychology.

Take the example of the placebo effect. It makes no sense logically and is irrational to believe in yet it works so is rational from a psychological standpoint. The distinction in psychology is that the belief or action is confirmed by the outcome. This is why belief in God can be argued to be irrational from a logical standpoint but is rational from a psychological standpoint. If believing in God and spending say 15 minutes a day in quiet contemplation reduces someones anxiety and improves the quality of their life that is entirely rational. In contrast believing in some religious idea that makes you unhappy and unloads that unhappiness on others is irrational.

equivariant

Getting back to (what I think is) the OP's point. I think that we should keep the big picture in mind here. Yes it is annoying to be asked to respect ridiculous religious beliefs, but fortunately the level of respect that is required is decreasing dramatically all the time. 20 years ago there would have been public outrage if the minister of education spoke about the Catholic Church the way that Ruairi Quinn did a couple of days ago. Now, it is considered acceptable.

It is important to make sure that this trend continues however. We cannot take for granted the fact that reason will triumph over religion. That is why people like Dawkins are very important. They broaden the parameters of the debate and they force people to justify their demands for respect. I have a lot more respect for Dawkins public stance on religion (retractions nothwithstanding) than say, Stephen Jay Gould's 'non overlapping majisteria' idea. Dawkins may on occasion be slightly abrasive but he is a genuine force for positive social change, much more so than NOMA advocates imo.