Which is worse: paranoid of gullible? Are religious people gullible? Are atheists paranoid?

Answer 1

Well, let's take a look at the word, shall we?

par·a·noi·a
1. A psychotic disorder characterized by delusions of persecution with or without grandeur, often strenuously defended with apparent logic and reason.

Note the "delusions" part. That's important because, as they say, you're not paranoid if someone really *is* out to get you, or more to the point, persecuting you.

Answer 2

I am slightly paranoid, but I don't really think that is a bad thing. I have been able to tell when someone is going behind my back before it becomes obvious, and I am also cautious when entering unfamiliar situations. I would say that being paranoid has saved my neck a couple of times. I would say that anyone who believes that their religion is without fault is gullible, as well as ignorant and unintelligent.

Answer 3

Yes, I'm very paranoid of the gullible's here.

Answer 4

I think that paranoia could be an over correction of the realization that one has been gullible.
I think that we are all in control of the facts that we are given, and have the accept/reject mechanism set at different levels. Like a toaster, some are More likely to be set on Burn rather than Lightly Toast.

Answer 5

religious people are gullible because they believe in fairy tales based solely on the fact that really old white guys told them to, they are also paranoid because they think that some magical mystery god is watching and judging their every move... atheists are neither gullible nor paranoid because they haven't fallen for either lie...

...p.s. i am NOT an atheist (I am an agnostic) I believe atheists are as simple-minded as religious zealots.

Answer 6

Obviously the Atheists are gullible. They believe everything published by scientists after centuries of observation and making and testing hypotheses when they should know that a book of unknown authorship has all of the answers.

Answer 7

being paranoid of gullible religious people

Answer 8

Nothing is worst than ignorant. It give rise to both paranoid and gullibility.

Religious People are both;but not all
Atheists are either both, but definitely not gullible to tradition/ superstition.

Answer 9

Paranoid is when you have an unreasonable fear.

Bush the Elder said he didn't know if atheists should be considered citizens and that gave me chills, and I don't consider it paranoid.

In a recent study, people ranked atheists the lowest on the scale of trustworthiness, below Muslims and gays and would rather have their children marry one of those two before an atheist.

Paranoid....right.

Answer 10

Paranoid means thinking that people are out to get you or having an irrational fear or distrust of others. Athiests aren't paranoid. We don't think that people are out to get us. We don't have an irrational distrusts of others. We have a RATIONAL distrust of mythical creatures.

Perhaps the distiction you want to make is "people who believe everything they are told" and "people who believe nothing they are told." But that too would be an overgeneralization. Religious people often choose not to believe in science, and athiests do choose to believe in many things.

I guess the real distinction is where we choose to get our knowledge. Athiests choose to get their knowledge from science and nature. IMHO, christians walk a strange line between science and religion. They love science and what it provides, but will abandon it when it seems to contradict what their leaders tell them. They don't mind when science contradicts their teachings with certitude (age of the earth, value of pi, heliocentrism) but refuse to accept other scientific precepts that haven't yet proven their certitude (natural selection). They love to criticize science and it's methodes, but when they are sick, they don't run to the priest, but to the doctor, who is probably an evolutionist and much of his knowledge grew out of that theory. They love to cheer the 10% of Levantine acheology that seems to support biblical history, but then dismiss the 90% that contradicts it.

To me, the distinction lies in epistemological standards. The difference is that if you prove part of the bible wrong, you get burned at the stake (literal or metaphorical) and if you prove part of science wrong, you write books, go on lecture tours, get posh university appointments, get the Nobel Prize, get schools and libraries named after you, and get remembered throughout history.

Religion hates it's critics. Science loves constructive criticism.



angeltress wrote:
"Given a choice, I'd rather be gullible than paranoid!"

Congradulations, wish granted! ;)

But how do you know that you are being gullible about the right thing? What if you get to heaven and god's a buddhist? Or a Hindu? Sorry, you're going to hell for eathing beef! Unfortunately, your self-lauded gullability leaves you vulnerable to any two-bit snake oil salesman.