Now apply this logic to people who believe that there is an invisible man in the sky watching all your actions.

That's a majority of the worlds' scientists, teachers, politicians, and just about every profession.

This is an absurd argument. At the very least, science can absolutely provide conclusive evidence that the world is not flat and that vaccines cannot cause autism. This isn’t a “belief.” This can be shown with clear conclusive evidence. Religious beliefs cannot be tested due to how they are structured (“just gotta have faith”).

So even assuming you are arguing in good faith, an anti-vaxxer and/or a flat-earther are people who can be shown irrefutable evidence that goes against their beliefs and they will simply close their eyes, plug their ears, and scream and shout until you go away. The opinions of those people are ones I don’t care about or think worthwhile because they have already made up their minds and are working backwards to look for evidence that supports their beliefs, and invalidating all others.

I did not mean religious beliefs in general, just particular 'man in the sky' beliefs, which are as absurd as flat earth. But somehow a bunch people who have such beliefs are smart and productive.

> if someone was a ___ or a ___ I would be really uninterested in their opinions on pretty much anything because they're obviously ___

Dismissing one’s ideas based on group membership is a terrible strategy for truth-seeking. It’s a root of all kinds of problems we see with team-based politics where both sides have turned their brain off and largely accept the entire slate of talking points their side serves up.

It also borders on the definition of bigotry.

I had a flat-earthier as a roommate for about half a year. We had some detailed discussions about his beliefs, which was interesting since my time at the South Pole gives me personal experience that directly contradicts most of his beliefs. The guy clear had a very poor understanding of math (especially geometry) and physics (especially optics) but was a generally nice guy with a good head on his shoulders.

I would trust very ñittle he had to say about things outside of his direct experience, since his BS detector was apparently broken, but I would tend to trust his knowledge of things he had dealt with directly.

While I don't judge people for their ideological bent, I do judge them for uncritically accepting BS because it fits their ideological bent. This leads me to dismiss many of the knowledge and opinions of people who find themselves trapped in the ideological games played by our media.

Yes! This is so much more precise and productive, and stands in stark contrast to a blunt stereotyping heuristic. You're engaging in discussion, analysis, and identification of cognitive biases and memetic complex traps. Then applying all of that appropriately, understanding where you can and cannot trust a person's ideas, without categorically dismissing the balance of that person's ideas indefinitely.

I'm going to say that flat-earthing is a sort of dividing line for me. If somebody insists on flat-earth with a straight face, I'm going to ask them some questions. It's unclear that any flat-earther would be able to come up with answers that are reasonable, and I think it's reasonable to impute that the person's ability to be reasonable about other things is probably impeded.

They weren’t talking about group membership, but about misunderstanding some basic things about how the world works.