News Should religion be a subject of criticism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter kasse
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Religion
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the distinction between criticism and defamation in the context of religious beliefs. Participants argue that while all doctrines should be open to criticism, many religious adherents perceive any negative commentary as defamation. The conversation highlights the fear of offending Muslims in Europe compared to the American context, where criticism of Christianity is often avoided. There is a call for dialogue between Catholics and Muslims to improve understanding, yet skepticism remains about the possibility of peaceful coexistence due to entrenched beliefs. Ultimately, the thread reflects a broader concern about the implications of religious criticism and the challenges of interfaith relations.
  • #51
kasse said:
Is this a consequence of the new restricted freedom of speech?
No, it's in the guidelines you agreed to in order to post here. If you don't know what the rules are, I suggest you go read them now.

And I am serious about not discussing beliefs of specific religions. Last chance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
It was a joke.

Still, I think it should be OK to criticize one religion in particular. What is the reason for this rule?
 
  • #53
kasse said:
It was a joke.

Still, I think it should be OK to criticize one religion in particular. What is the reason for this rule?
Religion flame wars. Everyone's religion is better than the other person's religion.
 
  • #54
LowlyPion said:
You have freedom of speech.

What you don't have is freedom of consequence.

Same ****, different wrapping. :smile:
 
  • #55
Well speaking as an anti-theist here, I think any truth claim should be scrutinized. Not only does religion tell us what's true, but they tell us what's moral, when the Bible and Quran have some awful, immoral things in it that no one ever points out. You're damn right religion deserves to be criticized if it's going to take such a stance on important matters.

And I don't give a damn about faith and respect. Religious people ought to show a little more respect before they earn any from me.
 
  • #56
If you changed the rule to "nothing extraordinary should be asserted for which there is no evidence", we would be able to discuss Christianity in particular without having a flame war.
 
  • #57
Oh and moderates don't get a pass from me. They can dilute the meanings and cherrypick their holy book all they want, but it's still rubbish.
 
  • #58
kasse said:
If you changed the rule to "nothing extraordinary should be asserted for which there is no evidence", we would be able to discuss Christianity in particular without having a flame war.
I didn't make the rules.

But in all fairness, if we can discuss their religion, they can also discuss their religion, then it becomes a flame war.
 
  • #59
I'm an anti-theist myself, motivated by Christopher Hitchens. Are you familar with Pat Condell? You should chech out his vids at Youtube.

Why is it that most people - even some hardcore Christians - have not heard about those gruesome Bible verses? I think it is exactly because it's considered taboo to criticize religion. Those verses are never mentioned in church either.
 
  • #60
I would be all for open discussions on all religions. I am in no way religious, but I can understand why people of faith get defensive. It's a personal thing to them, attacking that is like a personal attack to the individual.
 
  • #61
g33kski11z said:
I would be all for open discussions on all religions. I am in no way religious, but I can understand why people of faith get defensive. It's a personal thing to them, attacking that is like a personal attack to the individual.

More like you're telling them they've wasted all of these years on falsehoods.
 
  • #62
Evo said:
I didn't make the rules.

But in all fairness, if we can discuss their religion, they can also discuss their religion, then it becomes a flame war.

With that logic, we protect the specific religions from criticism. A few flame wars may be necessary to get rid of this phenomenon. Why aren't we afraid of political flame wars? Scientific flame wars? Because everybody understands that it's ridiculous to make extraordinary claims for which there's no evidence. We must break the barrier and let religious claims suffer the same amount of scrutinizing.
 
  • #63
kasse said:
I wouldn't use the word evil (a word that I find rather religious). They believe that they do God's will, and that WE are the evil ones.
The salient difference being, however, that whereas religionists seek to propagate and institute "God's will", an IMAGINARY construct (imaginary mainly because they don't have any evidence for it, or for their God), those of us trying to base our morality upon the crucial (multi-)centrality of sentient, REAL individuals are seeking to propagate a system consonant with evidenced reality, rather than unevidenced faith.

Reality matters more than imagination, ALSO when it comes to questions of morality.

There are other idealists out there, trying to propagate their imaginary constructs at the expense of individuals, whether that be constructs like "the uniqueness of man", "family", "race", "class", "property rights", or any other such product of the imagination. None of those constructs above have any sentience of their own, and hence, are not proper primary objects for moral concern.

These constructs' "rights to propagate/dominate" are less real than the right of life for a common dung beetle (which IS a real individual).

Evil or not, there are people whose convictions are so dangerous that we may be right to kill them.

Quite so.
 
  • #64
g33kski11z said:
I would be all for open discussions on all religions. I am in no way religious, but I can understand why people of faith get defensive. It's a personal thing to them, attacking that is like a personal attack to the individual.

I know they feel like it's a personal attack, but is there a polite way to say to a person that his beliefs are delusional? If we're not going to criticize religion because we're afraid of hurting people's feelings, we end up with another generation of people who waste their lives sucking up to a non-existing deity.

Religious people are wrong, but they are also wrong to feel offended. It's not a personal attack, it's help. Criticism is a good thing.
 
  • #65
kasse:
It is a good thing to offend religionists even if it doesn't help them a bit.

THEY are moral violators by saying that "might is right", i.e, that it is moral to follow whatever precept the strongest superguy they think hangs around has laid down (it might be prudent, but certainly not moral!)

Thus, BECAUSE they are violating (the most) basic concept(s) of morality, they are no longer entitled to the same degree of respect as non-violators; i.e, there exists a set of actions and attitudes that we are justified in launching against them that we would not be justified in launching against non-violators.
 
  • #66
I agree on that.

It's ironic that the ones who are yelling loudest for respect in this world, are those who have done absolutely nothing to deserve it.
 
  • #67
I see no reason to shelter religion. What is demonstrably true is immune to criticism. What is demonstrably false should rightfully fade away. Why should any true religion fear criticism?
 
  • #68
kasse said:
I agree on that.

It's ironic that the ones who are yelling loudest for respect in this world, are those who have done absolutely nothing to deserve it.
It is perhaps ironic, but it is depressingly common:

It is the favoured strategy of the socially adept bully in clawing his way to the top of the hierarchy.

Their bully-nature is what makes them feel entitled to "special rights", and because they are socially adept and perceptive, they know they can get these "rights" by playing on the sympathies of others, particularly through declaring oneself as the victim of terrible injustices, and that they are merely seeking their "fair" due...
 
  • #69
out of whack said:
Why should any true religion fear criticism?

I often ask religious people this question, and I always get the same sort of answer:

"Religion and science are two different branches. There are other ways to obtain knowledge than through science. You will understand when you get a personal relationship with Jesus."
 
  • #70
arildno said:
Their bully-nature is what makes them feel entitled to "special rights", and because they are socially adept and perceptive, they know they can get these "rights" by playing on the sympathies of others, particularly through declaring oneself as the victim of terrible injustices, and that they are merely seeking their "fair" due...

And that's why religious "moderates" pave the way for fundamentalists. If we refuse ourselves the right to criticize irrational beliefs just because they are important to the ignorant majority of the world's population, we build a shelter for the fundamentalists. The so-called "world on terror" is in reality a war on Islam. We just don't dear to admit it because the enemy is so close to us.
 
  • #71
I was talking to someone not that long ago, and he was telling me that atheism is such a narrow target, that religious people need to make false connections between atheism and nihilism, relativism, anarchism etc. just to even debate anything. This is why the Stalin, Pol Pot nonsense keeps getting brought up. People need to understand the terms before they post a steaming pile of ****.
 
  • #72
LightbulbSun said:
You really want to throw out that stupid falsehood? How many times does this have to be thoroughly debunked?

once more apparently. learn me something.
 
  • #73
Proton Soup said:
... these guys killed millions of their own in the name of ideologies that embrace atheism..

They weren't doing anything ideological. They were simply suppressing dissent and consolidating power.
 
  • #74
Proton Soup said:
once more apparently. learn me something.

How about the fact that the church actually supported Stalin, and that these dictators in general were sociopaths and followed their own pseudo-religion? Unless you want to suggest atheists= sociopaths?
 
  • #75
Even if we were to assume that atrocities were committed in the name of atheism, a far fetched stance, what does it have to do with sheltering religions from criticism?
 
  • #76
Proton Soup said:
i'm not saying anything about atheists. look above.

Oh, ok. So when you threw in atheism when talking about Stalin and Pol Pot that indicated nothing, right?

Proton Soup said:
don't be dense. you're advocating an ideology.

Point to the dogma atheists subscribe to. Atheism simply means "a disbelief in a God or Gods." Everyone is an atheist. Christians are atheists when it comes to the other gods, Muslims are atheists when it comes to the other Gods etc. That's all atheism is and will ever be. The only way you can attack it is if you make false connections between atheism and nihilism or some other ideology.
 
  • #77
Proton Soup said:
i think Ivan is right, you are a snarky 16-year-old. the thing is, governments kill more people than religion. Joe Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, these guys killed millions of their own in the name of ideologies that embrace atheism.
Ivan was wrong for posting that insult, don't make the same mistake.

I'm busy, but there will be some clean up later. And infractions. Just a warning to everyone.

Also, people don't rally behind a non-belief, so saying they killed in the name of atheism is ridiculous. They were evil men driven by hatred, greed and a lust for power.
 
Last edited:
  • #78
LightbulbSun said:
I forget the quote but someone once said "to get a good person to commit evil, it takes religion."

“With or without [religion] you’d have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion.”

Steven Weinberg
 
  • #79
kasse said:
Exactly nothing. So let's stop feeding the troll, or I'm afraid the thread will be locked very soon.

I sure hope it isn't because I think people's misconceptions about atheism need to be cleared up. I had to listen to Christopher Hitchen's brother yesterday say some pretty ignorant things such as "the only way we can do good is by believing in a higher power." I mean come on, people are actually convinced by these petty arguments?
 
  • #80
Evo said:
Also, people don't rally behind a non-belief, so saying the killed in the name of atheism is ridiculous. They were evil men driven by hatred and greed.

Are you sure they didn't kill in the name of disbelief in the Tooth Fairy?
 
  • #81
kasse said:
I wouldn't use the word evil (a word that I find rather religious). They believe that they do God's will, and that WE are the evil ones.

Evil or not, there are people whose convictions are so dangerous that we may be right to kill them. At least stop them from getting weapons of mass destruction in their hands.

You want to KILL religious people? :eek:
 
  • #82
Math Is Hard said:
You want to KILL religious people? :eek:

Only the evil ones.:rolleyes:
 
  • #83
Proton Soup said:
oh my GOD! are you actually saying that it's not religion that is the problem?! that people just SUCK??!

THAT"S FRIGGIN UNBELIEVEABLE MAN! IT CAN"T POSSIBLY BE TRUE!
Can the attitude, it is a fact that people have gone to war and killed and enslaved in the name of some God. Please do not play ignorant.

And you have been warned to straighten up. Infractions are next.
 
  • #84
LightbulbSun said:
I sure hope it isn't because I think people's misconceptions about atheism need to be cleared up. I had to listen to Christopher Hitchen's brother yesterday say some pretty ignorant things such as "the only way we can do good is by believing in a higher power." I mean come on, people are actually convinced by these petty arguments?

I saw the debate Hitchens vs Hitchens. How come these two guys grew up in the same home?
 
  • #85
Math Is Hard said:
You want to KILL religious people? :eek:
I wanted to watch a tv show in peace. Ok, now I'm here.

Clean up on isle 10.
 
  • #86
Evo said:
Can the attitude, it is a fact that people have gone to war and killed and enslaved in the name of some God. Please do not play ignorant.

And you have been warned to straighten up. Infractions are next.

Ah, Evo the voice of reason. :smile:
 
  • #87
kasse said:
I saw the debate Hitchens vs Hitchens. How come these two guys grew up in the same home?

I don't know, but it's no surprise that Peter Hitchens still writes for The Daily Mail. I laughed when the moderator said both were free thinkers. Only the elder can be considered a free thinker.

He got so damn whiny once religion and God came up. Christopher destroyed him and all he could do was take a potshot and strut back to his seat. Pathetic.
 
  • #88
Evo said:
Can the attitude, it is a fact that people have gone to war and killed and enslaved in the name of some God. Please do not play ignorant.

And you have been warned to straighten up. Infractions are next.

i'm normally very calm. just answering sarcasm and ridicule with the same. i don't think you're being completely impartial here. you've got a guy, kasse, saying he thinks it's a good idea to kill some people that don't believe the way he wants and makes a lot of statements in ridicule of those people.
 
  • #89
Proton, I've noticed you haven't answered my reply yet.
 
  • #90
LightbulbSun said:
I don't know, but it's no surprise that Peter Hitchens still writes for The Daily Mail. I laughed when the moderator said both were free thinkers. Only the elder can be considered a free thinker.

He got so damn whiny once religion and God came up. Christopher destroyed him and all he could do was take a potshot and strut back to his seat. Pathetic.

I loved it when they switched topic to God, and Christopher were given 10 minutes: "Well, I don't think it's going to take 10 minutes to disprove a being like God..."
 
  • #91
LightbulbSun said:
Proton, I've noticed you haven't answered my reply yet.

i'll reply, by PM if necessary because of thread closure, just point me to the question.
 
  • #92
kasse said:
I loved it when they switched topic to God, and Christopher were given 10 minutes: "Well, I don't think it's going to take 10 minutes to disprove a being like God..."

The thing I like about his rebuttals is that instead of doing the routine, "is there evidence for it?" he outlines the implications of people wanting to believe in such a deity.

A celestial North Korea. At least you can f'n die and get out of North Korea!
 
  • #93
kasse said:
With that logic, we protect the specific religions from criticism. A few flame wars may be necessary to get rid of this phenomenon. Why aren't we afraid of political flame wars? Scientific flame wars?

Most of the stable forums I've been to ban discussion of religion and politics for just that reason: to avoid the flame wars that come along. PF has managed not to get into too many political flame wars despite allowing discussion by having a remarkable lack of political pluralism.
 
  • #94
Proton Soup said:
i'll reply, by PM if necessary because of thread closure, just point me to the question.

No, please post it here. Reply to this post:

Point to the dogma atheists subscribe to. Atheism simply means "a disbelief in a God or Gods." Everyone is an atheist. Christians are atheists when it comes to the other gods, Muslims are atheists when it comes to the other Gods etc. That's all atheism is and will ever be. The only way you can attack it is if you make false connections between atheism and nihilism or some other ideology.
 
  • #95
I'm cleaning up, it's not easy to prune a thread and still have it make sense.

If you guys don't act civil, now, I will have no choice but to lock this.
 
  • #96
CRGreathouse said:
Most of the stable forums I've been to ban discussion of religion and politics for just that reason: to avoid the flame wars that come along. PF has managed not to get into too many political flame wars despite allowing discussion by having a remarkable lack of political pluralism.

But where can you discuss these things if everyone fears a flame war? I've seen quite a few forums hold some serious political and religious discussions.
 
  • #97
Proton Soup said:
i'm normally very calm. just answering sarcasm and ridicule with the same. i don't think you're being completely impartial here. you've got a guy, kasse, saying he thinks it's a good idea to kill some people that don't believe the way he wants and makes a lot of statements in ridicule of those people.
I'm taking care of that.

Anyone see the reason that we don't allow these discussions?
 
  • #98
Evo said:
Anyone see the reason that we don't allow these discussions?

I honestly don't. Outside of Proton, I don't see much of a flame war going on here. Locking up threads could be partially the reason why none of these misconceptions ever get cleared up. Proton apparently didn't understand why atheism was responsible for Stalin and Pol Pot was false.
 
  • #99
LightbulbSun said:
No, please post it here. Reply to this post:

no, i think i was saying that kasse is promoting an ideology in this thread. maybe he's not a true atheist. but if ideology is the word that offends you, then maybe agenda is a better word. and the agenda seems to be silencing people and singling out others for annihilation. he was quite explicit about this.

fwiw, i know and like some atheists, and i don't blame atheists or atheism for great tragedies in the world, such as i mentioned. but it's a way of making a point. and that is that it's not religion or even atheism that is to blame. religion and/or ideology are often used as an EXCUSE by some to achieve those grisly ends, but they're not the cause.
 
  • #100
Evo said:
Anyone see the reason that we don't allow these discussions?

You're letting the religulous ones win. They try to avoid discussions by trolling all threads like this.
 

Similar threads

Should Children Be Subjected to Cultural and Religious Indoctrination?
Replies
28
Views
7K
News Should all religions in the US be tax-exempt?
2
Replies
66
Views
9K
News You think the Fairness Doctrine is unconstitutional
Replies
34
Views
6K
News What are the potential solutions for the EU refugee crisis?
5
Replies
235
Views
23K
News Discussing Precautionary Debating: United States vs. Finland
Replies
2
Views
2K
Should we be equally tolerant of all ethical and moral precepts?
Replies
21
Views
5K
Philosophy is _not_ just comparative religion .
Replies
17
Views
3K
News Criticize your choice for president
Replies
4
Views
3K
Rant about working in the tutoring lab: How should I deal with this?
2
Replies
81
Views
9K
News Should the US intervene in world problems?
Replies
29
Views
10K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top