News Should religion be a subject of criticism?

[WarPhalange]

I am referencing people who think it is their way or the highway.

So if someone comes up to you and says "I think birds fly because trees are green", you'd accept that as a valid response?

I'd like to introduce you to a little concept called "science", where it is the right way or the highway.

Seeing as how the default position is that there is no god (i.e. no inherent proof), someone asserting the existence of a god should have to provide evidence. You can have any opinion you want, but when you start treating it as fact, then you need to be put into a straight jacket.

Fine, but according to the Bill of Rights, we have a right to faith if we choose. There is a logical basis for faith, and no matter how loud you yell or how hard you kick, it won't go away. Making threats only makes the problem worse.

No there is no logical basis for faith. Maybe you meant biological? Then I'd agree, humans are wired to have faith. But we're also wired to laugh when other people are laughing. Our bodies aren't exactly beacons of reasoning and excellence.

 

[WarPhalange]

We can make a logical leap of faith based on personal experiences or the experiences of others. If we accept something blindly, then by definition there is no logic. But if one understands that faith is as choice, and if one understands that faith is something accepted without proof, then there is nothing illogical in making that choice.

No, what you just said is "Faith is illogical. Therefore by understanding that, it is logical to have faith." You just pushed it aside. Faith is accepting something blindly. Personal experience doesn't count as proof. You know that.

 

[kasse]

We can make a logical leap of faith based on personal experiences or the experiences of others. If we accept something blindly, then by definition there is no logic. But if one understands that faith is a choice, and if one understands that faith is something accepted without proof, then there is nothing illogical in making that choice.

It is all a matter of how we weight the evidence.

What kind of personal experience can justify the belief that a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

No. Faith is belief without evidence. That's the opposite of logic.

Not necessarily. Faith is belief without proof. You are also assuming that people of faith perceive no tangible advantage in following their faith.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

What kind of personal experience can justify the belief that a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree?

There are as many faiths as there are people of faith. You can't limit this to one particular belief or another. For example, there are many Christians who don't believe most of what the bible says, and most Christians only believe certain aspects of biblical teachings.

 

[arildno]

You are making threats against religion. It seems that you are the one out to defeat someone.

Obviously. People who, for example, finds it perfectly all right and morally proper that other individuals (who happen not to share, say, their ideas about the origin of the universe) should be subject to never-ending, excruciating agony (for example by having their skin burnt to ashes, then get a new sown on in order to repeat the process ad infinitum), such individuals, IvanSeeking, ARE evil, and should be opposed.

In particular, they should be deprived the right to manipulate the brains of children (for example by forcibly adopting whatever children they have made among themselves). For starters.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

No, what you just said is "Faith is illogical. Therefore by understanding that, it is logical to have faith." You just pushed it aside. Faith is accepting something blindly. Personal experience doesn't count as proof. You know that.

No, I said that it can be logical to choose faith, not that logic demands it.

Who says that we must have proof to believe something? There is a difference between scientific demands, and personal demands. I don't demand proof every time my wife tells me something.

Are you really insisting that all people accept only the doctrines of science?

 

[kasse]

Not necessarily. Faith is belief without proof. You are also assuming that people of faith perceive no tangible advantage in following their faith.

Absolutely not. There are both advantages and drawbacks. I could easily invent a new religion that would be far more benefitial than Christianity or Islam, both for individuals and for society as a whole - but that wouldn't make the doctrines of the religion true!

 

[Gokul43201]

We can make a logical leap of faith based on personal experiences or the experiences of others. If we accept something blindly, then by definition there is no logic.

You lost me here.

What's the difference between "blindly" and "Rev. Puddles said so"?

 

[kasse]

For example, there are many Christians who don't believe most of what the bible says, and most Christians only believe certain aspects of biblical teachings.

What's the point of calling yourself a Christian then? I think you at least have to accept Jesus as the saviour of mankind, and that alone is a leap of faith that no personal experience can support.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

You are all referencing extremism and not simple belief. Here in the US, I think religious extremism is a problem, but that doesn't make all people of faith extremists.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

You lost me here.

What's the difference between "blindly" and "Rev. Puddles said so"?

Are you talking about doctrine or personal experiences here. Doctrine usually has little to do with faith. Faith is usually based on the perceived improvements in one's life.

One favorite sales point for many religions is very simple and straighforward. They tell you to try it. If you don't see an improvement in your life, then you can always walk away. In other words, you are encouraged to test their claims.

 

[Evo]

This discussion will only remain open if

1) It is about all religions, not specific religions. Do not discuss what is good or bad about a specific religion.

The gray area here is that we do allow discussion of Islam since it is religion/law/politics.
BUT, you cannot say things like "they are evil, or stupid", etc... Anyone that does will receive an infraction.

2) That the political aspect of it is discussed. For instance, laws that are created/enforced/proposed as a result of a religion.

I will not tolerate anyone personally attacking another member that believes in religion.

I will not tolerate anyone personally attacking another member that does not believe in religion.

 

[kasse]

Obviously. People who, for example, finds it perfectly all right and morally proper that other individuals (who happen not to share, say, their ideas about the origin of the universe) should be subject to never-ending, excruciating agony (for example by having their skin burnt to ashes, then get a new sown on in order to repeat the process ad infinitum), such individuals, IvanSeeking, ARE evil, and should be opposed.

In particular, they should be deprived the right to manipulate the brains of children (for example by forcibly adopting whatever children they have made among themselves). For starters.

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.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

As for believing the claims of others, I can make that logical choice based on my knowledge of the person. As I have said, if my wife tells me something, there is nothing illogical in taking it on faith as I have known her for 25 years. I have good reason to believe her.

 

[kasse]

No, I said that it can be logical to choose faith,

You don't choose what to believe in, do you? You believe what you believe because you have concluded that it's probable as a result of observations. You can't just choose to believe whatever you like. Try to believe in Santa for a moment.

 

[kasse]

you cannot say things like "they are evil, or stupid", etc... Anyone that does will receive an infraction.

Is this a consequence of the new restricted freedom of speech?

 

[CRGreathouse]

I think that criticism of religion is so important that even defamatory remarks should be considered permissible.

 

[kasse]

Ivan, I don't see why it's of major importance to distinguish between religious moderates and religious fundies, because as long as there is religion present, people will vary in their interpretations of the holy books.

We must attack the problem at its roots. The problem isn't fundamentalists who believe every word of the Qu'ran or the Bible, the problem is lack of critical thinking. Critical thinking will never make you believe that you will get 72 virgins in the afterlife if you blow yourself and a bunch of infidels up in the air. Nor will it take you to believe that Jesus died on a cross and thereby took all human sin on his shoulders.

I'm not saying that there is no difference in the outcomes of such believes. What I'm saying is that there is no difference at the level of rationality. The two claims are equally absurd. In my opinion there is no hope for the future of our species as long as it's considered unpolite to criticize such beliefs. If we teach our children that certain beliefs shouldn't be questioned, you can bet your head that a fair share of the beliefs of the next generation will not contribute to a piecefull world.

 

[LowlyPion]

Is this a consequence of the new restricted freedom of speech?

You have freedom of speech.

What you don't have is freedom of consequence.

 

[Evo]

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.

 

[kasse]

It was a joke.

Still, I think it should be OK to criticize one religion in particular. What is the reason for this rule?

 

[Evo]

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.

 

[kasse]

You have freedom of speech.

What you don't have is freedom of consequence.

Same ****, different wrapping.

 

[LightbulbSun]

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.

 

[kasse]

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.

 

[LightbulbSun]

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.

 

[Evo]

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.

 

[kasse]

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.

 

[g33kski11z]

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.