News Should religion be a subject of criticism?

[LightbulbSun]

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.

 

[kasse]

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.

 

[arildno]

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.

 

[kasse]

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.

 

[arildno]

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.

 

[kasse]

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.

 

[out of whack]

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?

 

[arildno]

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...

 

[kasse]

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."

 

[kasse]

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.

 

[LightbulbSun]

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 ****.

 

[Proton Soup]

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.

 

[LowlyPion]

... 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.

 

[LightbulbSun]

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?

 

[out of whack]

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?

 

[LightbulbSun]

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?

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.

 

[Evo]

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.

 

[kasse]

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

 

[LightbulbSun]

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?

 

[kasse]

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?

 

[Math Is Hard]

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?

 

[edward]

You want to KILL religious people?

Only the evil ones.

 

[Evo]

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.

 

[kasse]

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?

 

[Evo]

You want to KILL religious people?

I wanted to watch a tv show in peace. Ok, now I'm here.

Clean up on isle 10.

 

[LightbulbSun]

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.

 

[LightbulbSun]

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.

 

[Proton Soup]

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.

 

[LightbulbSun]

Proton, I've noticed you haven't answered my reply yet.

 

[kasse]

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..."