News Should religion be a subject of criticism?

[ZapperZ]

You like making broad, sweeping statements don't you?

Could you define what a good person is? Could you also define what an evil person is?

That was a quote out of Weinberg's essay.

Zz.

 

[Kurdt]

I'm surprised this thread is still going.

 

[Hootenanny]

That was a quote out of Weinberg's essay.

Zz.

I thought it sounded familiar.

I wander what point kasse was trying to make by simply quoting the article...?

 

[||spoon||]

have you read Richard Dawkins. do you even know who he is?

Richard Dawkins is an apologist for atheism. he writes books with about as much vitriol as you have. he definitely has an agenda.

He does have an "agenda": to promote rationalism and critical thinking. What is wrong with rational and critical thinking (unless you are religous of course, then you don't need it)

 

[Astronuc]

They cannot do that without ignoring their own religion. Religion and tolerance don't go hand in hand.

Nonsense. Most of religious people I know promote peace, justice, and tolerance, but not their religion. I also know of religious people who think or act in quite the opposite way.

My father and his father were ministers. Through my father, I met many other clergy from many religions and denominations. For the most part, they were all quite rational and well educated. And over the course of my life, I have met many people from many different religious perspectives - each person has a unique perspective.

In general - people are fallible - some more so than others.

Which is the case. For religious people - people who really believe in the doctrines of their religion, people of all other faiths (or lack of faith) represent a threat. The ultimate goal will always be to defeat the infidels. Peaceful coexistence between the religions of the Middle East is never going to happen. Before we can have peace, we must get rid of religion.

This is a gross generalization, and is simply not true for all religious people. To achieve peace, one must remove the hostility - and perhaps jealousy, lust, greed, avarice, selfishness, and all the other negative qualities associated with humans.

The problem isn't fundamentalists who believe every word of the Qu'ran or the Bible, the problem is lack of critical thinking.

Then why not rant or criticize the lack of critical thinking, which seems endemic in the human population, religious or not.

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 peaceful world.

But the point is to question with critical thinking - which requires analysis and understanding. There doesn't seem to be much in the way of analysis or understanding in this thread. There does however seem to be a lot of conjecture and claims without substantiating evidence, although the last few pages represent an improvement.


Defamatory and/or insulting language (which I have observed in this thread) is an example of hostility - which is an emotional (irrational) response. Irrational behavior contradicts the claim for critical thinking or rationality.

Now what is the goal or replacing irrational thought with rational thought - peace and harmony? The OP was about being allowed to criticize religion, but the thread quickly deteriorated for a call to end religion.


Think of religion or science as a tool, like a hammer.

One could use a hammer contructively, to build a house to shelter one from the harsh environment or make other tools by forging hot metal, or one could use a hammer destructively, to bash people over the head.

One can use science contructively, e.g. to obtain a better understanding or the environment or universe and to improve the quality of life for people, or one can use science destructively, e.g. to build weapons, particularly power weapons that can destroy civilizations and people.

Similarly, one can use religion constructively, e.g. through building a social network and collectively doing positive activities that enhance the quality of life for people, or one can use religion destructively, e.g. to influence a group to act collectively against one or more outside of that group, as in a religious war.

If there was one hammer and if one possessed it, one could claim superiority to all others, and perhaps even claim the hammer is endowed with supernatural powers, and perhaps claim supernatural powers oneself. Or one could simply acknowledge the hammer for what it is, and teach others to make their own hammers - to be used for contructive purposes of course.

The tool is just an object, neither good nor evil. The good or evil lies in how one uses the tool.

Religion 'should' be tolerated. The majority of religious people are not fanatics, they are not evil, they fade into the wallpaper, you never even know they are there. Like most non-believers.

Yes there are the lunatic fringe, and sometimes the lunatic fringe gains control.

But do not claim that all people religious and non religious are all crazy.

Religious charities do an immense amount of good in the world.

I'm about 3 minutes away from lockdown as this thread has two sides throwing rocks at each other and nothing of any meaning is being rationally discussed.

Seems to be a good point in closing the thread.