News Should religion be a subject of criticism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter kasse
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Religion
Click For 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.
  • #121
In todays world, dominated by religious conflicts, how can people believe that lack of religion was a problem in the last century?? The problem was lack of rational thinking.

Atheism doesn't make you immune to doing stupid or terrible things, it's means that you don't believe in any gods, just like you didn't when you were born.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #122
rbj said:
i think Richard Dawkins definitely has an agenda.

What's wrong about having an agenda when it's a good one?
 
  • #123
LightbulbSun said:
No, it's stupid because people want to connect atheism to it when it had nothing to do with atheism.

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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #124
rbj said:
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.

and you, Dimbulb, make yourself look stupider than you need to by simply denying it (and offering no support). you need to work on what we used to call Forensics (the art and science of debate). your technique is not very effective.


I know who Richard Dawkins is and he's not an apologist. That's like calling Carl Sagan an apologist.

I don't know what atheism has to apologize for since it's not an ideology like you so desperately want to believe.
 
  • #125
What does Forensics help when one accepts biblical nonsense?
 
  • #126
rbj said:
my goodness you're persuasive.

ever try USENET? you might want to consider it before this escalates and they kick us both off PF.


Are you purposely trying to start a flame war just to see this thread close? I hope the mods just clean up your posts and let this discussion to continue. It's obvious we have some serious ignorance spreading around here.
 
  • #127
rbj said:
i didn't comment on the goodness or badness of Dawkins' agenda. i am refuting Dimbulb's assertion that atheists have no agenda.

Some have, some don't. I don't see Dawkins as a promoter of atheism, but as a promoter of rationalism and critical thinking.
 
  • #128
LightbulbSun said:
I know who Richard Dawkins is and he's not an apologist. That's like calling Carl Sagan an apologist.

I don't know what atheism has to apologize for since it's not an ideology like you so desperately want to believe.

well, :smile:, i guess now what is needed is to ask you to tell us if you know what an apologist is.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #129
LightbulbSun said:
I know who Richard Dawkins is and he's not an apologist. That's like calling Carl Sagan an apologist.

I don't know what atheism has to apologize for since it's not an ideology like you so desperately want to believe.

you're right, he's a better zoologist than apologist.

and apologetics isn't about apologizing.
 
  • #130
rbj said:
well, :smile:, i guess now what is needed is to ask you to tell us if you know what an apologist is.

it's okay, Dimbulb. ignorance is bliss.

I know what an apologist is, it means to defend the teachings or actions of a person or a group.

What is Dawkins defending exactly about atheism? Please provide some evidence before you make unwarranted assertions.
 
  • #131
rbj said:
i didn't comment on the goodness or badness of Dawkins' agenda. i am refuting Dimbulb's assertion that atheists have no agenda.

Some have, some don't. I don't see Dawkins as a promoter of atheism, but as a promoter of rationalism and critical thinking. Atheism has nothing to preach, save strong atheism, but Dawkins is an agnostic atheist like most non-believers are.
 
  • #132
Proton Soup said:
you're right, he's a better zoologist than apologist.

and apologetics isn't about apologizing.

He's an evolutionary biologist.
 
  • #133
kasse said:
Some have, some don't. I don't see Dawkins as a promoter of atheism,

what? The God Delusion _? Chapter 3?

but as a promoter of rationalism and critical thinking.

have you read Dawkins?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #134
LightbulbSun said:
I know what an apologist is, it means to defend the teachings or actions of a person or a group.

What is Dawkins defending exactly about atheism? Please provide some evidence before you make unwarranted assertions.

he writes books about it. whereas some theologians see the hand of God in all creation, Dawkins spends all his energies finding the fingerprints of evolution.
 
  • #135
LightbulbSun said:
Are you purposely trying to start a flame war just to see this thread close? I hope the mods just clean up your posts and let this discussion to continue. It's obvious we have some serious ignorance spreading around here.

It seems to be a very one sided discussion. That seems to be about all the atheists here can tolerate. I thought it was religion that was proclaimed to be intolerant??

This argument started with the ancient Greeks and it isn't going to be decided here.
 
  • #136
rbj said:
well, :smile:, i guess now what is needed is to ask you to tell us if you know what an apologist is.
I just deleted your insults, stop them now.
 
  • #137
rbj said:
what? The God Delusion _? Chapter 3? kasse, you don't want to expose yourself to appear as silly as dimbulb, do you?



have you read Dawkins?

You need to read his books before you make accusations. "Unweaving The Rainbow" talks about how important the teaching of real science is, and he explores how pseudoscience and paranormal nonsense exploits our appetite for wonder. Nothing about atheism in that book.

"The Selfish Gene" is talking about evolution and biology. Nothing about atheism in that book.
"Climbing Mount Improbable" talks about evolution. Nothing about atheism in that book.
"The God Delusion" is the only book that hints at atheism, but it's not about atheism really. It analyzes the different claims made by different religions about the existence of God or Gods.
 
  • #138
Evo said:
I just deleted your insults, stop them now.

Wait I want to post some insults. :biggrin:
 
  • #139
LightbulbSun said:
He's an evolutionary biologist.

that's what he calls himself. his doctorate was in zoology, and he taught zoology. and then he got very interested in evolution.
 
  • #140
rbj said:
what? The God Delusion _? Chapter 3? kasse, you don't want to expose yourself to appear as silly as dimbulb, do you?



have you read Dawkins?

All his books. Dawkins is a scientist, and naturally wants to promote rational thinking. Nothing is more in the way for scientific progress than religon, that's why he's attacking it. If Dawkins solely was a promoter of atheism, he would have been pleased with living in a world where nobody believes in God. But Dawkins wants more than that. Atheism is just one of many consequences of rational thinking.

And as the believer you are, please stop calling names.
 
  • #141
edward said:
It seems to be a very one sided discussion. That seems to be about all the atheists here can tolerate. I thought it was religion that was proclaimed to be intolerant??

I'm intolerant for correcting people on their false connections and misusage of words?
 
  • #142
kasse said:
All his books. Dawkins is a scientist, and naturally wants to promote rational thinking. Nothing is more in the way for scientific progress than religon, that's why he's attacking it. If Dawkins solely was a promoter of atheism, he would have been pleased with living in a world where nobody believes in God. But Dawkins wants more than that. Atheism is just one of many consequences of rational thinking.

And as the believer you are, please stop calling names.

what science does Dawkins actually do? i think all he does is make sloppy interpretations of other people's work to make it fit his agenda.
 
  • #143
Certain things shouldn't be tolerated. Religion is among them.
 
  • #144
edward said:
Wait I want to post some insults. :biggrin:
Well, hurry up and get them in, I'm going to ban everyone before I go to bed.
 
  • #145
Proton Soup said:
what science does Dawkins actually do? i think all he does is make sloppy interpretations of other people's work to make it fit his agenda.

He was the one who popularized the gene-centered view of evolution, he also introduced the concept of memes. He's done a lot of great work in the field of evolutionary science.
 
  • #146
Evo said:
Well, hurry up and get them in, I'm going to ban everyone before I go to bed.

lol, I'm getting tired of this, myself
 
  • #147
Proton Soup said:
what science does Dawkins actually do? i think all he does is make sloppy interpretations of other people's work to make it fit his agenda.

He's retired now, but he was a professor of the public understanding of science at the University of Oxford.
 
  • #148
LightbulbSun said:
He was the one who popularized the gene-centered view of evolution, he also introduced the concept of memes. He's done a lot of great work in the field of evolutionary science.

memes are just a neat-sounding word for culture, it's nothing new. popularizing science just makes him a science writer, like many others who work for publications.
 
  • #149
Proton Soup said:
memes are just a neat-sounding word for culture, it's nothing new. popularizing science just makes him a science writer, like many others who work for publications.

So Carl Sagan is just a science writer then. :rolleyes:
 
  • #150
We're OT.
 

Similar threads

Should Children Be Subjected to Cultural and Religious Indoctrination?
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
7K
News Should all religions in the US be tax-exempt?
  • · Replies 66 ·
3
Replies
66
Views
9K
News You think the Fairness Doctrine is unconstitutional
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
6K
News What are the potential solutions for the EU refugee crisis?
  • · Replies 235 ·
8
Replies
235
Views
23K
News Discussing Precautionary Debating: United States vs. Finland
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Should we be equally tolerant of all ethical and moral precepts?
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
5K
Philosophy is _not_ just comparative religion .
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
News Criticize your choice for president
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Rant about working in the tutoring lab: How should I deal with this?
  • · Replies 81 ·
3
Replies
81
Views
10K
News Should the US intervene in world problems?
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
10K