News Should religion be a subject of criticism?

[out of whack]

A global blasphemy law

Scary, isn't it?

 

[kasse]

That article scares the hell out of me.

 

[Proton Soup]

A good astrophysicist too.

ok, i'll agree with you on this one thing.

 

[LightbulbSun]

Anyone who voices his or her opinion obviously has an agenda: to convince others of said opinion. Duh.

True, but there's no group agenda for atheism since there's no such thing. Some atheists are pro religion still, others are anti-theist. Atheists can also still believe in the supernatural. An atheist bright is one who doesn't believe in gods or supernatural phenomena.

 

[out of whack]

Worth dying for.

Lucky you won't have to, they failed (this time) and a non-binding bland proclamation was adopted instead.

From http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...11/13/AR2008111301921.html?hpid=sec-religion":

The more than 70 countries attending the conference issued a declaration affirming "their rejection of the use of religion to justify the killing of innocent people and actions of terrorism, violence and coercion which directly contradict the commitment of all religions to peace, justice and equality."

 

[rbj]

Again, confusing secularism with atheism. Religious people can be secularists too.

when did i ever say that religious people can't be secularists? i only am strictly keeping you to supporting your wild-a55ed statement that atheists have no agenda. i said nothing about secularism nor the agenda of secularism.

Now you're going to have to show us this atheism agenda without trying to lump in a bunch of other ideologies with it.

again, all i need is a single counter-example to refute your broadly sweeping statement that atheists have no agenda. Dawkins makes for an easy source. i'll have to dig it out, but besides the general agenda that Dawkins has promoting atheism (his thesis is that it is mind-numbingly silly to believe in God and that is an ideology of atheism that cannot be attributed to another ideology), he has some social agenda. one is that he believes that theistic parents should not bring their kids up in the faith thus poisoning their minds at their young vulnerable age with this God delusion. that's a social agenda that is essentially that parents should teach their kids what Dawkins believes rather than what these parents might believe. that's an agenda. and it's an agenda for atheism.

i do not have the time to find the specific page (in The God Delusion) for that, let alone to find the time to even dig the book outa whatever box i have it stored in (bookshelf space is tight in my house), so Evo, I'm getting outa here. these guys can have their echo chamber, if they want it.

 

[LightbulbSun]

when did i ever say that religious people can't be secularists? i only am strictly keeping you to supporting your wild-a55ed statement that atheists have no agenda. i said nothing about secularism nor the agenda of secularism.

I said you were confusing a secularist agenda as being an atheist agenda.

again, all i need is a single counter-example to refute your broadly sweeping statement that atheists have no agenda. Dawkins makes for an easy source. i'll have to dig it out, but besides the general agenda that Dawkins has promoting atheism (his thesis is that it is mind-numbingly silly to believe in God and that is an ideology of atheism that cannot be attributed to another ideology), he has some social agenda. one is that he believes that theistic parents should not bring their kids up in the faith thus poisoning their minds at their young vulnerable age with this God delusion. that's a social agenda that is essentially that parents should teach their kids what Dawkins believes rather than what these parents might believe. that's an agenda. and it's an agenda for atheism.

Social agendas have nothing to do with an "atheist agenda." Epic fail.

 

[NeoDevin]

Just for clarity:

Atheism: disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Secularism: the view that public education and other matters of civil policy should be conducted without the introduction of a religious element.

The two are not mutually exclusive, but also one does not require the other. Dawkins is both. His books (The God Delusion in particular) aim to promote critical thinking and criticize religious beliefs. He does mention atheism a few times in his books, but they do not (directly) promote atheism.

 

[NeoDevin]

atheists have no agenda

There is a difference between claiming that a particular atheist has a particular agenda, and that atheism has an inherent agenda (the "atheist agenda").

 

[LightbulbSun]

Just for clarity:

Atheism: disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Secularism: the view that public education and other matters of civil policy should be conducted without the introduction of a religious element.

The two are not mutually exclusive, but also one does not require the other. Dawkins is both. His books (The God Delusion in particular) aim to promote critical thinking and criticize religious beliefs. He does mention atheism a few times in his books, but they do not (directly) promote atheism.

Thank you Neo! As I've said, religious people can also be secularists too.

 

[WarPhalange]

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

Yes, you said it's logical to choose faith, not that faith is logical.

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.

The fact that your wife is there is already infinitely more proof than any Abrahamic religion can muster, or any other faith, including Hinduism, Shinto, and Buddhism.

Look at it this way: We laugh at the crazy beliefs that the Aztecs, Norse, and Greeks had. But we claim our fairy tales are somehow better. Why?

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

When it comes to the workings of the universe? Yes. Need I mention creationism again?

 

[kasse]

i only am strictly keeping you to supporting your wild-a55ed statement that atheists have no agenda.

Some atheists can have an agenda. My 2 year old nephew does not have it.

As Lightbulb says, atheism is a very narrow field, and you're obviously trying to expand it to include everything that is not religious. My breakfast today had nothing to do with religion, but I wouldn't blame atheism if it didn't taste well.

 

[kasse]

Just for clarity:

Atheism: disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

That's only one of many definitions. The only thing all definitions agree on, is that atheists don't believe in gods.

 

[Office_Shredder]

but it's silly to deny that atheists, as a class of people, have no agenda. it's semantically silly.

again, all i need is a single counter-example to refute your broadly sweeping statement that atheists have no agenda.

No, you didn't say individual atheists have agendas, you said atheists, as a class of people, have an agenda. You cited a single individual as evidence. This doesn't prove atheists, as a class of people, have an agenda, as you've asserted for a couple pages. The 'broadly sweeping statement' is simply pointing out that atheists, as a class of people, have no agenda. Which you said is false. And have provided no evidence for

 

[cristo]

again, all i need is a single counter-example to refute your broadly sweeping statement that atheists have no agenda.

The statement "atheists have an agenda" is not the same as the statement "there exists an atheist who has an agenda." Proving the latter does not prove the former.

 

[arildno]

it is silly to deny that, at least some atheists (and some spokespersons for atheists), have focused agendas pushing the POV on others.

Obviously.
Because religionists are, to a large extent, in the WRONG, both intellectually and morally.
Thus, it should come as no surprise that there exist morally laudable, even obligatory, ways of "forcing" upon them other points of view.

 

[kasse]

Religionists often tell me that religions deserve respect because they provide a basis for morality, something that is not possible without religion. Lol.

 

[ZapperZ]

Religionists often tell me that religions deserve respect because they provide a basis for morality, something that is not possible without religion. Lol.

Then you should just show them the http://www.physlink.com/Education/essay_weinberg.cfm" , and that's the end of that!

Zz.

 

[kasse]

I think that on balance the moral influence of religion has been awful. I could point out endless examples of the harm done by religious enthusiasm, through a long history of pogroms, crusades, and jihads. On the other side, many admirers of religion would set countless examples of the good done by religion.

It is certainly true that the campaign against slavery and the slave trade was greatly strengthened by devout Christians. But Christianity, like other great world religions, lived comfortably with slavery for many centuries, and slavery was endorsed in the New Testament. So what was different for anti-slavery Christians like Wilberforce and Channing? There had been no discovery of new sacred scriptures, and neither Wilberforce nor Channing claimed to have received any supernatural revelations. Rather, the eighteenth century had seen a widespread increase in rationality and humanitarianism that led others—for instance, Adam Smith, Jeremy Bentham, and Richard Brinsley Sheridan—also to oppose slavery, on grounds having nothing to do with religion. As far as I can tell, the moral tone of religion benefited more from the spirit of the times than the spirit of the times benefited from religion.

With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil—that takes religion.

 

[Hootenanny]

With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil—that takes religion.

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?

 

[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.