Criticizing Religion/Beliefs

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Storm
It' s becoming more and more popular to argue that there is something fundamentally inappropriate and/or intolerant about criticizing religion and (religious) beliefs. It sometimes seems as if no serious and pointed criticisms are permitted against what people believe if those beliefs are part of religion, regardless of how bigoted or nasty those beliefs are.

People can level very pointed criticisms against a movie or play without censure. Similarly pointed criticisms against a political or social ideology are also readily accepted as part of public debate. If anything even remotely similar is said about religion and religious beliefs, though, the critic will be tarred as intolerant, bigoted, anti-religion, and anything else which people can come up with.

If it' s legitimate to use ridicule and mockery to point out problems in a political leader, institution, or ideology, why should it suddenly be illegitimate to do the same in the context of religion, religious leaders, religious institutions, and (religious) beliefs?

Is there any good reason to think that the standards and rules for dealing with religious beliefs should be any different?

Source: about.com

Bardock42
Originally posted by Storm
It' s becoming more and more popular to argue that there is something fundamentally inappropriate and/or intolerant about criticizing religion and (religious) beliefs. It sometimes seems as if no serious and pointed criticisms are permitted against what people believe if those beliefs are part of religion, regardless of how bigoted or nasty those beliefs are.

People can level very pointed criticisms against a movie or play without censure. Similarly pointed criticisms against a political or social ideology are also readily accepted as part of public debate. If anything even remotely similar is said about religion and religious beliefs, though, the critic will be tarred as intolerant, bigoted, anti-religion, and anything else which people can come up with.

If it' s legitimate to use ridicule and mockery to point out problems in a political leader, institution, or ideology, why should it suddenly be illegitimate to do the same in the context of religion, religious leaders, religious institutions, and (religious) beliefs?

Is there any good reason to think that the standards and rules for dealing with religious beliefs should be any different?

Source: about.com

I don't think so, but it is apparent that it is that way.

When people satirize it, it doesn't get the same protection, just because they don't believe in it. I think everything should be open for criticism. Especially something as big and in many cases harmful as Religions.

lil bitchiness
Classic example of controled opinions in regards to religion is the emrgance of ''Islamophobia''.
Religion, nd in my example Islam, is an ideology.

Rejection of an ideology cannot be classified as phobia. To call the opponents of an ideology phobic is a fallacy. All ideologies have their critics and opponents.

Islam is not unversaly agreed upon, and thus calling it 'phobia' is a fallacy. It is sheer arrogance to call criticism of any ideology, phobia. This implies that the truth of that ideology is already established and anyone opposing it is adopting an irrational position and is in need of psychological help.

Such would apply for any Ideology or more precisely religion in this case.

This embodies far larger meanings, mostly about what we understand as freedom of religion. But this freedom of religion right overshadows freedom of expression and opinion.

Or rather tends to.

Bardock42
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Classic example of controled opinions in regards to religion is the emrgance of ''Islamophobia''.
Religion, nd in my example Islam, is an ideology.

Rejection of an ideology cannot be classified as phobia. To call the opponents of an ideology phobic is a fallacy. All ideologies have their critics and opponents.

Islam is not unversaly agreed upon, and thus calling it 'phobia' is a fallacy. All ideologies have their opponents. It is sheer arrogance to call criticism of any ideology, phobia. This implies that the truth of that ideology is already established and anyone opposing it is adopting an irrational position and is in need of psychological help.

Such would apply for any Ideology or more precisely religion in this case.

This embodies far larger meanings, mostly about what we understand as freedom of religion. But this freedom of religion right overshadows freedom of expression and opinion.

Or rather tends to.

Of course one can have an unreasonable hate and fer for and of a certain ideology and the followers anyways....but just on reasonable grounds rejecting it should not be considered a phobia.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Classic example of controled opinions in regards to religion is the emrgance of ''Islamophobia''.
Religion, nd in my example Islam, is an ideology.

Rejection of an ideology cannot be classified as phobia. To call the opponents of an ideology phobic is a fallacy. All ideologies have their critics and opponents.

Islam is not unversaly agreed upon, and thus calling it 'phobia' is a fallacy. It is sheer arrogance to call criticism of any ideology, phobia. This implies that the truth of that ideology is already established and anyone opposing it is adopting an irrational position and is in need of psychological help.

Such would apply for any Ideology or more precisely religion in this case.

This embodies far larger meanings, mostly about what we understand as freedom of religion. But this freedom of religion right overshadows freedom of expression and opinion.

Or rather tends to.

I couldn't have said it better. big grin

debbiejo
Religion has caused many problems in the past and now the present. I think all religions should be scrutinized. It should stay out of politics and the schools. If someone wants to take an elective course in the Study of Religions, then there is no problem with that. But I feel religions on a whole are very destructive, unless it's about love and caring without condemning another and only when asked for, not pushed on. Unfortunately religions have become the "Us" against "Them", thing. Everyone that isn't part of the "Us", is going to hell. And there are a lot of "Us'" around.

Boris
Of course it is legitimate to criticize religion/beliefs.

It is those religions and believes than cause death and destruction.

Religion should be exterminated.

Why should people believe things that simply are not true?

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Boris
Of course it is legitimate to criticize religion/beliefs.

It is those religions and believes than cause death and destruction.

Religion should be exterminated.

Why should people believe things that simply are not true?

Hey! I get a lot of benefit from my religion. But of course my religion dose not hurt anyone, and I don't believe in things that are not true.

Boris
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Hey! I get a lot of benefit from my religion. But of course my religion dose not hurt anyone, and I don't believe in things that are not true.
Yeah I should have mentioned other religions such as Buddhism or Hinduism, I mean, I think they're all wrong yet these two are examples of peaceful and non intrusive religions, as far as I know... Quite different from Christianity and Islam which are the two I mean in most of my posts.

WrathfulDwarf
I think the problem is that people just need to STOP Criticizing and start accepting that we have different perspectives. This does not just go for the religious camp. The door swings both ways. Non-religious people need to stop wasting their lives complaining about others. Talk all the science and high intellectual but really they don't look any different to me than the religious people.

I mean F uck it! If you're angry at something then get counceling. Deal with your anger and get over it. If a person is doing this just to be an ass...damn something is wrong with your life if you need to put down others to make you feel better.

A person can't be a critic all their life. Otherwise you're not living at all. Live your own life not the life of others.

debbiejo
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
I think the problem is that people just need to STOP Criticizing and start accepting that we have different perspectives. This does not just go for the religious camp. The door swings both ways. Non-religious people need to stop wasting their lives complaining about others. Talk all the science and high intellectual but really they don't look any different to me than the religious people.

I mean F uck it! If you're angry at something then get counceling. Deal with your anger and get over it. If a person is doing this just to be an ass...damn something is wrong with your life if you need to put down others to make you feel better.

A person can't be a critic all their life. Otherwise you're not living at all. Live your own life not the life of others. Excellent! cool

Bicnarok

Alliance
I don't think its illigetimate to criticise, but there is a point where rationality should kick in.

Violent2Dope
The only beliefs that are okay to be criticised are KemeticIbri's.

Alliance
And yours.

Bardock42
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Talk all the science and high intellectual but really they don't look any different to me than the religious people.

They do to me.

§P0oONY
I think it's okay to criticise everything; scepticism and disbelief brings us forward as a species.

Violent2Dope
Well when I read "criticise" I think I misinterpreted it as saying that the other person's beliefs were just wrong.

chithappens
I think the real question is: "When does rationality turn to just being an *******?"

There are flaws in every religion but what is the point of jamming it down the throat of someone who will not even acknowledge any issue?

Emperor Ashtar
How do you rationalise Religous morals in the first place?

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
How do you rationalise Religous morals in the first place?

If they are good morals, you will not have to rationalize them. big grin

Emperor Ashtar
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If they are good morals, you will not have to rationalize them. big grin

Good is subective my friend.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Good is subective my friend.

I never said it wasn't. Let me restate it this way: If the morals are beneficial to your life, then there is no need to rationalize them.

Emperor Ashtar
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I never said it wasn't. Let me restate it this way: If the morals are beneficial to your life, then there is no need to rationalize them.

Ah, I understand.

Devil King
Originally posted by Storm
It' s becoming more and more popular to argue that there is something fundamentally inappropriate and/or intolerant about criticizing religion and (religious) beliefs. It sometimes seems as if no serious and pointed criticisms are permitted against what people believe if those beliefs are part of religion, regardless of how bigoted or nasty those beliefs are.

People can level very pointed criticisms against a movie or play without censure. Similarly pointed criticisms against a political or social ideology are also readily accepted as part of public debate. If anything even remotely similar is said about religion and religious beliefs, though, the critic will be tarred as intolerant, bigoted, anti-religion, and anything else which people can come up with.

If it' s legitimate to use ridicule and mockery to point out problems in a political leader, institution, or ideology, why should it suddenly be illegitimate to do the same in the context of religion, religious leaders, religious institutions, and (religious) beliefs?

Is there any good reason to think that the standards and rules for dealing with religious beliefs should be any different?

Source: about.com

The part I hate is that "they" seem to think they understand something that the rest of us have missed.

Them: But Jesus DIED for you!

Me: Yeah?

Them: But you'll burn in hell if you don't drink this kool-aid!

Me: I'll take my chances

Them: No, no, no. If you don't believe it, you'll burn forever!

Me: We'll see.

Them: No, no, no...Jesus died on the cross for you!

Me: I didn't ask him to.

Them: But he did it anyway!

Me: yeah, I heard you the first time.

Them: Then what don't you understand?

Me: Nothing. I get it.

and the whole thing starts over again. Bible thumping, preachy christians remind me of those obnoxious truckers that block the passing lane or the shoulder when there's an accident that's backing up traffic.

Goddess Kali
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Classic example of controled opinions in regards to religion is the emrgance of ''Islamophobia''.
Religion, nd in my example Islam, is an ideology.

Rejection of an ideology cannot be classified as phobia. To call the opponents of an ideology phobic is a fallacy. All ideologies have their critics and opponents.

Islam is not unversaly agreed upon, and thus calling it 'phobia' is a fallacy. It is sheer arrogance to call criticism of any ideology, phobia. This implies that the truth of that ideology is already established and anyone opposing it is adopting an irrational position and is in need of psychological help.

Such would apply for any Ideology or more precisely religion in this case.

This embodies far larger meanings, mostly about what we understand as freedom of religion. But this freedom of religion right overshadows freedom of expression and opinion.

Or rather tends to.



Yes, I think a certain Alliance needs to realize this laughing

Goddess Kali
Religion has a large part in determining how people's lives are lived. Religion, like politics, tradition, and other idealogies, not only effects those who participate within the religion, but unfortunately, also effects those who do not directly participate within the religion.


Therefore, like all things, Religion should definately be subject to criticism, and to label criticism of a religion and/or religious doctrine as "phobia" or "bigotry" is, as Lil B stated, a fallacy.


Phobia and Bigotry can only be applicable to the feelings and perceptions of people. Not against idealogies, actions, or traditions.

Alliance
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
How do you rationalise Religous morals in the first place?

When there is nothing more to rationalize against them. As long as you are on "100%" solid ground, you can push back.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If they are good morals, you will not have to rationalize them. big grin

thumb down

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
Yes, I think a certain Alliance needs to realize this laughing

Maybe you Islamophobes need to realize you're doing more than disagreeing with ideology.

FeceMan
Originally posted by Storm
It' s becoming more and more popular to argue that there is something fundamentally inappropriate and/or intolerant about criticizing religion and (religious) beliefs. It sometimes seems as if no serious and pointed criticisms are permitted against what people believe if those beliefs are part of religion, regardless of how bigoted or nasty those beliefs are.

People can level very pointed criticisms against a movie or play without censure. Similarly pointed criticisms against a political or social ideology are also readily accepted as part of public debate. If anything even remotely similar is said about religion and religious beliefs, though, the critic will be tarred as intolerant, bigoted, anti-religion, and anything else which people can come up with.

If it' s legitimate to use ridicule and mockery to point out problems in a political leader, institution, or ideology, why should it suddenly be illegitimate to do the same in the context of religion, religious leaders, religious institutions, and (religious) beliefs?

Is there any good reason to think that the standards and rules for dealing with religious beliefs should be any different?

Source: about.com
Think about it this way: how much of "religious criticism" is "haha, you're a stupid Christian," and how much of it is "here's a problem I have with Christianity" (versus "OMFG HOW CULD A GOOD GOD SEND PEOPLE 2 HELL UR DUMB"wink?

Alliance
Criticism vs. other invalid stuff.

Magee
Religion is for gays ufl.

Jana
There is no institution that has killed more innocent people than the church, which claims to act according to the bible (/religion).

Ludwig the XIV. (Fourteenth was right, right?) was the (and I am just translating it from German as I know it) King of the Sun and claimed to act on the will of God.

G.W. Bush also claimed to be in power because of God's will.

Here religious and political respectively ideological believes intertwine and as I would criticize any regime built on religious beliefs I hence would also criticize religion.

I think it is always okay to speak your mind and if anyone is offended simply by someone saying he or she doesn't believe in the same thing, they just lack intelligence in my opinion.

Rogue Jedi
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Hey! I get a lot of benefit from my religion. But of course my religion dose not hurt anyone, and I don't believe in things that are not true. my faith in God is the only thing that keeps me going these days.

Mindship
Questioning/criticizing religious beliefs is legit, arguably even necessary to prevent cognitive ossification. But due it respectfully. Disrespect diminishes the criticizer, at times rendering his/her point null and void, if not an outright self-contradiction.

The same holds, of course, for those who are religious questioning the areligious.

ADarksideJedi
The funny thing about people who is criticizing is the Christians.They get made fun of and talk about all the time.Notice the other ones don't.Why maybe becaues we don't say anything back.Any other religion no one would dare say anything about.How is this fair?jm

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by Alliance
W
Maybe you Islamophobes need to realize you're doing more than disagreeing with ideology.

And maybe you Christianophobe and Buddhistophobe need to release you're doing more than disagreeing with ideology.

...

the stupidity of the term (ideology)phobe is just remarkable.

As Piers Benn said -





No other religion, apart from Islam has a name for its chritics in the form of phobe. None.

You don't hear Christianophobes, or Hinuphopes, or Buddhistophobes. Why? Because its a moral, intelectual and gramaticall fallacy.

Alliance
A stunning rebuttal. Feeling "dirty" lately?

I disagree with the practicies of a minority of Christians, but I recognize that they are an unrepresentative minority subject to other influences besides religion. I'm also sensative on where I get my information. That is more than I can say for you and other nuts that share similar viewpoints.

chithappens
My problem is that criticize becomes antagonize after extended conversations about the flaws of a religion. That is where the flaw in all of this lies. Just like recently with the "Atheism=Stupid" thread, people jumped on his back?

Was that a simple criticism? In his opinion is was just that. To others it was an insult.

There is nothing legit about criticizing the beliefs of another because they will never totally get what you are trying to get across to them. It is a logical fallacy to think so.

chithappens
Originally posted by Alliance
A stunning rebuttal. Feeling "dirty" lately?

I disagree with the practicies of a minority of Christians, but I recognize that they are an unrepresentative minority subject to other influences besides religion. I'm also sensative on where I get my information. That is more than I can say for you and other nuts that share similar viewpoints.

That brings a new question - which Christian "beliefs/(church?)" are the majority? Some Christians even believe that Jesus was not the son of God (although that throws out the Holy Trinity...).

Nellinator
Originally posted by Jana
There is no institution that has killed more innocent people than the church, which claims to act according to the bible (/religion). Ignorance for the win.

chithappens
Originally posted by Nellinator
Ignorance for the win.

Correct him thoroughly then

Nellinator
It's a she. Communist Soviet government killed more innocents, Nazi government too. That = corrected. There are more, but that's all I need.

Alliance
Can you say that the numbers of people that the Church has killed have been accurately recorded? And how do you define "innocents?"

I'm not for making ignorant statements one way, but I'm not for making them the other way either.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Nellinator
It's a she. Communist Soviet government killed more innocents, Nazi government too. That = corrected. There are more, but that's all I need. Woah, woah, woah....she said innocents. Jews and farmers are anything but innocent.

Nellinator
Originally posted by Bardock42
Woah, woah, woah....she said innocents. Jews and farmers are anything but innocent. Good call.
Originally posted by Alliance
Can you say that the numbers of people that the Church has killed have been accurately recorded? And how do you define "innocents?"

I'm not for making ignorant statements one way, but I'm not for making them the other way either. Due to the population at the time, the number won't be as large, nor in such a short amount of time. Heck, I bet the American armed forces have killed more. The number has been estimated before though I believe. Really, the Crusades didn't claim into the millions, nor the Inquisition. People tend to blow them up into something farther reaching and more prominent than they were.

chithappens
Originally posted by Nellinator
It's a she. Communist Soviet government killed more innocents, Nazi government too. That = corrected. There are more, but that's all I need.

Here is an excerpt from "the Requirement" (Spainards read to Native Americans after "discovering an island"wink:

"I implore you to recognize the Church as a lady and in the name of the Pope take the King as lord of this land and obey his mandates. If you do not do it, I tell you that with the help of God I will enter powerfully against you all. I will make war everywhere and every way that I can. I will subject you to the yoke and obedience to the Church and to his Majesty. I will take your women and children and make them slaves... The deaths and injuries that you will receive from here on will be your own fault and not that of his majesty nor of the gentlemen that accompany me."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the U.S., the push of Native Americans westward was justified by "divine (something; damn someone help me out, I'm kinda blank right now)." It was just supposed to be because God willed it.

Even today the U.S. hides behind all the stuff with religion.

Include the Crusades, colonization and that should just about surpass the numbers of any other example.

* Now I added examples of just Christianity instead of simply the Church but not sure how we are doing numbers. Are we doing the Church against anything?

chithappens
Originally posted by Nellinator
Really, the Crusades didn't claim into the millions, nor the Inquisition. People tend to blow them up into something farther reaching and more prominent than they were.

Please prove it. I would really like to see the actually numbers if you have a link.

Violent2Dope
Originally posted by Jana
G.W. Bush also claimed to be in power because of God's will. Bush is also a moron who believes himself to be the next messiah. "God speaks through me." Wtf does he mean "God speaks through me." Stupid moron.

chithappens
He is doing the will of God?

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Violent2Dope
Bush is also a moron who believes himself to be the next messiah. "God speaks through me." Wtf does he mean "God speaks through me." Stupid moron.

The problem with Bush is that he is not a moron. If he was a moron, he would not be president, and we would not be talking about him. Some of the most delusional people are very smart.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The problem with Bush is that he is not a moron. If he was a moron, he would not be president, and we would not be talking about him. Some of the most delusional people are very smart.

T-that's your proof that he is not a moron?

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Bardock42
T-that's your proof that he is not a moron?

He is president. You do not get to be president without being smart. He also has a degree from Harvard. But that is not my point.

People who go around and say that Bush is a moron are just repeating propaganda and need to stop and think about who is using them and why. Both Democrats and Republicans are evil scum bags and need to be removed from power.

But now we are off topic.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
He is president. You do not get to be president without being smart. He also has a degree from Harvard. But that is not my point.

People who go around and say that Bush is a moron are just repeating propaganda and need to stop and think about who is using them and why. Both Democrats and Republicans are evil scum bags and need to be removed from power.

But now we are off topic.

What about all the incredible shit he said? That just someone...really....really...stupid might say?

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Bardock42
What about all the incredible shit he said? That just someone...really....really...stupid might say?

I'm not sure what you are talking about. Also, we are off topic.

chithappens
Originally posted by Bardock42
What about all the incredible shit he said? That just someone...really....really...stupid might say?

I think he plays dumb a lot. But it is certainly not impossible that he is just an idiot.

Yes a dumb person can become president. At the very least, he doesn't give a **** about most Americans.

Storm
How should we incorporate the 2 million (last year) African adults and children that died of AIDS and another 24.7 million Africans who are left, struggling to live with its deadly effects, in the number?

Goddess Kali
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
my faith in God is the only thing that keeps me going these days.


This is the general reason why I now give Christianity the benefit of the doubt.

Goddess Kali
Originally posted by Alliance
Maybe you Islamophobes need to realize you're doing more than disagreeing with ideology.


Forgive me for being Bigotted, Mr. "I think all white people are ugly", or shall I call you Mr. "Buddhism is a horrible religion" roll eyes (sarcastic)

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by Goddess Kali
Forgive me for being Bigotted, Mr. "I think all white people are ugly", or shall I call you Mr. "Buddhism is a horrible religion" roll eyes (sarcastic)

Whitepoplephobe, Buddhistophobe, Bodhisattvaphobe or Buddhaphobe. Get it right, dammit!

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Whitepoplephobe, Buddhistophobe, Bodhisattvaphobe or Buddhaphobe. Get it right, dammit!

Modophobe? eek! laughing out loud

lil bitchiness
Yeah! There's like tons of those around! schmoll

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Yeah! There's like tons of those around! schmoll

eek! runforhills

backdoorman
Originally posted by Storm
How should we incorporate the 2 million (last year) African adults and children that died of AIDS and another 24.7 million Africans who are left, struggling to live with its deadly effects, in the number?
This seems a bit out of place.

Alliance
Originally posted by Nellinator
Due to the population at the time, the number won't be as large, nor in such a short amount of time. Heck, I bet the American armed forces have killed more. The number has been estimated before though I believe. Really, the Crusades didn't claim into the millions, nor the Inquisition. People tend to blow them up into something farther reaching and more prominent than they were.

We're also talking millenia...and shouldn't proportion be taken into account.Originally posted by Storm
How should we incorporate the 2 million (last year) African adults and children that died of AIDS and another 24.7 million Africans who are left, struggling to live with its deadly effects, in the number?

For the win!Originally posted by Goddess Kali
Forgive me for being Bigotted, Mr. "I think all white people are ugly", or shall I call you Mr. "Buddhism is a horrible religion" roll eyes (sarcastic)

I do forgive you for misquoting me and not being able to interpret statements properly. I'm sure its not your fault.

Go in peace.Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Whitepoplephobe, Buddhistophobe, Bodhisattvaphobe or Buddhaphobe. Get it right, dammit!

Islamophobephobe?

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.