To Criticize Religion

There ought to be a thread specifically devoted towards criticizing religion and the religious.

If you've got a gripe with religion and the religious, please share it here.

In my opinion, the religion subforum is for criticizing religion; the philosophy subforum is for flat-out dismissing it.




.02

ecofarm said:

In my opinion, the religion subforum is for criticizing religion; the philosophy subforum is for flat-out dismissing it.

Click to expand...

Religion cannot be criticized in the Religion forum.

It should be flat-out dismissed.

As Hitchens has said in the past, “What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.”

Wake said:

Religion cannot be criticized in the Religion forum.

Click to expand...

I think you misunderstand 'to criticize' and substitute 'dismiss'. I have criticized various religions, religious text, interpretations and concepts of religions in the religion subforum. We've debated the possibilities and the 'evidence' for each. That's criticism.

I openly proclaim that my 'god' is non-deity; that I'm atheist and I don't believe in anything supernatural. I criticize the interpretations of others and provide evidence for mine. What I do not do is counter arguments with "invisible sky wizard". That's the point, the purpose, of the religion subforum.


"You are delusional and completely full of crap, probably in an effort to manipulate others for your own benefit and protection" does not constitute criticism.

ecofarm said:

I think you misunderstand 'to criticize' and substitute 'dismiss'.

Click to expand...

To criticize is to find faults in something in a disapproving way. Since irrational faith and groundless hope are symptoms of religion, religion ought to be criticized as much as possible. It should ultimately be dismissed as well.

....I'm confused. Did you not base your views of gay marriage on religious scripture?

tessaesque said:

....I'm confused. Did you not base your views of gay marriage on religious scripture?

Click to expand...

Wake's 'evolved'.

Wake said:

To criticize is to find faults in something in a disapproving way. Since irrational faith and groundless hope are symptoms of religion, religion ought to be criticized as much as possible. It should ultimately be dismissed as well.

Click to expand...

We find faults in stuff in a disapproving way. We debate possible interpretations of God, god(s) and religious texts. We debate how supernatural stuff should be percieved/interpretated. We present our own views and expression of the metaphysical. Sometimes, we agree to disagree. What we don't do, again, is "invisible sky wizard" an argument.

Dismissing the foundation of the discussion, that being: "Metaphysical expression is legitimate", does not count as criticism. If metaphysical expression is dismissed entirely as delusion, then there is no criticism to be had.

Look up the definition of critcize and then the definition of dismiss. Note the differences.

tessaesque said:

....I'm confused. Did you not base your views of gay marriage on religious scripture?

Click to expand...

In the past, yes. Once one sees that religion is a problem, everything else tends to follow.

I do understand what love is, and that is one of the reasons I can never again be a Christian. Love is not blood and suffering. Love is not murdering your son to appease your own vanity. Love is not hatred or wrath, consigning billions of people to eternal torture because they have offended your ego or disobeyed your rules. Love is not obedience, conformity, or submission. It is a counterfeit love that is contingent upon authority, punishment, or reward. True love is respect and admiration, compassion and kindness, freely given by a healthy, unafraid human being.

Dan Barker ("Losing Faith in Faith")

This quote, in my opinion, probably demonstrates my biggest problem with organized religon.

Simply having a belief system that guides you to better itself is not a bad thing. The problem originates in the seemingly innate desire for each relgion to better itself against other faiths, almost in an arms race. Eventually, you have every major faith having a god (Or Gods) that is all powerful, all knowing, and all seeing. I'm not even going to bring up the conondrums that are put in place by such a being.

Instead, the biggest problem I have is just the desire of the religious to so depserately try to prove their faith. Trying to sell their God as a loving, compassionate being that completely contradicts everything their Holy Book says. I understand theat they feel a need to drive their religion to every corner of the globe, but for God's (Punny) sake, it's not a personal belief if your shoving it in everyones face and saying "HEY! WE'RE THE BEST GOD WORSHIPPERS!"

ecofarm said:

We find faults in stuff in a disapproving way. We debate possible interpretations of God, god(s) and religious texts. We debate how supernatural stuff should be percieved/interpretated. We present our own views and expression of the metaphysical. Sometimes, we agree to disagree. What we don't do, again, is "invisible sky wizard" an argument.

Click to expand...

Which adds even more weight to the fact that religion is fraudulent. No one here today can accurately say what Christianity of Islam is. What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof. The mere fact that there's well over 50 "kinds" of Christianity should clue one in on the fact that religion itself is a man-made, subjective sham. People are afraid of death, each other, their enemies, etc. They create religion as a means to cope.

ecofarm said:

Dismissing the foundation of the discussion, that being: "Metaphysical expression is legitimate", does not count as criticism. If metaphysical expression is dismissed entirely as delusion, then there is no criticism to be had.

Click to expand...

Religion must be criticized in the hope that people will ultimately dismiss it. Likely not all will, because people will always be afraid of death, but the more the better.

ecofarm said:

Look up the definition of critcize and then the definition of dismiss. Note the differences.

Click to expand...

Already have.

The repression of metaphysical expression is low class and authoritarian.

Wake, don't be a commie.

Religion comes from the period of human prehistory where nobody—not even the mighty Democritus who concluded that all matter was made from atoms—had the smallest idea what was going on. It comes from the bawling and fearful infancy of our species, and is a babyish attempt to meet our inescapable demand for knowledge (as well as for comfort, reassurance, and other infantile needs). Today the least educated of my children knows much more about the natural order than any of the founders of religion. - Christopher Hitchens

ecofarm said:

The suppression of metaphysical expression is low class and authoritarian.

Wake, don't be a commie.

Click to expand...

To criticize religion and the religious isn't low class and authoritarian. To impose your morals and beliefs on others through laws and regulations is.

Wake said:

To criticize is to find faults in something in a disapproving way. Since irrational faith and groundless hope are symptoms of religion, religion ought to be criticized as much as possible. It should ultimately be dismissed as well.

Click to expand...

Since humans are both rational and irrational, I see no reason to dismiss religion, based on the irrationality of it. It serves a purpose for some, both as a mechanism of self-control with base instincts, and gives comfort and hope where there is none. Why would you wish to eradicate something that is inherrent in the human being, and pretend that rationality is the key to success and happiness? To be purely rational is to deny that things are important beyond their utilitarianism.

Wake said:

To criticize religion and the religious isn't low class and authoritarian.

Click to expand...

To oppress/suppress/repress the metaphysical expression of oneself and others is low class because anyone who has ever had a spare nickel in their pocket has pondered the unknown/unknowable and authoritarian because it proclaims "metaphysical expression is to be forbidden".

To impose your morals and beliefs on others through laws and regulations is.

Click to expand...

Different issue and you've changed context to an extent that your argument makes no sense.

lizzie said:

Since humans are both rational and irrational, I see no reason to dismiss religion, based on the irrationality of it. It serves a purpose for some, both as a mechanism of self-control with base instincts, and gives comfort and hope where there is none. Why would you wish to eradicate something that is inherrent in the human being, and pretend that rationality is the key to success and happiness? To be purely rational is to deny that things are important beyond their utilitarianism.

Click to expand...

All it is is a perverted way to deal with the unknowable, like death. There are far many more wholesome things to do besides clinging to an irrational faith. I have no problem if they keep it to themselves, but it is those who dare to impose their beliefs on others, as if they contain even a modicum of credibility, that need to be refuted whenever possible. If you want purpose, buy a pet.

Personally I don't mind religion and the religious existing, but whenever possible it needs to be criticized. Not sure who promulgated the lie in this thread that religion and the religious needs to be eradicated, but I can assure you it didn't come from me.

ecofarm said:

To oppress/suppress/repress the metaphysical expression of oneself and others is low class because anyone who has ever had a spare nickel in their pocket has pondered the unknown/unknowable and authoritarian because it proclaims "metaphysical expression is to be forbidden".




Different issue and you've changed context to an extent that your argument makes no sense.

Click to expand...

See, you're changing the subject. We're discussing the critique of religion and the religious, not philosophical quanderings about morality and concepts.

I'm with Jed. Any belief system that encourages you to be better, do better, act better, care more....I see absolutely nothing wrong there. The problem comes when your belief system propels you to castigate those who do not believe or act as you do. I have no faith in any deity or higher power. I do not believe we were created by a manipulative, all knowing body of existence that seeks to control our behavior with the promise of eternal reward or punishment. I do, however, believe that we live in a balance of good vs. bad, where the good we do or the bad we do has an exponential effect on those around us. As such, I do my best to introduce good into the world. I am not perfect and don't contend to be, but I'm better than I was yesterday, which was better than I was five years ago...and all I can do is hope to continue that trend.

I want a world of tolerance and good works, but I'm not so naive to believe we will ever see utopia. That's okay with me. And it's also totally cool with me if the motivation others find to do good or be good comes from the belief in a system of reward and punishment doled out by a higher power.

I try to deny myself any illusions or delusions, and I think that this perhaps entitles me to try and deny the same to others, at least as long as they refuse to keep their fantasies to themselves.

- Christopher Hitchens

This is what more clearly describes my view. Religion in itself is not good, because it's irrational. Children shouldn't be subjected to religion until they are old enough to come up with their own thoughts. However, those who support religion fight as hard as they can to keep control over children, because it is FAR easier to convince a child about all the make-believe things of the Bible than an adult who can think for him/herself.

Wake said:

See, you're changing the subject. We're discussing the critique of religion and the religious, not philosophical quanderings about morality and concepts.

Click to expand...

I know you are but what am I. Look, dude, some people of every group are intolerant and authoritarian. Pretending that only religious people behave as such is nonsense and is not relevant to the criticism of religious people, let alone religion. It appears you want to discuss intolerant authoritarians, and have a specific subset of those people in mind.

What you seem to not understand is the purpose of the religion subforum - to criticize religion. People want to criticize religion without the thread always turning into an argument about faith itself. People want to debate aspects of faith and what it means. People do not want every single discussion about any aspect of anything relgious constantly turning into an "invisible sky wizard" festival swarming with hysterical intolerant atheists. You also appear to continue to fail to grasp the concept that dismissal does not equal criticism. Further, the demonization of an entire group based upon their morons (your newest twist) is not legit.

Name me an ethical statement made or an action performed by a believer that could not have been made or performed by a non-believer.

Take the risk of thinking for yourself, much more happiness, truth, beauty, and wisdom will come to you that way.

- Christopher Hitchens

Wake said:

All it is is a perverted way to deal with the unknowable, like death. There are far many more wholesome things to do besides clinging to an irrational faith. I have no problem if they keep it to themselves, but it is those who dare to impose their beliefs on others, as if they contain even a modicum of credibility, that need to be refuted whenever possible. If you want purpose, buy a pet.

Personally I don't mind religion and the religious existing, but whenever possible it needs to be criticized. Not sure who promulgated the lie in this thread that religion and the religious needs to be eradicated, but I can assure you it didn't come from me.

Click to expand...

Wow Wake. I must admit to being surprised. Have fun when you start trying to piece your head and your heart back together at some point in the future.

Wake said:

Religion must be criticized in the hope that people will ultimately dismiss it.

Click to expand...

When the purpose of criticism becomes dismissal, one enters the world of the hack, the orc, the non-thinker... the denier of reality and their own personhood. That's the great irony of closed-minded intolerant atheism.

ecofarm said:

Look, dude, some people of every group are intolerant and authoritarian.

Click to expand...

This isn't just about them, but every religious person who actually acts as if their beliefs have any stake at all in reality. It doesn't, and it's sickening how there are those who actually try to argue against the precept of sound logic and reason. Even more so those who dare try to use their religion to influence others. The religious, even the ones who don't do much with religion, ought to be examined, being shown the error of their ways.

ecofarm said:

Pretending that only religious people behave as such is nonsense and is not relevant to the criticism of religious people, let alone religion. It appears you want to discuss intolerant authoritarians, and have a specific subset of those people in mind.

Click to expand...

What are you even talking about? Apparently you want to make this discussion not only about religious people, but those secular people who also cling to their own man-made morals.

ecofarm said:

What you seem to not understand is the purpose of the religion subforum - to criticize religion. People want to criticize religion without the thread always turning into an argument about faith itself. People want to debate aspects of faith and what it means. People do not want every single discussion about any aspect of anything relgious constantly turning into an "invisible sky wizard" festival swarming with hysterical intolerant atheists. You also appear to continue to fail to grasp the concept that dismissal does not equal criticism. Further, the demonization of an entire group based upon their morons (your newest twist) is not legit.

Click to expand...

You're absolutely wrong. It's been shown numerous times that religion is not allowed to be criticized in the Religion forum. Even the most civil critique isn't allowed, so where you state that it somehow is... well, you're wrong.

Religion deserves to be critiqued. Obviously critique isn't the same as dismissal, but it'd likely be best if religion were ultimately dismissed. But, since it won't, religion must always be criticized because many have been hurt and controlled by it. I wouldn't say "morons," but those actually willing to grab at an illogical faith. By definition that's stupid, because it's irrational.

lizzie said:

Wow Wake. I must admit to being surprised. Have fun when you start trying to piece your head and your heart back together at some point in the future.

Click to expand...

The heart is an organ used to pump blood throughout the body. The metaphorical "heart," like religion, is another man-made concept.