Following on from the thread below. even if the content was faked i dont see a problem in criticising religions or religious people
i personally think that all religions are obscene and all religious people dangerous and deluded. In particular i take great offense that parents brainwash and indoctrinate their young children and i think this is tantamount to child abuse. To put unfounded faith over science and evidence, insults me and bankrupts our society.
why can't we criticise religions or religious people
because it's too easy and not a fair fight, what with them being dim n'all.
My thoughts are on another thread hereabouts so wont start again in here. 
Criticise yes, hurl unsubstantiated abuse at, no.
Easier to burn them, imo.
Because you are striking at something they hold very dear and close to their hearts.
Worse than saying "your girlfriend is a thick ugly munter"
Something along the lines of it not being sporting to 'mock the afflicted'?
Fish in a barrel and all that.
However I understand there is a proposal before the UN to make the criticism of Islam a criminal offense.
Hmm, what would you say first if they are religious and their GF is a thick ugly munter, go for the easy one (GF) first or start of with religion and hope they're relieved when you tell them about trout-face?
unfounded faith
That's tautology - and tautological expression is frequently a sign of weak and incomplete thinking...
To put unfounded faith over science and evidence, insults me and bankrupts our society.
No, its called a difference of opinion and view.
GF first they can always find solace in religion!
but if she is an ugly munter then fine, there is evidence of this affliction. religions are based on faith and ignorance. even moderates are brainwashed to think that faith is more important then fact. this then gives credence to fundamentalists to start killing people found working on the sabbath etc.
we critise people for what political party they follow so why not this superstitious cr*p
I Could not agree with you more, for me some people fail or do not want to see the truth that emails referred to in the thread below highlight.
That story is one of many doing the rounds but the facts are, what religion presents the greatest threat to this and other countries security by the way it prosecutes its beliefs, ? granted not all followers tread that path but it is also fact that our Security Services have almost doubled in size and the main source of work for them is "that" religion.
I do not see what is wrong in criticising a movement in which elements deviously train, plan and as we have seen carry out mass murder in the name of their religion.
I for one uphold the right to criticise factions that threaten the security of my country.
i personally think that all religions are obscene and all religious people dangerous and deluded. In particular i take great offense that parents brainwash and indoctrinate their young children and i think this is tantamount to child abuse. To put unfounded faith over science and evidence, insults me and bankrupts our society.
Seems a bit strong, I think there is space for moral judgment (which to a greater or lesser extent most religions seem to advocate) as well as science.
Agree with anotherdeadhero, criticise is more than fine, hell if it will not stand up to peer review then what is it worth? But random lies through allegedly true stories? No thanks, would rather visit a church fete
Judging someone entirely based on their religion is as ignorant a prejudice as judgling someone entirely based on their colour, sex, sexual orientation, nationality etc etc.
This is especially compounded when the understanding of the beliefs of that religion is also limited and widely mis-represented.
even if the content was faked i dont see a problem in criticising religions or religious people
So it's ok to propagate lies and misinformation?
Nowt wrong wth respectful critcism, but stuff like that 'email' are just plain hateful, deceitful and deliberately inflamatory.
because it's too easy and not a fair fight, what with them being dim n'all.
Assuming that one side is more 'intelligent' than the other is also a mistake.
I saw a clip of an interview with Lord/Professor Robert Winston, in which he said he respected Richard Dawkins as a friend, despite them having different views regarding the existence of God. Clever bloke.
To each their own. Live and let live and all that. Unless someone's 'religious observance' is doing you any harm, what's the problem? And let's face it, most of it is not really. Unless you want it to be.
we do not need religions to define morals.
i personally think that all religions are obscene and all religious people dangerous and deluded. In particular i take great offense that parents brainwash and indoctrinate their young children and i think this is tantamount to child abuse.
This has more than a whiff of ignorance about it. I'd be interested to know how much you really know about any religion, let alone all religions and all religious people.
(As opposed to what you imagine religion is, based on your experience of watching The Simpsons, perhaps.)
However I understand there is a proposal before the UN to make the criticism of Islam a criminal offense.
Tell me you're joking. If not, that's exactly the kind of 'a bloke down the pub told me' crap that causes so much trouble.
'religious observance' is doing you any harm, what's the problem?
But it does, doesnt it.
i dont see religion doing the human race any good at all. in fact the complete opposite
So it's ok to propagate lies and misinformation?
Politicians seem not to mind every time an election comes around
Dawkins makes the good point (can't remember in which book, poss The Extended Phenotype) that morals are just a set of rules for a stable society (memes). So can be considered logically, deviate too much and the society is less stable and therefore less likely to survive (self propagate) in competition with other societies with a more effective moral code.
Religion doesn't come into morals - they just stole the rules and pretended they were their own.
The rules came first as without them there wouldn't have been a stable society to make up religions.
Can this forum go a day without doing religion do we think?...For a bunch of avowed disbelievers, there seems to be no end of an appetite to talk about it.
brainwashing of young children to believe superstitious cr*p before they are old enough to really think things through for themselves. this is abuse.
its also how cults work.
IHN, I am not joking and it is not crap.
I'm as happy to criticize any religious nutter (i.e., person who beleives in god) as I am someone who forwards misleading BNP type propaganda which is what the other thread was. The snopes entry sums it up.
religions are based on faith and ignorance.
That statement is incredibly ignorant in itself.
To put unfounded faith over science and evidence, insults me and bankrupts our society.
Don't be so easily insulted. What you so uptight about? And far from 'bankrupting our society', religions add tons of cultural capital.
Darrel; sorry, but you are really coming across as ignorant here. Your views are so naive and ill-informed it's laughable. People like you are potentially as dangerous as some of the religious zealots.
Just my opinion though.
probably fairer to say 'fear and ignorance were the main tools used by religion to maintain power'
in fact the complete opposite
How's that then?
Stay out of the chat forum nickC!
(I'm staying/hiding in the bike forum.)
darrell - does have a point and has to live in a society controlled by religion-he has every right to 'Question values'.
probably fairer to say 'fear and ignorance were the main tools used by religion to maintain power'
Surfer, that article is not worth the electricity it took to produce it (blimey, how times chance; a while ago, it woon't have been worth the paper it was printed on, progress, eh?). It's only Hitchens having a thought-****.
The actual resolution calls for moves to try and prevent defamation of all religions, which is a good thing. It mentions Islam as being a particular target for such unjustified media and public defamation, misinformation and inflammatory criticism. Which is actually what is happening (some of the Islamophobia displayed on this forum is a perfect example of such).
Ho hum.
Why isn't it okay to criticise a persons religion? The same reason it's not okay to tell children that Santa isn't real. It's cruel, they are simple minded and easily upset in your lack of belief in their magical friend. The difference is that children will eventually conclude that the complete implausibility of santa's existence means that he can't be real - religious people on the other hand simply dismiss any incongruity or evidence to to counter their beliefs as a matter of faith.
It's all a jolly laugh until they start to constitute majorities , influencing local and national governments, education, foreign policy etc then it's not really a laughing matter anymore is it?
Why isn't it okay to criticise a persons religion?
It is. Who told you it was not?
It's not ok to spread lies and fear about religions though.
It's like, if you go round saying that someone is/does whatever, and it's not true, it's called defamation of character, and you could be done for it, and rightly so. Would you want someone going round telling lies about you?
The same applies to religion/beliefs. This means everyones' beliefs.
That's what the UN resolution is really about, not as that numpty Hitchens claims.
This topic has been closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
