To what extent should we push back on religion?

[an anarchist]

I was going to make this thread for specifically atheists, but I realize that this question applies to some religious folk as well who greatly value the exclusiveness and “rightness” of their views. I will first pose my question to atheists, then I will reframe the question and ask the religious folk something similar.

Atheists, how much should we pushback on religion? I see several atheists on this site claim that the reason they debate and banter on this site is in order to educate people on the flaws of religion. Some of you justify this behavior by pointing to the atrocities that have been attributed to religion. You claim that it is of upmost importance to pushback on religious beliefs, perhaps because those beliefs infiltrate government or for whatever reason.

Should we live and let live? Let the religious folk believe what they believe? Do not call them out on what we see as ludicrous and perhaps dangerous beliefs? Or do we log on www.religiousforums.com and hop onto every religious debate thread and pwn (defeat devastatingly) all the theists with simple exercises of logic?

How far should atheists go to counter religion? Should they not counter it at all? Zealously pushback on religion? Somewhere in between?

Now religious folk, your turn.

If you believe that your religion is exclusively correct (looking at you, Abrahamics), how far should you go to pushback on other religions and convince others of your worldviews?

Whenever I describe Christians in my personal day to day life, I get pushback on this site with people telling me that’s not Christianity or how most Christians are. But I can only share my experiences. And my upbringing as a Christian taught me that Christians are taught to rabidly push back on any and every belief that is not Christianity as well as desperately try to convince people that Jesus is God. So as a theist, I was taught to pushback on every other belief system entirely.

I joined this site with the intention of convincing people of my unique religious philosophy when I was still religious. So I ask you, spiritual person, how much do you believe you should pushback on other people’s beliefs.

Please feel free to be open and honest!

 

[JustGeorge]

I don't push back on anyone's religiousness/irreligiousness, unless they're harming others or behaving like a general *** because of it.

Otherwise, carry on.

 

[ChristineM]

Atheist
Push back back on religion that pushes, proselytises, indoctrinates children, forces their political view, interferes with people not of their faith.
Otherwise let them get on with it

 

[Twilight Hue]

I don't push back on anyone's religiousness/irreligiousness, unless they're harming others or behaving like a general *** because of it.

Otherwise, carry on.

I agree I do think religious should know when they're being irritating or pushy even if it's meant with good intentions.

 

[JustGeorge]

I agree I do think religious should know when they're being irritating or pushy even if it's meant with good intentions.

Agreed. I've seen the irreligious do it as well.

I don't think any group of people is immune to it, and I suppose the attitude can go for more than just religion.

 

[Brickjectivity]

If you believe that your religion is exclusively correct (looking at you, Abrahamics)

Should we stop burning widows or keep burning them? Looking at you, Dharmics.

Whenever I describe Christians in my personal day to day life, I get pushback on this site with people telling me that’s not Christianity or how most Christians are. But I can only share my experiences.

Describing Christians in your life would be very different from declaring all Abrahamics to be my way or the highway types.

 

[JustGeorge]

Should we stop burning widows or keep burning them? Looking at you, Dharmics.

Can we eat them instead?

I'm hungry.

 

[mangalavara]

Can we eat them instead?

I'm hungry.

I’ll take a Gujarati widow.

 

[JustGeorge]

I’ll take a Gujarati widow.

Sounds delicious. Sign me up for one, too.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Re: To what extent should you push back on religion?

"Should" suggests to me a moral or ethical imperative. I see none when it comes to religion per se, and I find myself far more likely to "push back" on agrieved polemicists who paint religion with a broad brush.​

 

[Jimmy]

There have always been people in the world with different beliefs, and they’re always will be. They will always debate and disagree.

 

[Viker]

"To what extent should we push back on religion?"

When it starts barking out orders and stripping you of your rights, dignity and sanity. It's time to fight back. Especially if it's not a religion of your own or you have none.

 

[Quintessence]

I don't find the question useful, for several reasons:

1. The opposite of being religious is NOT being an atheist, it's being irreligious.
2. Religion, however defined, is extremely heterogenous. Talking "pushing back on religion" is incoherent, just like talking about "pushing back on culture."
3. Religion is notoriously challenging to define. But, like culture, all human societies have it and arguably so do all individuals whether or not they think that they do. This exacerbates the incoherence of the question as pointed out above.
4. Religion does not physically exist. There is nothing to "push back on." What one is actually "pushing back on" are human beings. This should not be forgotten. Especially because of what that can look like.

 

[an anarchist]

The opposite of being religious is NOT being an atheist, it's being irreligious.

Can you elaborate on this? I’ve seen you say it a few times now, but I don’t get it.

I thought atheists don’t believe in any religion. Therefore I see it as an opposite to religion.

Explain the nuances that separates “atheism” from “irreligious” please.

 

[an anarchist]

Religion, however defined, is extremely heterogenous. Talking "pushing back on religion" is incoherent, just like talking about "pushing back on culture."

I think “pushing back on culture” is a coherent statement.

For someone with so much misanthropy, when I was an ambitious idealist, that’s all I did. And that’s what I do on this site too. Humanity lives in a culture of statism, and I push back.

 

[an anarchist]

Religion does not physically exist. There is nothing to "push back on."

But it does physically exist through the adherents. And the adherents can physically manifest their religious beliefs and ordinances.

 

[Quintessence]

I think “pushing back on culture” is a coherent statement.

For someone with so much misanthropy, when I was an ambitious idealist, that’s all I did. And that’s what I do on this site to. Humanity lives in a culture of statism, and I push back.

Well, yeah... it becomes coherent when you start talking about a specific cultural notion. But just "culture?" That's not coherent. Pushback against statism, a specific aspect of culture? Coherent.

I suppose that's the jist of my objection - gotta get specific. Neither "culture" nor "religion" are some singular monolith that can be "pushed back" against. Which culture? Whose culture? Which religion? Whose religion? Which practices, specifically?

Part of why I find it important to be specific is because when we aren't, we catch others we don't intend in our scatterblasts. Don't scatterblast, be precise. I can't tell you how many times I've caught flak for being "religious" and then the other person goes "oh wait, but I didn't mean people like you." Okay, then maybe less scatterblasting and generalizing would be a good idea... yeah?

 

[Quintessence]

But it does physically exist through the adherents. And the adherents can physically manifest their religious beliefs and ordinances.

That's entirely my point - that's what I said in the rest of the bit you didn't quote. If you push back on "religion" you are pushing back on human beings. You may do harm to actual human beings. Say, hypothetically, someone decides to "push back" on my religion. What does that look like? Banning me from celebrating my holy days in the privacy of my own home? Putting me in the stocks until I repent? Forcing me to go to the cultural traditions of someone else to pretend to play along?

 

[an anarchist]

That's entirely my point - that's what I said in the rest of the bit you didn't quote. If you push back on "religion" you are pushing back on human beings. You may do harm to actual human beings. Say, hypothetically, someone decides to "push back" on my religion. What does that look like? Banning me from celebrating my holy days in the privacy of my own home? Putting me in the stocks until I repent? Forcing me to go to the cultural traditions of someone else to pretend to play along?

I’m sure I can think of examples where religion is negatively used by its adherents, and this is what I am referring to. Religion isn’t all hunky dory.

But I have to go for now, talk to y’all later.

 

[Quintessence]

I’m sure I can think of examples where religion is negatively used by its adherents, and this is what I am referring to. Religion isn’t all hunky dory.

Certainly - humans aren't all honky dory. Of course anything humans do isn't honky dory. I guess I'm not the warsome type, so I don't go looking around for stuff to "push back" against. It's just not my thing. More live and let live, less looking for trouble. That's a young kid's game.