To what extent should we push back on religion?

[LuisDantas]

I don't really think it makes sense to "push back on religion" in those exact terms.

I love religion as I acknowledge the term, which is in a carefully curated way that challenges the most obvious drawbacks and poisons.

We should demand that society as a whole and law and the government in particular stop accepting religious beliefs as an excuse for... well, for anything.

What is acceptable and what is not depends on many factors. As it happens, I fail to see why religious and pseudo-religious claims would be valid factors. Maybe in very specific, mostly social situations.

Freedom of religion (and from religion) is a very high priority for any functional society. What we need is better awareness of that value and its necessary logical consequences.

I defend full, true laicism. No social rule or legal provision can be considered fair if it requires establishing whether anyone is affiliated with some sort of creed, belief, religion or pseudo-religion; what is fair is fair. Flexibility should be expected and implemented, but never have religious affiliation as a requisite.

In a more social level, the same principle applies. It is not acceptable to excuse parents and other guardians for demanding their children to follow (or pretend, or follow the motions) of their own beliefs. It is a form of abuse and ought to be fully acknowledged as such.

And whether a movement that claims to be "religious" is "truly" so ought to be a moot point. There must be mechanisms to watch for abuse in those movements and to correct them if need be. The B.I.T.E. Model is our friend.

 

[F1fan]

My rule is that if there's an open thread about what people believe and they are invited to share, I tend not to challenge anyone whose beliefs are not rationally formed. But if there's an open topic regarding religious beliefs and their truth, and claims are made in a definitive manner, then all bets are off and they have invited scrutiny. A few theists on this forum have rubbed me the wrong way and they feign humiliy and use that "virtue" as a way to make definitive claims about the God they think exists. What is apparent is a form of arrogance, and subtle indignation when they are subjected to pushback on claims.

Debate is adversarial and any theist should be prepared to defend what they claim is true. Thye aren't owed any special treatment, especially since God is on their side *wink*.

 

[Heyo]

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

I see no reason to counter religion, per se. Everybody has a right to be wrong.
There are two reasons to counter the statements or behaviour of the religious.
1. When they support or advocate for unethical behaviour. I see this as a moral mandate.
2. When they make false or unsupportable claims or are otherwise irrational. I see that partly as a pet peeve because I'm allergic to irrationality, and partly as "resist the beginnings".
“Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.” - Voltair

 

[1213]

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?

I think the limit goes here:
Whoever doesn't receive you, nor hear your words, as you go out of that house or that city, shake off the dust from your feet.
Matt. 10:14

 

[Madsaac]

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.

Yeah religion may have various definitions but this one is pretty close to the one that resonates with me and possibly many parts of Western Society. Religion comes from the '......belief in and worship of a superhuman power or powers, especially a God or gods."

So yes I think you can certainly push back on what comes from these beliefs, well parts of religion anyway. I think its great that people (Especially women) have pushed back on certain parts of religion.

Just like you can push back against a political ideal, you might not push back on all of it, but certainly parts of it.

And to me, religion is not culture, its only a part of culture. And again, you can push back on parts of your culture.

 

[Quintessence]

Yeah religion may have various definitions but this one is pretty close to the one that resonates with me and possibly many parts of Western Society. Religion comes from the '......belief in and worship of a superhuman power or powers, especially a God or gods."

So yes I think you can certainly push back on what comes from these beliefs, well parts of religion anyway. I think its great that people (Especially women) have pushed back on certain parts of religion.

Just like you can push back against a political ideal, you might not push back on all of it, but certainly parts of it.

And to me, religion is not culture, its only a part of culture. And again, you can push back on parts of your culture.

As much as I dislike stickipedia these days, they do a vastly better job than many places at outlining the nature (or lack thereof) of religion. It's most definitely culture, for example - that's one thing that's not in dispute:

Religion is a range of social-cultural systems, including designated behaviors and practices, morals, beliefs, worldviews, texts, sanctified places, prophecies, ethics, or organizations, that generally relate humanity to supernatural, transcendental, and spiritual elements—although there is no scholarly consensus over what precisely constitutes a religion. Different religions may or may not contain various elements ranging from the divine, sacredness, faith, and a supernatural being or beings.

Religion - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It's all the rest of it that's troublesome to define and outline, as is apparent from the above. It's a modern, academic, largely western artificed concept used to describe certain aspects of human cultures. So in a sense, we would be "pushing back" on a made up artifice of our own design if we are doing so against the nebulously ill-defined artifice "religion" - at least until we get specific. I don't see the point when it's not exactly hard to be specific and articulate. But maybe I overestimate the affluence of other humans and their intelligence and underestimate the prevalence of nonsense stereotyping and prejudice.

 

[Madsaac]

As much as I dislike stickipedia these days, they do a vastly better job than many places at outlining the nature (or lack thereof) of religion. It's most definitely culture, for example - that's one thing that's not in dispute:

Religion - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It's all the rest of it that's troublesome to define and outline, as is apparent from the above. It's a modern, academic, largely western artificed concept used to describe certain aspects of human cultures. So in a sense, we would be "pushing back" on a made up artifice of our own design if we are doing so against the nebulously ill-defined artifice "religion" - at least until we get specific. I don't see the point when it's not exactly hard to be specific and articulate. But maybe I overestimate the affluence of other humans and their intelligence and underestimate the prevalence of nonsense stereotyping and prejudice.

Yeah that's all good but to tell you the truth that is a little hard to understand, you're too smart for me with your copious amount of RF experience, so could you tone it down a bit please, you've laid it on nice and thick.

But at the end of the day, religions often come from the belief in and worship of a superhuman power or powers, especially a God or gods. And I think religions do exist in different forms and are followed for various reasons, some a little strange to the average Joe.

And I don't think pushing back on religion is incoherent, I think there should be pushback if it's warranted.

 

[MonkeyFire]

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?

I’m happy with who I am. Don’t let scientist tell
you who to be. Can God hate atheist?

 

[anotherneil]

I think the 1st 2 clauses of the 1st Amendment cover it: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

When religion crosses into government, by using it to impose religion on the public, that's when we ought to push back to separate church and state, and keep it that way. Other than that, religious folks ought to be free to exercise their religious beliefs - provided they don't involve victimizing anyone, that is.