What do you gain from criticism of a religious teaching you do not follow or believe in?

[Revoltingest]

I don't think everyone gonna agree with you on that

That's cuz I suppress such urges.

 

[Nakosis]

This thread is toward the people in RF who every day create OP critiquing any religious teaching they don't believe in or follow themselves.

Question:
What do you gain from it?

Are your OP made so you can learn from believers, or just to mock people you disagree with?

Does it matter to you that some people believe and live their life differently to what you do?

When a believer as you to stop the harrasment, why do you keep pushing? Don't you have respect for other people?

I like to understand how people other then myself see the world.

I guess I don't want to be stuck in my own little bubble.

 

[Clara Tea]

It applies to any of the beliefs I may hold for which I do not possess adequate evidence, yes. So, for example, I believe (with only very limited ideation as my "evidence") that the universe is cyclical. Or, rather, I believe this to be likely. That there is some kind of cycle of expansion, and a following contraction, leading to some critical moment that produces another phase of expansion, etc. There are ideas that run contrary to this, such as the "heat death of the universe" that is sometimes discussed. And whether it is due to an ignorance I still maintain (very possibly I just don't care enough to look into it), or due to lack of cogent evidence of a repeatable nature (granted, experiments on small-scale result in maximization of entropy, but I don't know if this can be applied to the macrocosm) or even due to biases I'd rather hold on to as some "hope for the future" of some kind of life-supporting universe, I disbelieve in "the heat death of the universe." Or rather, I have shelved the idea for my own purposes awaiting better or more clear evidence either way, and only "slightly" preferring my own ideas, just for the sake of conversation - its not like it is something I live my life by. Haha. So, you see, it would be these kind of insignificant philosophical or observational items where I might actually tentatively hold (rather than tentatively reject) some proposition for which the evidence I have is lacking. Minor things... things no one else is going to say they care about either to any great degree. Things for which the answer one way or the other actually doesn't change much.

And guess what? I am completely willing to admit that they are just beliefs, and that I COULD BE WRONG. See how that works? I only tentatively hold onto any of these beliefs, and if further evidence shows a better, more accurate model of reality, then I am easily able to climb aboard that train. Easily. No problem at all. I go where the evidence seems to lead. It just so happens that it has never lead to any "God" concept of any kind, and I don't seem to (and no one else I have spoken to seems to) have any good ideas how to go about obtaining evidence for such propositions.

Short of it is the old "beliefs inform actions." Not only that, but I, personally, simply can't stand it when people talk about things with authority and from a place of knowledge they simply aren't warranted to be speaking from, or claiming they have. And the hallmarks of such are easy to spot most of the time. For example, when questioning someone on their outlandish tales of how they know such things, they will often cite some text they have read (neglecting to mention that it was, for example, their parents who got them on the text in the first place) and have absolutely no other means of verifying what they are so sure is correct. This is just craziness when the item in question is something one purports to live their lives by. I mean, sure, someone may mention in passing that they read that 80% of all Christian marriages last greater than 20 years (this is just for the purposes of example - I made this up 100%) without actually corroborating or fact checking, etc. Fine. No one cares. No one's life was impacted by this little snippet of information, and it doesn't really matter to most anyone you tell whether or not you have the actual evidence to back yourself up. There is a big difference between something little like that, and something like "I have made a vow not to listen to music because devil."

I would agree with this to a point. Sharing the ideas is good, and using one another to sound off ideas and get a feel for their measure of worth and comport with reality is a good way for people to hone their ideas to those that are "the best possible." But therein lies the rub for ideas of a religious nature. They aren't "the best," and specifically for the reason that it is not possible to provide evidence for how they measure up to be "the best." They mostly just seem to be very, very poor models of reality, scant on the details and entirely open for interpretation.

If the reality of human social interaction is any indication, the answer is "no." As in - we're not very likely, on the whole, to make better choices for ourselves given more access to wackiness along with the true bits. Not by a long shot.

It is difficult for science to formulate a theory about the cyclical nature of the universe without proving that dark energy has negative gravity (a theory that proports a reason that the universe's expansion is accelerating--which we know it is, currently).

So, until we find the mechanism behind the accelerating expansion of the universe, we are merely speculating...which is not a very scientific thing to do.

Alpha and Omega - Wikipedia

Both Jesus and God were said to be the alpha (beginning) and the omega (end), according to Revelation in the bible (source above).

That makes me think that it is possible that the beginning and end of the universe could be one and the same. That is, maybe the end of the universe ends up at the beginning, by traveling backwards in time.

However, currently, science believes that everything moves forward in time only, never moving backwards.

Yet, there are still a lot of mysteries in science.

One such mystery is spooky action (quantum entanglement of particles means that if one randomly changes, the other must also change to match it, probably instantaneously....that is, faster than light). A Chinese study showed that it changes at a speed of at least ten times the speed of light. Yet, the speed of light is the maximum that matter can travel across the metric of space.

However, we know for a fact that the universe is currently expanding faster than the speed of light. Thus, there are parts of the universe that are moving away from each other faster than the speed of light (so cannot be detected, but can be calculated using Friedman's Equation). So, though movement across the metric is limited to the speed of light, the stretching of the metric, itself, is allowed to exceed the speed of light.

Is it possible, under these conditions for the universe to curve around on itself and bump the extreme outside to the origin of the big bang and move time backward to the beginning? That is, is it possible that the beginning of the big bang might be the universe expanding from the future into the past? There is no scientific basis for this idea, but I am just pondering it.

Years ago, there used to be an oscillating universe theory. That has since been debunked, preferring, instead, to believe that the universe will continue expanding (and accelerating that expansion). Yet, without a full and complete understanding of the mechanism behind this acceleration, we cannot really speculate.

 

[F1fan]

Isnt it the priest or leaders within their groups that should correct the followers?

It's typically the leaders who fuel the extremism and irrational beliefs. Many of these folks support far right politicians who try to enact anti-social policies.Look at the racist polices banning books and CRT. And the homophobic policies in banning books and Florida's Don't Say Gay bill. It's disgusting, and all based on moral attitudes of the Christian right.

And not radical atheists?

What is a radical atheist versus a typical atheist? Why do we see atheists typically supporting the rights of marginalized folks?

Who believe they know religious practice better than everyone who actually practice the belief?

How hard is it to know religious practices? Typically atheists will ask questions why religious folks do certain things in ways the believer doesn't. Believers are often taught to believe blindly, not ask questions. It's good for believers to see some humans have their own moral and intellectual authority to ask prohibited questions. They might find freedom from religion.

 

[loverofhumanity]

This thread is toward the people in RF who every day create OP critiquing any religious teaching they don't believe in or follow themselves.

Question:
What do you gain from it?

Are your OP made so you can learn from believers, or just to mock people you disagree with?

Does it matter to you that some people believe and live their life differently to what you do?

When a believer as you to stop the harrasment, why do you keep pushing? Don't you have respect for other people?

I must say that I have had many great discussions with atheists and they ask me hard questions but I don’t recall ever being insulted by them. I am the first to put my hand up with regards to offending others. Sometimes I am just too challenging. So I apologise and will keep trying to improve my style.

I feel in some ways the same as some atheists do that there is a lot of superstition within religion so I often question it. I can’t blame them for that. I don’t think they are deliberately out to cause trouble, just question unreasonable beliefs. If I believe in Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny, the person who sets my mind right is a true friend although it might hurt to hear these are just myths.

 

[Spirit of Light]

It's typically the leaders who fuel the extremism and irrational beliefs. Many of these folks support far right politicians who try to enact anti-social policies.Look at the racist polices banning books and CRT. And the homophobic policies in banning books and Florida's Don't Say Gay bill. It's disgusting, and all based on moral attitudes of the Christian right.


What is a radical atheist versus a typical atheist? Why do we see atheists typically supporting the rights of marginalized folks?


How hard is it to know religious practices? Typically atheists will ask questions why religious folks do certain things in ways the believer doesn't. Believers are often taught to believe blindly, not ask questions. It's good for believers to see some humans have their own moral and intellectual authority to ask prohibited questions. They might find freedom from religion.

There are some politicalized religious leaders and I believe they are a problem yes. Especially when they take advice from far right people.

A radical atheist are those who never accept anything a religious person answer to their questions, and has a mission to just give crap toward religious people.

A blind faith is a dead faith, to ask oneself questions are a huge part of spiritual lifestyle. But asking questions to learn and advance in their practice.
Not to throw **** at others.

 

[PureX]

I'm not trying to defend religious criticism, because there isn't anything you can do to silence it. I'm saying that we have a moral obligation to debunk harmful misinformation; it just so happens that many of these harmful claims are religious.

I don't think the people you're referring to are misinformed. I think they are making a deliberate choice to trust in the "will of God" rather than the interdiction of man. I may not agree with it, but it is their choice to make. I realize it gets dicey when children are involved, or the mind-controlling effect of cults, but those issues can't be effectively addressed by informed debate. Cults are surprisingly impervious to that. I suspect only the force of law would be effective.

I'd wager that the reason you don't see it on RF is because this site is pretty well-moderated and it has diverse perspectives. Even in most Christian forums, there are rules against this sort of thing, but enough people have been banned from Christian-exclusive forums that they end up forming their own echochambers elsewhere.

This is a very good and reasoned point. It IS the free and valid exchange of criticism that keeps this site 'in check' in many respects. But keep in mind, too, that this goes both ways. Just as we get the occasional religious zealots, here, we also get the anti-religious zealots. And they can be just as blindly anti-human, and harmful.

The majority of people don't subscribe to those beliefs, sure, but the faith-healers arrive to their beliefs in the same way a good chunk of Christians arrive at their religious claims: blind faith. Which means that Christianity itself places people at risk because it destroys one's capacity to reason. This is just a more dramatic example of how faith harms people.

Please try to keep in mind that religious ideologies don't DO anything to anyone. We choose them, and then we choose to act in accord with them. WE do the doing. Not religion. We just do it in the name of religion. Often falsely.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

changing views fine, insulting them is not.

If that's how you feel, why do you do it so often?

 

[F1fan]

I've found @MyM to be quite disrespectful toward atheists herself.

I see this pattern play out a lot here:

• theist posts something that has a whole basketful of implicit assumptions
• atheist asks a respectful question about those assumptions
• theist takes this as an attack and responds with snark (and often also with nonsense about how atheists shouldn't even have the right to be in this space)
• atheist reflects the theist's tone back at them
• other theists then dogpile to complain about the atheist's tone, but not the theist's tone

I think @MyM is one of the worst offenders we have here in this regard.

Theists seems to have a real assumption that their beliefs are true in an absolute sense. I asked MyM a series of questions about why pork is prohibited and what the punishment was if a Muslim eats it deliberately. I wasn't given an answer. The more you dig into WHY there are certain rules in religious dogmas the less acceptable the questions are. This breach of just accepting the authority and rules of the religion is harassment and attacking. But that is what a theist should expect in the way of questions from non-believers. We don't assign blanket authority to religion. We will ask questions the theist often is prohibited to ask, or is afraid to ask because it suggests a lack of faith in God.

 

[F1fan]

Oh you can ask questions, but drop the harrasment, ill intention coments about religious books, or religious people.

Give us examples of harassment so we can understand what you mean. And let's see if other believers agree with you. Some theists are more comfortable with hard questions, while others are very sensitive.

 

[F1fan]

to each his own. I do get annoyed, I got laughed at by athiests, I got trash talked by athiests, I got ridiculed by athiests, I got degraded by athiests and yet, I'm supposed to sit back idly and let them carry on.

jeepers...such fairness eh?


I did start using a some harsh comments only because I have gotten fed up with their words of degradation and calling my religion and scholars of Islam idiots and criticizing my belief as if it was trash. Sure, go ahead and take their side you might be one of them too.

They do NOT respect me, I will NOT respect them. PERIOD.

But don't you have the advantage of God being on your side? It sounds like God doesn't;t give you the support you need to cope with uncomfortable comments in a debate forum that you volunteer to be part of.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Give us examples of harassment so we can understand what you mean. And let's see if other believers agree with you. Some theists are more comfortable with hard questions, while others are very sensitive.

I am not speaking toward my self, that does not bugg me anymore, I speaking about how example some members (the 4-5 atheists) treat @MyM or@Link as two examples.
If you looked in to how they treat @MyM in her OP over a lot of time. You see who the 4-5 are...i am not allowed to name them due to RF rules.

 

[F1fan]

As long a human being from any faith or no faith respect each others belief, I have no problem with yhem at all.

That's fine if you're only referring to mundane beliefs that cause no harm.

But you consistently ignore beliefs that DO harm. You seem to just ignore the civic duty to oppose these bad ideas. Do you advise us to respect the belief that black people are less valuable than white people?

Do we respect those who deliberately lie to children about evolution because they have belief in creationism?

When all they care about is to disrespect and say every bad they can about religious beliefs, I stop respecting them.
Ifcthey harm others due to different religious understanding i stop respecting them. So its not just extreme atheists, but 4-5 atheists in RF has gone to far to even speak with.

Your attitude here is idealistic and naive, because not all beliefs are worthy of respect and those bad ideas invite criticism due to a more moral alternative. I don't see you acknowledge any of this. You keep deferring to belief like it's your easy going neighbor who is a churchgoer and minds his own business most of the time. Maybe he will ask you if you accept Jesus as savior. I get these JW people and I'm patient and respectful of their beliefs. But as soon as a believer decides their belief has authority over me, well they crossed a line and all bets are off.

Theists need to understand they are part of a diverse set of believers globally and they have no ultimate truth or authority over anyone. If they cross the line of their personal belief being their's alone, then all bets are off. Theists want to engage in debate? Fine, they should expect questions they won't ask themselves. If those questions become uncomfortable, then the theist needs to introspect and withdraw until they find comfort and security.

 

[Spirit of Light]

That's fine if you're only referring to mundane beliefs that cause no harm.

But you consistently ignore beliefs that DO harm. You seem to just ignore the civic duty to oppose these bad ideas. Do you advise us to respect the belief that black people are less valuable than white people?

Do we respect those who deliberately lie to children about evolution because they have belief in creationism?


Your attitude here is idealistic and naive, because not all beliefs are worthy of respect and those bad ideas invite criticism due to a more moral alternative. I don't see you acknowledge any of this. You keep deferring to belief like it's your easy going neighbor who is a churchgoer and minds his own business most of the time. Maybe he will ask you if you accept Jesus as savior. I get these JW people and I'm patient and respectful of their beliefs. But as soon as a believer decides their belief has authority over me, well they crossed a line and all bets are off.

Theists need to understand they are part of a diverse set of believers globally and they have no ultimate truth or authority over anyone. If they cross the line of their personal belief being their's alone, then all bets are off. Theists want to engage in debate? Fine, they should expect questions they won't ask themselves. If those questions become uncomfortable, then the theist needs to introspect and withdraw until they find comfort and security.

If you speaking of the religious terrorists as an example, I do not see them as religious at all, they are less than humans in my view and has nothing to do with religious practice.

Others may disagree on my view of course.

 

[F1fan]

I am not speaking toward my self, that does not bugg me anymore, I speaking about how example some members (the 4-5 atheists) treat @MyM or@Link as two examples.
If you looked in to how they treat @MyM in her OP over a lot of time. You see who the 4-5 are...i am not allowed to name them due to RF rules.

I looked at those discussions and found nothing harassing. The members are well known and post regularly. If they aren't violating rules (some of which get very favorable decisions for theists in my own experience) then complain. Otherwise the questions and criticisms are within the scope of debate.

And if you are fine with criticism, and you are just being an advocate, then let others speak for themselves.

As I just noted in my previous comment you seem to want a very limited and unrealistic scope of discussion with theists. You seem to be describing a fellowship scenario more than open debate. And you seem to gloss over the heavy rhetoric of some theists, who often express an arrogance and presumption of authority that invites spirited debate.

 

[F1fan]

If you speaking of the religious terrorists as an example, I do not see them as religious at all, they are less than humans in my view and has nothing to do with religious practice.

No, I'm speaking g of theists who assume their beliefs and their God has authority over you. If someone claimed their belief has authority over you and you are wrong not to accept their truth, would you accept what they say, or insist you have your own authority to reject their claims?

This isn't terrorism. You could easily define it as harassment. But you seem to bias towards theists over atheists, so your judgment tends to be one sided.

Others may disagree on my view of course.

As long as they don't bring it up?

It's not necessarily disagreement, it is sometimes pointing out bias and narrow thinking.

 

[Spirit of Light]

I looked at those discussions and found nothing harassing. The members are well known and post regularly. If they aren't violating rules (some of which get very favorable decisions for theists in my own experience) then complain. Otherwise the questions and criticisms are within the scope of debate.

And if you are fine with criticism, and you are just being an advocate, then let others speak for themselves.

As I just noted in my previous comment you seem to want a very limited and unrealistic scope of discussion with theists. You seem to be describing a fellowship scenario more than open debate. And you seem to gloss over the heavy rhetoric of some theists, who often express an arrogance and presumption of authority that invites spirited debate.

In RF i want religious people discuss religious topics to learn from each others.
Atheists who want to learn are of course welcome to discuss. If they are there to make irritation for believers, they are not welcome in my view

 

[Spirit of Light]

No, I'm speaking g of theists who assume their beliefs and their God has authority over you. If someone claimed their belief has authority over you and you are wrong not to accept their truth, would you accept what they say, or insist you have your own authority to reject their claims?

This isn't terrorism. You could easily define it as harassment. But you seem to bias towards theists over atheists, so your judgment tends to be one sided.


As long as they don't bring it up?

It's not necessarily disagreement, it is sometimes pointing out bias and narrow thinking.

Biased to whom? To the atheists?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Just because it is ridiculous to you, why would it be wrong for others to believe it?

It's not wrong per say but it's not exactly right either to withold saying a religion is ridiculous soley because someone might not like the criticism and taking it as a personal attack on themselves.

Basically I critique the religion, not the person.

What would constitute an extremist Buddhist in your view?

Me! *grin*

 

[F1fan]

There are some politicalized religious leaders and I believe they are a problem yes. Especially when they take advice from far right people.

We do see examples of these folks in these debates. We see plenty of right wing disinformation and these same folks being evangelicals. They even spout off some rather racist rhetoric, of course subtly.

A radical atheist are those who never accept anything a religious person answer to their questions, and has a mission to just give crap toward religious people.

Well there's plenty of atheists who won't accept any religious truth from a believer. Why? Because those concepts are all based on faith, not facts or reason. Do you accept this? Do you accept that rational thinkers require facts and reason as a basis for belief?

The radical atheist sounds like a trouble maker and I don't see many of them.

A blind faith is a dead faith, to ask oneself questions are a huge part of spiritual lifestyle. But asking questions to learn and advance in their practice.
Not to throw **** at others.

And atheists are here to serve the blind faith audience. Do you accept this?