Why is it deemed wrong to "bash religion"?

Status
Not open for further replies.
IMO, there is no doubt that religions "bash" everyone who is not of their religion. The terms "infidel, sinner, unbeliever, anti-christ, satan (who is legion and encompasses everyone who is not of "our" belief.

Theist bashing of innocents began with the first human sacrifice to the Gods.
And Christianity did not promote civil discourse. You may be interested in the story of Hypatia, which illustrates my point on many levels of "insult upon injury". http://www.womanastronomer.com/hypatia.htm

Religions, by their very exclusive nature, create a imaginary seperate reality. There have been some 6000 recorded gods and ritualized religions. The three Abrahamic religions of the OT is a compilation of regional seperate practices, and is seperated into books, some of which contradict each other.

Has anyone counted the number of religious wars in history? Religious people love to bash "un-believers" or "different believers"

Read this and reflect on the EVIL intent of this religious enforcement instrument, The Inquisition. Bashing in the extreme, I'd say!
The 1578 handbook for inquisitors spelled out the purpose of inquisitorial penalties: ... quoniam punitio non refertur primo & per se in correctionem & bonum eius qui punitur, sed in bonum publicum ut alij terreantur, & a malis committendis avocentur. Translation from the Latin: "... for punishment does not take place primarily and per se for the correction and good of the person punished, but for the public good in order that others may become terrified and weaned away from the evils they would commit."
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition

I was personally bashed by a group of schoolboys who "objected" to my enthusiastically shared discovery that humans are made from atoms. I always try to argue my atheism with logic and "known information", but it is always the religious person who is offended by my "personal" beliefs and starts the bashing. And that of course changes the rules of the game.

This is a war for souls. The "believer" vs the "infidel" (all others). But of course, only a secular court can determine who was the aggressor and therefore guilty...thank god......:shrug:
 
Knowledge is a subset of belief, consisting of those beliefs that are both suitably justified and actually true. The content of scientific thought consists of scientists' beliefs about the universe and about their own ways of understanding it.
Click to expand...

I don't agree that knowledge is a kind of belief. For one thing, saying knowledge is justified, true belief assumes the possibility of knowing the belief is true or not. So true belief assumes knowledge, not the other way around. Also, a person can have a true belief without it necessarily being knowledge. Say for example you believe it will rain tomorrow. Then suppose that belief is true--it does rain tomorrow. Does that mean you knew it would rain tomorrow? No, not hardly.

I think knowledge is consciousness of a factual state of affairs. For instance you may say you know your friend well. Are you really saying you believe in some propositions about him that happen to be true? No, the knowing is much stronger than that. You have an acquaintance and familiarity with your friend's personality and nature that amounts to a real knowledge of who he is and how he is. Belief assumes the ability to know facts and acquire information that will either validate or invalidate that belief. Knowledge comes first, then belief.
 
I respect religion and religious folk....Afterall, my wife is a Christian in the true sense of the word.
She tolerates my scientific escapades, I take her to church/singing practise etc and likewise tolerate her activities.
Some of my best friends are religious [afterall, I went to a Catholic school, and we have regular old boys reunions]
I only bash Christians on forums such as this when they first try and bash science.
Then I'll give both barrels!
 
Magical Realist said:
Knowledge comes first, then belief.
Click to expand...

A hypothesis is a belief, which is then only verified as accepted theory through testing. A belief that a conjecture may be true is necessary before determining whether it actually is so.
 
Belief is a "propositional attitude." It is a mindset based on assumed (sometimes true, sometimes false) evidence.
 
Grumpy said:
leopold



Evidence? Of what, the fact that you believe in a god for which no evidence(beyond the beliefs of you or others)exists?
Click to expand...
yes, i asked you for evidence for your claim.
where is it?
Well, don't you?
Click to expand...
it's hard for me to believe in an intelligence without substance.
The default position is there is no god, unless and until evidence is found to the contrary, the default is NOT the opinion of ANY of the thousands of conflicting sets of assumptions made by the myriad sects of believers.
Click to expand...
let's see, we don't know whether god exists or not so we will adopt the position that it doesn't.
that's BRILLIANT!!!
actually grumpy, when we don't know, the default position is WE DON'T KNOW.

now, for the second time, the evidence "i believe in a god", where is it?
 
Baldeee said:
Why are religious views deemed above any other views that people hold?
Click to expand...
It's generally considered rude to insult a person's deepest-held beliefs and opinions, especially when they're "just" opinions and not an objectively measurable statement. It makes that other person feel uncomfortable and, yanno, insulted. Just one of those weird social things.

This is even more acutely felt when it deals with opinions that are held to be sacred by that person.
 
joepistole said:
How does this apply to religion? How does this make religion rational? In the example you created, it is a knowledge difference which creates the differing beliefs. Even the most educated theologian doesn’t have enough evidence or knowledge to lead him or her to rationally conclude the existence of godhead. That is why their arguments always rely on faith rather than evidence and rational thought.
Click to expand...
If the theist is working from a different set of experiences then it might be rational to them.
If they hear voices in their head, or get an unexplained feeling that only makes sense to them in terms of their religion etc.
I.e. If they are working from different knowledge and experience (whether they interpret the experience correctly or not) then their position can still be rational to them.
No
Click to expand...
So much for discussion, then.
 
Syne said:
First, such "stereotypes" applied to atheists are not personally insulting.
Click to expand...
So sayeth a believer.
Who are you to say what someone finds personally insulting or not?
Nothing about assuming an atheist does not believe a god exists presumes that they are ignorant, or any of a variety of other ad hominems.
Click to expand...
It does not need to be an ad hom for it to be deemed an insult.
Merely continually misrepresenting one's position is insulting, especially after being corrected the first time.
Second, if not denying the existence of a god, on what grounds is such an atheist arguing? Agnosticism? Agnostic arguments rely on those asserting them to admitting they do not know. So it is actually better to allow a "no belief" atheist to make such arguments.
Click to expand...
Agnosticism is a common position among atheists.
And while it is better to allow the agnostic atheist to make such an argument, that does not address the issue of the other person continually arguing back as if the atheist is of the "God does not exist" variety.
Atheism, of any variety, actually has the benefit of being assumed an "intellectual position", which is very far from personally insulting stereotypes.
Click to expand...
Assumed by whom?
And how does that make it acceptable to continually misuse it (in terms of applying the wrong variety to a person)?
But then also calling someone a swot, nerd, geek and the ilk were also okay by dint of the terms implying an "intellectual position", when only recently some of such terms are becoming more acceptable, and badges of honour.
Now if someone starts calling atheists immoral, just for being atheists, that would be an actionable hasty generalization.
Click to expand...
Then should we expect you to close threads where this occurs, as quickly as you close threads where you perceive religion to be "bashed"?
You have not participated in many philosophy debates then. Someone who espouses Kant, for example, can be just as intractable as any religious person.
Click to expand...
But they don't claim any higher authority than their own intellect in such discussions, whereas the religious person does.
The religious argument is that it comes to them from God.
That it has the untouchable authority.
The only immediate difference is that religious people are very often called ignorant and the like, where some modicum of civility would likely be upheld discussing philosophy. But I am sure that continues to elude you.
Click to expand...
Your personal insult is noted and wholly unwarranted, especially from a moderator.
That you only see that one immediate difference I would say speaks more to your obvious bias in this debate.
 
Magical Realist said:
I don't agree that knowledge is a kind of belief. For one thing, saying knowledge is justified, true belief assumes the possibility of knowing the belief is true or not. So true belief assumes knowledge, not the other way around. Also, a person can have a true belief without it necessarily being knowledge. Say for example you believe it will rain tomorrow. Then suppose that belief is true--it does rain tomorrow. Does that mean you knew it would rain tomorrow? No, not hardly.

I think knowledge is consciousness of a factual state of affairs. For instance you may say you know your friend well. Are you really saying you believe in some propositions about him that happen to be true? No, the knowing is much stronger than that. You have an acquaintance and familiarity with your friend's personality and nature that amounts to a real knowledge of who he is and how he is. Belief assumes the ability to know facts and acquire information that will either validate or invalidate that belief. Knowledge comes first, then belief.
Click to expand...
The commonly accepted initial philosophical position is that knowledge is a justified true belief. The justified belief comes first, and only when it can be shown to be true is it considered knowledge.
Gettier came up with some examples that showed how inadequate this initial position was and so the concept has been continually developed.
But I'm not sure anyone (other than your good self) has suggested that knowledge comes before belief.
It is quite simple in that if a belief can not be shown to be true or not, it remains a belief, no matter how justified.
A future event can not be knowledge unless it is shown to be a necessary event, and even then you could argue over whether the justification for it being necessary is sufficient.
Only when an event has happened can it be shown to be true, or if it is a matter of logic etc.

In common parlance, when someone says they know something is going to happen, or that they know their friend, they are actually saying that they have a very good understanding of it such that they are confident in their ability to predict future events.
I know it will rain tomorrow because every forecast has told me it will.
But this is not knowledge in the philosophical sense, it is merely a justified assessment of probability with a high level of confidence in the outcome.
 
James R said:
leopold:



Where else could it come from?
Click to expand...
who said it had to come from somewhere?
the universe and life itself could be infinite, life has ALWAYS existed
time itself seems to be infinite, maybe life is some property of time.

there is also the possibility that god actually does exist but why would god use his creations like some kind of lab rats.

and of course it could have arose by itself out of the ground although i have seen NOTHING that supports it.

you must be honest with yourself, science is at an almost total loss to explain the origins of life.
 
leopold:

leopold said:
who said it had to come from somewhere?
the universe and life itself could be infinite, life has ALWAYS existed
time itself seems to be infinite, maybe life is some property of time.
Click to expand...

The universe started with the big bang. There was no life around for quite a long time after that happened.

Assuming that life started on Earth spontaneously, it most likely happened about 3.9 billion years ago.

And if life on Earth didn't start here, then where did it come from? Got any suggestions?

there is also the possibility that god actually does exist but why would god use his creations like some kind of lab rats.
Click to expand...

Why indeed? Why would a God who is supposed to be Good create wasps that lay their eggs inside live caterpillars, such that the eggs then hatch and eat the caterpillar from the inside out? Seems needlessly cruel.

and of course it could have arose by itself out of the ground although i have seen NOTHING that supports it.
Click to expand...

It's more likely that it started in water, perhaps in something like a tidal pool.

Did you know that about 90% of the cells in your body are not human cells but single-celled bacteria? If there is a God, he must be really fond of bacteria. (And beetles, of course.)

you must be honest with yourself, science is at an almost total loss to explain the origins of life.
Click to expand...

That's not true. We know, for example, that amino acids will form spontaneously from their constituents under appropriate conditions - conditions that just happen to correspond to what we think conditions were like on Earth 3.9 billion years ago.
 
James R said:
That's not true. We know, for example, that amino acids will form spontaneously from their constituents under appropriate conditions - conditions that just happen to correspond to what we think conditions were like on Earth 3.9 billion years ago.
Click to expand...

Only have to have a fish tank to see that.

Bake the substrate, to kill off anything that could be on it. Put it in the tank and fill it up, put in water conditioner and run the filter. This is a pure and clean uncycled tank, nothing is in it. It is absolutely pure. Within about 4 days, with enough lighting, algae starts to grow. On the glass and on the newly baked and dead substrate. A very short time after that, little white worms appear on the substrate and little white bugs. And I'm saying this is in a dead tank, with no plant life, no fish, nothing. It doesn't take much. The right conditions - water, a lot of light and warmth, stuff just grows out of nothing.

It never ceases to amaze me. It is exceptionally annoying, but it's something those who have aquariums see often.
 
leopold

Evidence? Of what, the fact that you believe in a god for which no evidence(beyond the beliefs of you or others)exists?
yes, i asked you for evidence for your claim.
where is it?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

What utter non-sense. Evidence of no evidence? Idiocy!

let's see, we don't know whether god exists or not so we will adopt the position that it doesn't.
that's BRILLIANT!!!
Click to expand...

The default is the null. Why posit a god in the first place without evidence? Is a god NECESSARY to explain anything? Unless you can justify the positing of a god's existence with evidence it is not even a valid question. I don't think many people would say "I don't know" about the concept of a Unicorn(not a horse with a horn, but a horse with magic...and a horn). Those that do are being pedantic. Without evidence the null remains the default. Unless you want to argue that we can never know anything(pedantically). We are much closer to knowing no god exists than the total lack of evidence brings you to the conclusion that he/she/it does exist. Thus the null becomes the default. Unless and until such evidence is produced then god's existence is on a par with the existence of a magical Unicorn.

who said it had to come from somewhere?
the universe and life itself could be infinite, life has ALWAYS existed
time itself seems to be infinite, maybe life is some property of time.
Click to expand...

We already KNOW that the Universe and all it contains is not infinite, not even time. It all had a beginning. And life exists, therefore it came from non-life that itself has not existed for an infinite time. Life is a property of matter and chemistry, it is not something "separate" or "different" in any sense except level of complexity and the ability to preserve information(chemically)to replicate itself. Life is a form of matter.

there is also the possibility that god actually does exist
Click to expand...

What evidence do you have that makes you think that possibility exists? Is it any better than the evidence of the possibility of magical Unicorns existing? Are either of them necessary to explain anything? While a scientist can never say that anything is impossible, these two concepts are equally busted. So the null is the logical position unless and until.

of course it could have arose by itself out of the ground although i have seen NOTHING that supports it.
Click to expand...

You, of course, being the arbiter of what is known about the subject? Just because YOU have not seen such evidence does not mean such evidence does not exist(it does). Life came from non-life, we just do not yet know exactly how(but we've got a pretty good idea of the processes involved). Self replicating molecules have already been made by man. Life is, at it's core, self replicating molecules(everything else is details of the support system). Every lifeform there is is simply a support system for the replication of that lifeform's DNA, that is all that evolution is, selecting better replication machinery.

you must be honest with yourself, science is at an almost total loss to explain the origins of life.
Click to expand...

You must be honest with yourself and realize you simply don't know what you are talking about. Science is well on the way to CREATING life from scratch(from chemicals that are not alive)and you bumble along knowing nothing about what science knows about the subject. But you know the current state of our knowledge anyway? Right.

Grumpy:cool:
 
Syne said:
A hypothesis is a belief, which is then only verified as accepted theory through testing. A belief that a conjecture may be true is necessary before determining whether it actually is so.
Click to expand...

Knowledge isn't a hypothesis. But then you knew that.

Here's how knowledge works. It is raining. I can perceive that it is raining. I therefore know it is raining. Simple as that. No hypothesis formation and no belief that needed to be tested. Just the direct acquisition of information about a factual situation.
 
Magical Realist said:
Knowledge isn't a hypothesis. But then you knew that.

Here's how knowledge works. It is raining. I can perceive that it is raining. I therefore know it is raining. Simple as that. No hypothesis formation and no belief that needed to be tested. Just the direct acquisition of information about a factual situation.
Click to expand...
You can not know something without believing it, but you can believe something without knowing it to be true.
If you know something then it is necessary that you believe it (philosophically speaking).
In your example, your belief is that it is raining, your perception provides evidence (not proof) that leads you to conclude that it is raining (i.e. justification) and your perception also provides you with the truth of the belief.
Your analysis of what is happening misses out the belief and justification because there is no actual conscious thought between observation and knowing it is raining.
But philosophically these are the steps one takes: belief, justification, truth.
For example, if I see someone sitting at a table in a room, do I know that the room is not empty of people?
I have belief: that there is someone in the room.
I have justification: I see someone in the room. If there is someone in the room it can not empty of people.
But do I have knowledge?
If there really is a person in the room, then yes, I do.
But what if that person turned out to be a rather convincing mannequin? Then there is no truth behind my claim, and thus no knowledge.
Further, what if it was a mannequin that I saw, but there was someone else in the room behind the door, such that I couldn't see them?
In this case I have justification for the belief, and the belief is true, but can I really claim to have known when my justification for my belief is so flawed?

But philosophically speaking one starts with the belief, not knowledge.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top