What Are the Top Three Craziest Criticisms Of Religion?

Katzpur said:

Sorry, buddy... We're in line ahead of you.

Click to expand...

And in my personal experience it will be your fellow Christians from other denominations who will be holding the torches and kerosene. I have several LDS friends from grad school who I constantly had to defend for being involved in "a cult". Without exception the people I was defending them from were born again Christians.

B.

My favourite criticism of my own religion is "If you don't believe in God, what stops you from going around killing and stealing?"

Actually, another favourite is "How can you believe in nothing? That doesn't make any sense. There must be something else."

MdmSzdWhtGuy said:

And in my personal experience it will be your fellow Christians from other denominations who will be holding the torches and kerosene.

Click to expand...

Too funny!

How many times have we heard THIS! Bwahahahaha!

When the mark of a Christian is love, why do they equate those who hate in the name of Christ as Christians? They are indeed the anti-Christ.

Revasser said:

My favourite is "Religion is responsible for everything wrong with the world and without religion the world would be peachy keen."

I chortle every time I hear/read it.

Click to expand...

I'll second...or third...this statement. Even more specifically I cannot stand when someone bashes Christians today because of the Crusades.

My main annoyance is the statement "Religion is for those who are afraid of hell. Spirituality is for those who have been there". Such an arrogant statement.

Yes, the idea that religion was behind every war (or atrocity) ever enacted. That statement is pretty asinine.

I also think it is offensive and far from true whenever someone implies religion is for the ignorant masses.

Third would be I don't believe in __________, just like I don't believe in the Easter Bunny.

I agree with atheists a lot, but also think they can be an entirely pompous, self-back-patting group of windbags who are just as stubborn and close-minded as those whom they profess to 'enlighten.'

-Erin

egroen said:

I agree with atheists a lot, but also think they can be an entirely pompous, self-back-patting group of windbags who are just as stubborn and close-minded as those whom they profess to 'enlighten.'

Click to expand...

Just because we don't believe in the easter bunny? That's harsh.

NetDoc said:

Then there is the constant baseless condescension. No, believing in Christianity is not the same as believing in invisible pink unicorns.

Click to expand...

Why isn't it? Seriously.

MidnightBlue said:

Why isn't it? Seriously.

Click to expand...

No one can free you from self imposed ignorance- NetDoc, 2006

You know, those atheists who think that Christians have a lock on brutality should go read "The Gulag Archipelago" by A. Solzhenitzen. It's a good insight into a governement that is run solely by atheists.

NetDoc said:

You know, those atheists who think that Christians have a lock on brutality should go read "The Gulag Archipelago" by A. Solzhenitzen. It's a good insight into a governement that is run solely by atheists.

Click to expand...

To compare atheists and Christians in that manner might be popular in certain quarters, NetDoc, but it seems to me that it's based on a false analogy.

When one looks at it more closely, it becomes obvious that very few, if any, atheists have ever claimed their atheism as a justification for harming people; whereas most, and perhaps all, of the infamous Christians who participated in such brutalities as the burning of witches did in fact claim that Christianity justified their actions. Thus, I think the analogy, when looked at logically, is proven inexact and false.

NetDoc said:

No one can free you from self imposed ignorance- NetDoc, 2006

Click to expand...

I was asking you -- politely, I thought -- to explain why one particular belief is so obviously superior to another. What qualities has Christianity that make it notably superior to a belief in something we all agree to be implausible?

I was sincerely interested in your thoughts. My mistake.

I answered you politely. Now you can begin to understand the condescension of your statement.

That you don't see how incedibly insulting and condescending this is, is truly amazing. That you do it in a thread about the "Craziest Criticisms" makes it even ironic. Hopefully you can see the error in asking the guy if he is still beating his wife.

How many churches have been built to invisible pink unicorns? How many disciples? Do they even have scriptures? While you may reject any and all evidence that is out there, that does not make it disappear.

Ooooo, boy! Can we leave the unicorns out of this, please? Unicorn-bashing has no place here! *stern look*

NetDoc said:

I answered you politely.

Click to expand...

Not at all.

NetDoc said:

That you don't see how incedibly insulting and condescending this is, is truly amazing. That you do it in a thread about the "Craziest Criticisms" makes it even ironic. Hopefully you can see the error in asking the guy if he is still beating his wife.

Click to expand...

I am not insulting or attacking your religion. I'm asking you to explain and elaborate on what you mean. That's all.

NetDoc said:

How many churches have been built to invisible pink unicorns? How many disciples? Do they even have scriptures? While you may reject any and all evidence that is out there, that does not make it disappear.

Click to expand...

Are you saying that a belief in invisible pink unicorns would be more plausible if there were churches that taught it? Why? Is it a myth's popularity that gives it credibility?

Don't most people think any religion other than their own is -- at best -- implausible?

Do you find it at all believable that Joseph Smith received golden plates from an angel, and from God the miraculous ability to translate them? Do think it's at all likely that Muhammad made a miraculous night journey to Jerusalem and from there to heaven? Do you think there's a pretty good chance that Loki really, in the form of a mare, gave birth to Odin's eight-legged steed Sleipnir? Can you give any objective reason for believing that your own belief is more plausible than these, or that any of them are more plausible than invisible pink unicorns?

Don't most religions, taken literally, require suspension of disbelief? And why should it be so offensive to make a comparison between something most people don't believe and something no one believes?

MidnightBlue said:

Are you saying that a belief in invisible pink unicorns would be more plausible if there were churches that taught it? Why? Is it a myth's popularity that gives it credibility?

Don't most people think any religion other than their own is -- at best -- implausible?

Do you find it at all believable that Joseph Smith received golden plates from an angel, and from God the miraculous ability to translate them? Do think it's at all likely that Muhammad made a miraculous night journey to Jerusalem and from there to heaven? Do you think there's a pretty good chance that Loki really, in the form of a mare, gave birth to Odin's eight-legged steed Sleipnir? Can you give any objective reason for believing that your own belief is more plausible than these, or that any of them are more plausible than invisible pink unicorns?

Don't most religions, taken literally, require suspension of disbelief? And why should it be so offensive to make a comparison between something most people don't believe and something no one believes?

Click to expand...

And if you really think about it pages and pages could be written about the implausible things religions ask people to believe, and people all over the world believe them, it seems to be a prerequisite that common sense be suspended if you want to believe in a religion, but I suppose that is only to be expected after all, we are talking about something that is not provable either way, so it makes no difference how implausible the stories are no one can prove or disprove them anyway so they can be as outlandish and off the wall as you like.

royol said:

And if you really think about it pages and pages could be written about the implausible things religions ask people to believe, and people all over the world believe them, it seems to be a prerequisite that common sense be suspended if you want to believe in a religion, but I suppose that is only to be expected after all, we are talking about something that is not provable either way, so it makes no difference how implausible the stories are no one can prove or disprove them anyway so they can be as outlandish and off the wall as you like.

Click to expand...

Please stay on topic in this thread. The thread is about the three craziest criticisms of religion you've heard. This was spelled out in the OP and your off topic remarks are really uncalled for.

Ah, but Sunstone... he provides us with even more crap that we have thrown at us:

1) All our beliefs are implausible (which is why we believe them)
2) Common sense MUST be abandoned.
3) Believing in God is intellectual suicide.

It all points to the same condescension and intolerance that theists put up with from many atheists. It's not enough that they simply disbelieve, but they are evangelistic about it at the same time, constantly demeaning and chastising with veritable impunity. Thank God not all atheists share this predilection. That they chose to actually use these lame arguments here is completely ironic.

Sunstone said:

Please stay on topic in this thread. The thread is about the three craziest criticisms of religion you've heard. This was spelled out in the OP and your off topic remarks are really uncalled for.

Click to expand...

I am on topic, is asking people to believe in the implausible not to mention the impossible not a criticism of religion?
I thought Midnightblue gave some pretty implausible scenarios, didn't you?

Tigress posted some genius comments there; I would like to second them and add my own thoughts re: Invisible Pink Unicorns.

Why is it more logical to believe in an entity termed "God" than Invisible Pink Unicorns (IPUs)? It is true, by definition, that IPUs are illogical (how can they be invisible and pink?) but those who believe in them say they are beyond logic.

If something is beyond logic, how can it be logically refuted?

I think the main reasons why God is seen as "more plausible" (or "more logical") than an IPU are these:

- People have believed in God for many, many years, and tradition usually counts as truth for some people.
- Many, many people believe in God, which makes the idea more convincing.
- IPUs were invented specifically as a parody of faith-based religions.

However;

- People believed the earth was flat for many, many years, this does not make it true.
- The peoples of the world all hold conflicting beliefs. They can't logically all be true, so some of them must be wrong. Therefore, just because many people believe in it, that does not make it true.
- The parody is trying to make the point of implausibility.

Logically, there must be some sort of difference between the natures of God and the IPU which makes God more "plausible" or "rational." Personally, I do not know what this may be.

I am waiting, as I'm sure are many others, for NetDoc's explanation of this.

NetDoc said:

That you don't see how incedibly insulting and condescending this is, is truly amazing.

Click to expand...

If it is "incredibly insulting and condescending" to bring a logical argument against one's beliefs, then it begs the question: Why are you on religiousforums.com?