-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Are Most Criticisms of Religion too One-sided These Days?
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
This is an utterly minor point, but I did not mean "these days" to be taken as meaning "it did not happen in the past" or "it has happened only recently". Just so you know.
leov
Well-Known Member
It is "one-sided" because too many see G-d as Santa Claus.
Jim
Nets of Wonder
What if it is? Would you want to try to do something to about it? Do you think anyone here might want to try to do something about it? Do you have any ideas about what anyone could do about it, if they wanted to?
shmogie
Well-Known Member
Speaking from the Christian perspective, as society becomes more secular, it continually drifts further from what is considered Christian societal norms.
These norms becoming more stark to secular society as the drifting continues.
Christianity becomes an imagined hindrance to the advancement of ¨secularism¨.
Rome had the same problem they thought with Christians, though Rome was defending paganism not secularism.
Rome dealt with these stubborn Christians in very unique ways, all involving the death of the Christians.
That not being a choice today, other options are employed.
Criticism of acts by Christians can be very warranted. Christians are humans and can present the same foibles inherent in all of us.
When something stupid or harmful occurs, the individual, or the church , needs to stand and say mea culpa.
Being saved as a Christian doesn´t mean you should be saved from the consequences of your actions.
However, when these things become general accusations, or are overblown, or manufactured, and the response to the propaganda is further alienation from religion of the populace, then the arena where the lions kill the Christians metaphorically, is working, it is thought.
A Vestigial Mote
Well-Known Member
In my opinion, there simply aren't enough "sides" criticizing religion. So yes - too close to "one side" when we need many, many more.
Jim
Nets of Wonder
By “one-sided,” do you mean, more people criticizing some religious beliefs than people defending them?
QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
Well most modern Western critiques of religion simply ape the arguments that were made in the post-Enlightenment era.
Many of these, for example the Church being oppressive, corrupt, greedy and anti-science, were actually taken up from Protestant anti-Catholic polemics. So, ironically, many modern atheists are simply continuing the line of Protestant dissent.
More than their arguments though, they've also taken up their theology. Religion is the devil and source of all evil corrupting humanity's inherent goodness and fire and brimstone await us if we cannot throw off its yoke. But salvation is nigh! We need only put our faith in science and reason though and we can be delivered from this evil. This will inevitably happen due to the forces of Progress (Divine Providence) whereby we inexorably become wiser and more moral as we outgrow our childish human foibles.
So while criticisms are very one sided, they are simply following in the footsteps of those who came before, and radical Protestants were never known for their nuance and subtle introspection
What a delightful straw man atheist you created there. Too bad he/she only exists in your imagination.
I might actually agree with you if those sides consistently conducted themselves with intellectual honesty and integrity. But do you think critics of religion automatically and always conduct themselves with intellectual honesty and integrity? And -- if that's what you believe -- then how long ago were you born?
I agree with you that @Augustus speaks as if all atheists were alike, but do you honestly think he believes that? Or do you think his manner of speaking might possibly be a rhetorical means of conveying information in a relatively concise manner? That is, a trade off between strict accuracy and pithiness?
A related question... If Augustus is leaving out that not all atheists are alike for the sake of being as brief as possible, do you think he might possibly be assuming that most folks on this Forum are smarter than they actually are?
What planet did that come from?
I agree with you. But still, your response is trivial and irrelevant within the context of the OP. Try to focus better.
Well done!
A Vestigial Mote
Well-Known Member
I get your point. But if the religious side can withstand the scrutiny and criticism then it proves it can hold its own. If it can't then there are probably people who have some decisions to make.
I honestly think this is the process that atheism has been going through slowly for quite some time now. Being vetted and proving itself capable of holding its own as a group, as a "thing" - whatever it actually is - which admittedly isn't much. One of the reasons the process has been so slow going - many opposed, and barely anything resembling a cohesive voice or central leadership. Not that I think any is needed, honestly. But it becomes understandable why atheism is still under the gun, and being scrutinized. Though I honestly feel that it's an idea that is holding its own, taking more and more of a hold and therefore growing.
QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
IF his intention was to relay information in a CONCISE manner, then he failed when he didn't state that there are SOME atheists who might adhere to such beliefs.
Bah, you're just trying to be reasonable now.
Augustus
…
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
I would think any criticism is always one sided. If it argues for the religion, then is is criticism?