What Are the Top Three Craziest Criticisms Of Religion?

[Smoke]

Not at all. I think his questions are legitimate and deserve an honest answer.

For me, I think the top peeve would be those who assume that because I am a theist, I must have abandoned reason. This is not so. Indeed, while it is true that I cannot prove the presence of God, it is also true that his presence cannot be thus falsified. Therefore, I concede that if atheism is a legitimate position, so then is theism. Simple, but to the point. I, personally, have not had the pleasure of being aquainted with invisible, pink unicorns, however, I take the position that their presence may be real. Consider me mad if you like.

As a quasi-Quaker, I believe in enlightenment and hence in the Light. As just a plain old weird person, I sometimes have a sense of the presence of someone who's dead, especially my great-grandmother, who died in 1974. I also have a tendency to pray to water spirits. These are just things that I find satisfying, though, and I have no problem whatever admitting that a belief in enlightenment, or dead ancestors hanging around, or water spirits, is completely subjective, irrational, and unverifiable, and not qualitatively any different at all from believing in invisible pink unicorns. In fact, I'd have to say that all my religious beliefs and impulses are exactly like believing in invisible pink unicorns.

But I see religion -- any religion -- as a provisional, subjective, and metaphorical kind of thing; believing that it's literally true seems like missing the point.

 

[Sunstone]

I am on topic, is asking people to believe in the implausible not to mention the impossible not a criticism of religion?

My mistake. I thought you were asserting that your criticisms of religion were reasonable and true, and therefore off topic in this thread, which deals only with criticisms of religion that you believe to be crazy. Since you now seem to be saying that you regard your criticisms as on topic, I must assume you also regard them as crazy. My apologies for underestimating your sense of irony.

 

[stemann]

Sunstone, you should have guessed from the general trend of royol's posts on this site that s/he is all for belief in the implausible (not to mention the impossible), and thus believes criticism of such to be truly "crazy." For shame.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Sunstone, you should have guessed from the general trend of royol's posts on this site that s/he is all for belief in the implausible (not to mention the impossible)

What? He's an atheist? How droll!

 

[egroen]

Can we determine the existence/non-existence of invisible pink unicorns? Actually, the answer is "yes." Unicorns would be pink if they reflected pink electromagnetic radiation (i.e., light). However, in order to be invisible, the unicorns would reflect no electromagnetic radiation. Therefore, the term "invisible pink unicorn" is self contradictory. We know absolutely that they could not exist. I don't know who invented the term "invisible pink unicorns," but they were obviously deficient in their physics education.

-Erin

 

[evearael]

Therefore, the term "invisible pink unicorn" is self contradictory.

It is a satire faith, so that is the point.

IPU Wiki article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_pink_unicorns

 

[egroen]

I see... I didn't realize the invisible pink unicorns in this context were attributed omnipotence.

-Erin

 

[Scuba Pete]

Attributing belief in God to IPUs is tantamount to attributing the moon landings to believing in Star Wars episode IV. None of US have been to the moon and have actually seen it with our eyes. Death will teach us who is right about God all too soon. Until such time, we still have plenty of evidence pointing to a God and plenty of people more than willing to deny it until their last breath.

 

[Booko]

I hadn't looked at it that way. Another good point. Geez, now you guys are going to make me re-evaluate the whole "bias in the media" thing, aren't you...

I don't see it as "bias" as much as "owners unwillingness to spend time and money on better journalism."

But back to the thread at hand, the usual stuff has already been addressed, but I'll throw in my .02 cents anyway, as I always do.

The biggest giggle I get is when someone takes one thing from a mere segment of a religion (usually Christianity) and then attacks all religion _per se_ on account of it. Isn't "overgeneralization" in such a person's lexicon, or what? It's like aliens landing in the Sahara and proclaiming the entire Earth a desert.

Such comments have started off some of the best online discussions I've had with people, though, so I like to answer posts like that when I see them.

My other biggies are:

- Religion is a crutch for those who can't handle life.

Um hm. This usually comes from the idea that people get religious as a result of some traumatic life event or great emotional need. The problem is, I had no traumatic life event or great emotional need, and took up this religion anyway. Explain that.

- Religion is for those who are afraid of death.

I was an atheist for years, and believed that when I died, I wouldn't even know I was dead, so who cares? It didn't bother me at all. If my religion had taught there was no afterlife, then why would that bother me? It's not like I was looking for one or anything. I didn't care then, and it's still not something I spend any time considering. People ask questions about my religion's teachings on the afterlife, and I try to answer them, but it hasn't been and still isn't a motivating force in my life.

- Religion and reason are mutually exclusive.

Well, I would counter that life cannot be expressed in logic and reason at all times anyway, and someone who has such a limited view of life should probably reconsider their own beliefs. Or, to quote Hamlet, which also contains all the necessary answers for life , "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

And the ever popular:

- If you only really understood logic, you wouldn't be religious.

This is a real laugh to address to someone who was an atheist for years, has no beef with atheists being atheists and feels no need to convert them, and spent many years reading atheist philosophers like Russell. sheesh

 

[Booko]

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."

Haha! Yes, I remember being on the receiving end of those when I was an atheist, and I found them quite entertaining too.

Along with the question, "But doesn't it *bother* you that when you die, there will be nothing?"

Uh, if there's nothing, how would I know anything for it to bother me? Complete and total non-existence is the best peace and quiet I can think of.

 

[Booko]

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.'

Ah, you've been on IIDB?

 

[Booko]

Why isn't it? Seriously.

The short answer (from a non-Christian): There is zero reason to believe in invisible pink unicorns. There is some evidence to believe in the Gospels.

Do you believe in neutrinos? You can't detect them directly, just as you could not detect invisible pink unicorns directly, if such did exist.

Likewise, you cannot detect the sort of "truths" in the Gospels in the most straightforward, empirical way, but it does not mean there are no "truths" there or nothing useful in them.

Urgh, and we should probably put this in another thread.

What might be really fun would be to ask the Christians to bow out of the discussion and let non-Christian theists and atheists have a go at it.

 

[Booko]

Don't most religions, taken literally, require suspension of disbelief?

Um, I'd take that thought further. Religions, when in the hands of the metaphorically-challenged, typically are a source of dissention and even great violence.

And why should it be so offensive to make a comparison between something most people don't believe and something no one believes?

The problem I see with this is your comparison should be against religion generally, not merely Christianity, and if that's the comparison, then it's atheism that most people don't believe in.

Most people in the world do have some sort of religious belief, which is precisely why I became so interested in comparative religion all those years ago when I was an atheist. I was interested to understand why such mass insanity was taking place, pretty much.

...and as a result of that study I ended up...religious?

Of all life's ironies, this has to be the damned funniest yet! :biglaugh:

 

[Booko]

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 was also an example of what I referred to earlier: taking one thing from one religion and assuming all religions do the same.

I'm not sure what he meant by "implausible stories" but I can make some guesses, and if my guesses are right, I'm at a loss to think of implausible stories in my religion. We don't do miracle stories, for a start.

 

[Smoke]

The problem I see with this is your comparison should be against religion generally, not merely Christianity, and if that's the comparison, then it's atheism that most people don't believe in.

You're assuming, along with most of the people participating in this thread, that religion is theistic. I'm religious, but not a theist. Lots of people are. Theism is superfluous to many forms of Buddhism. The eminent archaeologist William Dever, though a convert to Judaism, is not a theist. Many Unitarian-Universalists and many Quakers are not theists. Jainism is nontheistic. It's unreasonable to oppose religion to atheism, because religion and nontheism have large areas of overlap. EDIT: And I forgot to mention Taoism.

Criticisms of religion in general are rare, and even more rarely do they actually apply to all religions. I can only think of two. All the others I can think of are some variation on them.

There's the criticism leveled by Richard Dawkins:

"I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world."
​

And the one leveled by Bertrand Russell:

"Clergymen almost necessarily fail in two ways as teachers of morals. They condemn acts which do no harm and they condone acts which do great harm."
​

I don't think that either of these criticisms is crazy; on the contrary, these are very real dangers that all religious people ought to be aware of and avoid.

 

[lunamoth]

Criticisms of religion in general are rare, and even more rarely do they actually apply to all religions. I can only think of two. All the others I can think of are some variation on them.



There's the criticism leveled by Richard Dawkins:

"I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world."


​

And the one leveled by Bertrand Russell:

"Clergymen almost necessarily fail in two ways as teachers of morals. They condemn acts which do no harm and they condone acts which do great harm."


​

I don't think that either of these criticisms is crazy; on the contrary, these are very real dangers that all religious people ought to be aware of and avoid.

Hi Midnight, the only problem with the above quotes is that they also are not applicable to all religions, in fact they fail to characterize any single religion (as opposed to some sects or denominations) at all, much less all religions in general. But, I don't deny that there are religionists who think as the quotes suggest.

 

[Smoke]

Hi Midnight, the only problem with the above quotes is that they also are not applicable to all religions, in fact they fail to characterize any single religion (as opposed to some sects or denominations) at all, much less all religions in general. But, I don't deny that there are religionists who think as the quotes suggest.

The second obviously doesn't apply to all religions, as not all religions have clergy. However, we could substitute "religious adherents" for "clergy" without doing much violence to the meaning. The first is a genuine danger in all religions I know of. That's not to say that every religious adherent has fallen prey to these dangers, but I do think they occur in all religions and that religious adherents are often too uninterested in heading them off.

 

[BruceDLimber]

You're assuming, along with most of the people participating in this thread, that religion is theistic. I'm religious, but not a theist. Lots of people are. Theism is superfluous to many forms of Buddhism.

But not to all forms.

And theistic Buddhism has always existed and still exists today, so it's hardly fair to reduce Buddhism to only its nontheistic portion. . . .

Not to mention which, the Buddhist scriptures explicitly endorse the idea of God (specifically, of an Uncreated being).

Peace,

Bruce

 

[Smoke]

But not to all forms.

And theistic Buddhism has always existed and still exists today, so it's hardly fair to reduce Buddhism to only its nontheistic portion. . . .

Not to mention which, the Buddhist scriptures explicitly endorse the idea of God (specifically, of an Uncreated being).

I didn't say anything to the contrary.

 

[stemann]

Along with the question, "But doesn't it *bother* you that when you die, there will be nothing?"

Uh, if there's nothing, how would I know anything for it to bother me? Complete and total non-existence is the best peace and quiet I can think of.

:clap :beach: