Is bashing religion in general counter-productive?

Okay, so it seems today in the world there is alot of hate towards religion. Athiests will refuse to see things the theist way, and theist refuse to see things the atheist way. Agnostics have decided it is not worth arguing as no answer can be found.

Too me, every atheilogical/theilogical arguement boils down to: chances are God exists/doesn't exist. To get to that point, you must site irrelevent information, as since it is unknown to wheather a God exists litterally, there is a one in one chance that you are right (or wrong).

So my question is, is it counter productive to bash religion as a whole? I think it is. If you disagree with the actions of certain religions, at least bash those specific actions and not that religion or all religion as a whole. I mean, if an exremest Islamic sect is threatening you with suicide bombings, bash their beliefs by all means.

What I don't get is atheists getting all worked up about any belief in a personal God. Thoughts?

For myself, it's like I always say... I have no beliefs, only disbeliefs.






Also, hate for religion and theology in general is usually warranted. That's not to say that both extremes should get up each other's ***es about it. People should just relax, or at least keep their personal beliefs on a personal level.

Bashing of any worldview (whether religious, spiritual, or secular) is counter-productive, and I would add, dangerous.

But I do agree with your main point, that atheists/agnostics/skeptics should focus their scathing critiques on those segments of religion that deserve it, instead of religion as a whole (well, speaking of those secularists who do rant against religion as a whole, that is). And likewise, theists must cease generalizing about non-believers as well and seek a wider view of things.

All in all, there is fault on both sides, and both sides need to cooperate to be able to understand each other better.

Originally Posted by Rew

Bashing of any worldview (whether religious, spiritual, or secular) is counter-productive, and I would add, dangerous.

But I do agree with your main point, that atheists/agnostics/skeptics should focus their scathing critiques on those segments of religion that deserve it, instead of religion as a whole (well, speaking of those secularists who do rant against religion as a whole, that is). And likewise, theists must cease generalizing about non-believers as well and seek a wider view of things.

All in all, there is fault on both sides, and both sides need to cooperate to be able to understand each other better.

Quoted for truth.

Originally Posted by Ikana-Soldier64

For myself, it's like I always say... I have no beliefs, only disbeliefs.

IMO this doesn't really make sense, you can't only have disbeliefs... or else you wouldn't really believe anything.

Also, hate for religion and theology in general is usually warranted. That's not to say that both extremes should get up each other's ***es about it. People should just relax, or at least keep their personal beliefs on a personal level.

Sometimes the nature of personal beliefs extend beyond a personal nature. Hate is never really warrented imo. Hate is just an attitude, and as such should never need to be warrented.

If you disagree with something passionatly and give reasons, imo that is different from exressing anger towards (bashing)a belief system (or systems). Hate generally drives people to do irrational things anyway.

Originally Posted by FooMan

IMO this doesn't really make sense, you can't only have disbeliefs... or else you wouldn't really believe anything.

I don't believe. I either know, don't know, or disbelieve.

Originally Posted by FooMan

Too me, every atheilogical/theilogical arguement boils down to: chances are God exists/doesn't exist. To get to that point, you must site irrelevent information, as since it is unknown to wheather a God exists litterally, there is a one in one chance that you are right (or wrong).

I must object here. "There is no evidence for or against, therefore you can't argue." is a silly position. No one believes in Unicorns, despite the lack of evidence either way, just as no one believe in Leprechauns, Dragons, and similar.

So my question is, is it counter productive to bash religion as a whole? I think it is. If you disagree with the actions of certain religions, at least bash those specific actions and not that religion or all religion as a whole. I mean, if an exremest Islamic sect is threatening you with suicide bombings, bash their beliefs by all means.

What I don't get is atheists getting all worked up about any belief in a personal God. Thoughts?

Very few atheists care if someone else believes in god or not. However, if you're trying to convert others to your belief, or make patently false statements about proof of god, then I'd argue that you make yourself fair game.

As soon as you make a statement asserting that God is real, I'm now free to make a statement saying otherwise. Anything else would be, at best, unfair.

Originally Posted by Rew

Bashing of any worldview (whether religious, spiritual, or secular) is counter-productive, and I would add, dangerous.

Not at all. The alternative is to never question anything anyone says; which means ignoring evil and never lauding good.

But I do agree with your main point, that atheists/agnostics/skeptics should focus their scathing critiques on those segments of religion that deserve it, instead of religion as a whole (well, speaking of those secularists who do rant against religion as a whole, that is). And likewise, theists must cease generalizing about non-believers as well and seek a wider view of things.

All in all, there is fault on both sides, and both sides need to cooperate to be able to understand each other better.

A key point of atheism is the statement that there is no god. As such any arguments made to endorse atheism have to tackle someone's religion as a whole.

Originally Posted by FooMan

Too me, every atheilogical/theilogical arguement boils down to: chances are God exists/doesn't exist. To get to that point, you must site irrelevent information, as since it is unknown to wheather a God exists litterally, there is a one in one chance that you are right (or wrong).

That's a fallacy. Just because there are two possibilities and we can't be 100% of either does not mean the probability is split 50/50 (incidentally, atheists in general seem far more willing to concede this point than religious people, who often claim to "know" the truth. I have very little respect for anyone who cannot even concede the possibility that they're wrong.)

Based on my interpretation and understanding of history and science, it seems that the more we learn about the universe, the less likely it is that God designed it, even if we can never be 100% sure.

As for why atheists play the role of the "Grinch who stole God," well, I think it is the same reason religious people go on missions and try to get converts. There are psychological, political, and moral reasons to do so. There is an egotistical but almost undeniable urge for just anyone to want to spread and defend their beliefs.

There's no reason to assume Christians are going to stop proselytizing any time soon, and honestly, I find much of their package (at least on the fringe*) very backward. So I think it is very important for free-thinkers to step up and let people know it's o.k. not to believe in God.


*I'd also like to add that I don't find the atheistic "fringe" package all that unreasonable (assuming you consider Richard Dawkins the fringe--there might be others I disagree with). Dawkins could turn down his tone a bit, but for the most part, I'd happily align with most of his positions.

Last two posters you are argueing in the wrong thread. The point is you cannot disprove or prove God and bashing religion as a whole is more futile than bashing government as a whole.

Also, Ikana-Soldier makes a fair point though. In reality though, you either believe something, don't believe something, or you are undecided. Wheather or not you know is irrelevent, knowledge has nothing to do with belief (perception).

Originally Posted by John

Not at all. The alternative is to never question anything anyone says; which means ignoring evil and never lauding good.

Aha!

With this statement, you've presented us with polarized choices, either choosing from one extreme of the spectrum or the other. Either one is bashing a worldview or accepting it unquestioningly.

But I'm afraid you misunderstand me (and terribly, at that). I am against bashing other religions or worldviews and generalized hate. This by no means, however, eliminates questioning and critique. (In fact, you'll notice in my post I said that it was good for atheists to criticize those aspects of religion that are in need of scathing criticism.) I'm all for spirited debate and rigorous questioning of any belief. But bashing and hate for other views? Never.

A key point of atheism is the statement that there is no god. As such any arguments made to endorse atheism have to tackle someone's religion as a whole.

I may be a seminary-trained theist, but I do have full respect--and even some sympathy for--the atheist's logical position.

If someone chooses not to believe in the God that I believe in, great. (The God that I worship doesn't judge people based on their beliefs or opinions.) If a person respectfully declines involvement in my church or any religious tradition at all, good for them, so long as they're fulfilling their life's call in other ways.

Those are one thing. But the moment that one then goes on to pin all the world's problems on religion (either my religion or religion as a whole or religion at its core) or tries to declare the inherent corruptness and/or corruptibility of religion, then we've got problems.

(To be fair, I would say the same thing about theists who contend that everyone outside of their fold are likewise corrupt/sinful/damned to hell.)

Originally Posted by FooMan

Last two posters you are argueing in the wrong thread. The point is you cannot disprove or prove God and bashing religion as a whole is more futile than bashing government as a whole.

Not at all. You claim that there is 50/50 chance that God exists, so we should just give up and leave it be. I dispute that reasoning.

I also addressed the argument that bashing religion is futile by laying out the rationale for why we do it.

My post was relevant. You're just being lazy.

Originally Posted by FooMan

Last two posters you are argueing in the wrong thread. The point is you cannot disprove or prove God and bashing religion as a whole is more futile than bashing government as a whole.

Misses my point:

You're saying that both are equally likely to be correct because there is no evidence either way. This is false.

And how is it futile? Clearly it's an important question with ramifications no matter what the answer is.

Originally Posted by Rew

Aha!

With this statement, you've presented us with polarized choices, either choosing from one extreme of the spectrum or the other. Either one is bashing a worldview or accepting it unquestioningly.

But I'm afraid you misunderstand me (and terribly, at that). I am against bashing other religions or worldviews and generalized hate. This by no means, however, eliminates questioning and critique. (In fact, you'll notice in my post I said that it was good for atheists to criticize those aspects of religion that are in need of scathing criticism.) I'm all for spirited debate and rigorous questioning of any belief. But bashing and hate for other views? Never.

Ah, my apologies.

Originally Posted by John

Misses my point:

You're saying that both are equally likely to be correct because there is no evidence either way. This is false.

And how is it futile? Clearly it's an important question with ramifications no matter what the answer is.

No, you are assuming that I meant that there is an equal possibility either way. All I am saying is, there is a one in one chance God may exist. If he does, he can't not exist, and if he doesn't he can't exist.

It is futile because in trying to disprove God, you are crossing so many language, socialogical, philisophical, moral, and anthropological/historical barriers that your logic cannot be universal.

Take for example Montezuma, the late Aztec Emperor. Some historians believed he conisdered himself a God, and many Aztecs living under his rain were sacrificed or murdered if they did not "worship" him.

EDIT: So litterally, Montezuma was, "A God" and it would have made perfect sense to believe in him as a God.

Originally Posted by Ron_Mexico

(incidentally, atheists in general seem far more willing to concede this point than religious people, who often claim to "know" the truth. I have very little respect for anyone who cannot even concede the possibility that they're wrong.)

that's a pretty big generalization to make. I am christian and I take my faith very seriously, but I don't know that I'm 100% right in my beliefs, I know that I can never be 100% right. I would say I'm sure in my faith that God is there and that he has worked in my life, but I don't go around telling people that they are necessarily wrong and I am necessarily right.

Originally Posted by Ron_Mexico

Based on my interpretation and understanding of history and science, it seems that the more we learn about the universe, the less likely it is that God designed it, even if we can never be 100% sure.

depending on how you look at it. The more you look at the miracle of life, I would say the less likely it seems that it was the result of a freak explosion in space and a long string of highly unlikely evolutionary events from an amoeba. but that all depends on your sources and your understanding of those sources.

But I'm afraid you misunderstand me (and terribly, at that). I am against bashing other religions or worldviews and generalized hate. This by no means, however, eliminates questioning and critique. (In fact, you'll notice in my post I said that it was good for atheists to criticize those aspects of religion that are in need of scathing criticism.) I'm all for spirited debate and rigorous questioning of any belief. But bashing and hate for other views? Never.

The problem is that your trusting a dividing line which is actually almost impossible to draw.

Here in SD, we see everything from brash arguers who have no qualms about making completely emotional investments in their debates, to meeker empathizers who see the smallest interpersonal conflict as offensively destructive (though I'll admit the latter is often a symptom of the frustration the stems from the board failing to see things "my way"). When you convince yourself that nothing but sore feelings can possibly arise from argument (as seems to be the case with a number of posters in this thread) then *any* debate - however rational - looks needlessly violent.

No, you are assuming that I meant that there is an equal possibility either way. All I am saying is, there is a one in one chance God may exist. If he does, he can't not exist, and if he doesn't he can't exist.

Your confusing two different schools of probability here. While you're argument certainly applies to a discussion of Frequency Probability*, your applying it to subjects (specifically epistemology) which require instead the use of Bayesian Probability... and the Bayesian credence to the proposition that "An Interventionalist God Exists" is (under an empirically accountable determination) zero.

*Edit: Note that for my determination here, I'm allowing for a being who is capable of repeatedly testing the existence of God with a guaranteed 100% accuracy to calculate p. FooMan is making the same allowance, as far as I can tell.

Originally Posted by FooMan

No, you are assuming that I meant that there is an equal possibility either way. All I am saying is, there is a one in one chance God may exist. If he does, he can't not exist, and if he doesn't he can't exist.

A "One in one" chance means that he does exist.

But you can't put a probability to it.

It is futile because in trying to disprove God, you are crossing so many language, socialogical, philisophical, moral, and anthropological/historical barriers that your logic cannot be universal.

That's the nice thing about logic: it is universal. Its rules hold no matter if you're rich or poor, smart or dumb, Asian or American.

Take for example Montezuma, the late Aztec Emperor. Some historians believed he conisdered himself a God, and many Aztecs living under his rain were sacrificed or murdered if they did not "worship" him.

EDIT: So litterally, Montezuma was, "A God" and it would have made perfect sense to believe in him as a God.

No, he wasn't a God because he had no divine abilities what-so-ever. A bunch of people calling something a god is not proof, it's simply the argument ad populum fallacy.

My opinion is this:
If you don't believe in a diety, then be content and don't belive in one. If you do, then accept the fact that others might not. Niether of these powers should clash. Athiests should stop trying to disprove people's religious beliefs, and theists should accept that athiests don't want to join them. Its that freaking simple! So yes, bashing religion is increadibly pointless and counterproductive.

Originally Posted by SheikahSage

My opinion is this:
Athiests should stop trying to disprove people's religious beliefs, and theists should accept that athiests don't want to join them.

I declare this the best quote of all time.

It really does annoy me when people cannot follow this simple statement. I'm a Muslim, and I never force other people to follow my religion or pester them.

People should just keep their personal beliefs to themselves and everyone would live happily ever after.

Originally Posted by mmmmm_PIE

Your confusing two different schools of probability here. While you're argument certainly applies to a discussion of Frequency Probability*, your applying it to subjects (specifically epistemology) which require instead the use of Bayesian Probability... and the Bayesian credence to the proposition that "An Interventionalist God Exists" is (under an empirically accountable determination) zero.

*Edit: Note that for my determination here, I'm allowing for a being who is capable of repeatedly testing the existence of God with a guaranteed 100% accuracy to calculate p. FooMan is making the same allowance, as far as I can tell.

Yes, but I am not trying to debate the existance of God in this thread. Let me reiterate. There is a one in one possibilty that God does OR does not exist. That is what I meant.

Obviously you do not understand what I mean SheikahSage. Now you would have to define the word: devine, as obviously it can have one of many meanings, but to simply define it as an ability which cannot exist is inadequate for the purpose of debating Monetezuma's (an Aztec's ruler and God) existance.

In any case if there were a God, why couldn't alot of people have different perceptions of him, all partially correct? We cannot fully 100% profile most historical figures that did exist, and there are infact many perceptions as to who these historical figures are.

Who is to say that Greeks and Romans did not know full well their God's did not exist litterally, and belief in them didn't provide for a better existance?

Mh, the reason I have such a negative stance to religion is the massive amount of negative it creates in this world. I'm happy for the better parts where it helps, but I get furious, for example, when I hear about what happened in Brazil about that nine-year old girl, and even more furious do I get when the Vatican agrees with the Brazil Catholic Church to excommunicate the doctors.

I could give less of a damn of religion that does not affect anyone, except that I actually get joyous if I see someone whom religion changed their life for the positive - but if I see a single action of homophobia, racism, gender discrimination, or anything like that based on religion, i will bite back. I do not accept that kind of **** affecting me... Glad I live in a secular country.
Oh, yeah, and I'm agnostic.

Yes, but I am not trying to debate the existance of God in this thread. Let me reiterate. There is a one in one possibilty that God does OR does not exist. That is what I meant.

My point is that while the question "Should I behave as if I am certain that God exists?" can not be answered by citing the the inability to settle the question "Does God exist?" it can (and should be) answered by a second question: "Considering the world as I know it to be, can God's existence possibly be meaningful?". Because this second question can be answered through the application of the scientific method, the first is fair game.