Should people be allowed criticize religion?

Dudess

Of course critical thinking can be taught - by education alone.

Richard Dawkins got trotted out - never thought that would happen! :pac:

Dudess

Snowie wrote: »

Dudess wrote: »

I don't think it's right to criticise people for having religious beliefs, but nothing wrong with criticising (constructively) the beliefs themselves. To some people though, the two things are the same.

but yet it's ok for The catholic to criticize people for using condoms or being gay?

i think your being to nice. The Catholic organization deserve to be questioned and critisied more then any other religious movement because of the way its handled its self over the past few years its certainly deserves that much..

I should have clarified I meant people who have faith and are actually non judgemental and charitable etc, the tenets of their faith - not those who subscribe to hate dogma, and of course not the likes of the catholic hierarchy.

Chuck Stone

Dudess wrote: »

Of course critical thinking can be taught - by education alone.

Do you really think so?

I would have thought that traditional formal education would not be amenable to teaching students to think critically.

Dudess

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Dudess wrote: »

Of course critical thinking can be taught - by education alone.

Do you really think so?

I would have thought that traditional formal education would not be amenable to teaching students to be critical.

Maybe certain types of education so? Like in the humanities.

It was the case for me anyway.

Corkfeen

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Do you really think so?

I would have thought that traditional formal education would not be amenable to teaching students to be critical.

I wouldn't say that the Irish secondary or primary school system is suited towards teaching critical thinking. However in university in the various arts faculties, one would tend to learn critical thinking and if you're working at the course, you'll have to work harder at improving your critical faculties to maintain quality. For example with history, you have to consider and analyse the motivations for the various orthodox and revisionist positions etc.

opinion guy

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Was James Clerk Maxwell stupid?

Oh come on now - if you want to go big name scientist who was into religion got for the grand daddy - Isaac Newton. Claimed the bible inspired his prinicpa mathematica and spent 20 years living in isolation trying to decode the secrets of alchemy from the bible (i.e. how to turn **** into gold).

You tell us - was Netwon stupid ??

Its perfectly possible for one person to be very very smart in some ways and very very not smart in others

prinz

opinion guy wrote: »

Its perfectly possible for one person to be very very smart in some ways and very very not smart in others

It is, but do you call them stupid overall?

Snowie

Dudess wrote: »

I should have clarified I meant people who have faith and are actually non judgemental and charitable etc, the tenets of their faith - not those who subscribe to hate dogma, and of course not the likes of the catholic hierarchy.

being honest most of the followers have been brain washed if you ask me...

44leto

But Dawkin's is wrong, religion is a very human thing, it is across all cultures and in all times. The first religious artefacts found dated from 70,000 years just right after the evolution of modern man. The first time art was recorded in the fossil record.

Religion and religious beliefs is part of our genetic evolution and not our cultural one. There are even genes for it, some people have a stronger one then others. As an evolutionary development it was and still is useful.

It is not strong in me, I find atheism easy, I am the atheist in the foxhole, because I can be. I often hear, I am an atheist but I am spiritual and I go whatttt, I am not spiritual there is no spirit, there is no extrasensory connectedness, how can there be.

Even that sense of spirit comes from the same part of the brain religion does, it can be knocked out by a stroke. BUT just because we have religious brains that does not make religion truth, just part of us that has a drive. Man can be educated and as rational as he likes, but just like suppressing your sexual urges, if you repress your religious urges they will find an outlet.

I like humanism, but that to can be very religious at times.

Jimoslimos

Christianity (and in particular, Catholicism) get singled out for criticism because the power it wields has an adverse effect on my life and that of the people around me, whether that be child abuse, women's reproductive rights, homosexuality, etc.

On a broader worldwide scale, I'd also show contempt for the activities of Islam and Evangelical Christians.

Other religions are not free from criticism, Scientology and Judaism, but compared to the big 2 above, their influence is minmal so receive less attention.

I personally regard religions such as Buddhasim, Shinto, Wicca/Paganism, etc, to be as batsh1t crazy as the above but I'm generally uncritical because those religions don't try impose their morals on me.

If religion was politics, it would be akin to me being critical of decisions/policies made by FF for example. I would also reserve the right to be critical of those members/politicians who supported that party blindly (ring any bells) - especially if they could not come up with any rational arguments to back up their decisions. FF gets the bulk of the criticism because it was the major party in the state for the last 80yrs. As things change people will become more critical of FG.

prinz

Snowie wrote: »

being honest most of the followers have been brian washed if you ask me...

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-h2po6TYGfQo/TlzfH2Qnp-I/AAAAAAAAAl4/JD-Vijny7FQ/s1600/31-blessed-415.jpg

...he'll even give you the blowdry treatment afterwards.

Snowie

prinz wrote: »

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-h2po6TYGfQo/TlzfH2Qnp-I/AAAAAAAAAl4/JD-Vijny7FQ/s1600/31-blessed-415.jpg

...he'll even give you the blowdry treatment afterwards.

stop F.Y.Ping people post to make you seem funny :rolleyes:

ffs

Dudess

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

you sound offended.

I get your point about Stephen Fry but there's a vast difference between being offended by something that otherwise won't impinge on your life, and something that is tantamount to hate against the group you're part of.
I agree there's hypocrisy and dismissiveness in that quote by him though - if people find something offensive (within reason) what's wrong with them expressing their point of view?

Dudess

Snowie wrote: »

Dudess wrote: »

I should have clarified I meant people who have faith and are actually non judgemental and charitable etc, the tenets of their faith - not those who subscribe to hate dogma, and of course not the likes of the catholic hierarchy.

being honest most of the followers have been brain washed if you ask me...

Can't agree or disagree because I don't know.

Rocket19

44leto wrote: »

But Dawkin's is wrong, religion is a very human thing, it is across all cultures and in all times. The first religious artefacts found dated from 70,000 years just right after the evolution of modern man. The first time art was recorded in the fossil record.

Religion and religious beliefs is part of our genetic evolution and not our cultural one. There are even genes for it, some people have a stronger one then others. As an evolutionary development it was and still is useful.

It is not strong in me, I find atheism easy, I am the atheist in the foxhole, because I can be. I often hear, I am an atheist but I am spiritual and I go whatttt, I am not spiritual there is no spirit, there is no extrasensory connectedness, how can there be.

Even that sense of spirit comes from the same part of the brain religion does, it can be knocked out by a stroke. BUT just because we have religious brains that does not make religion truth, just part of us that has a drive. Man can be educated and as rational as he likes, but just like suppressing your sexual urges, if you repress your religious urges they will find an outlet.

I like humanism, but that to can be very religious at times.

I'm sorry, but where are you getting this from? Religion or religious beliefs aren't inherent, nor are they inherited genetically. They are learned. It is true that some cultures place very high value on religion, and it is a very human phenomenon. This is due to the human tendency to ask questions, look for answers, explanations, etc.
There is no question that religion is socially constructed.

44leto

Rocket19 wrote: »

I'm sorry, but where are you getting this from? Religion or religious beliefs aren't inherent, nor are they inherited genetically. They are learned. It is true that some cultures place very high value on religion, and it is a very human phenomenon. This is due to the human tendency to ask questions, look for answers, explanations, etc.
There is no question that religion is socially constructed.

http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=genetic%20religion&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CCEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FGod_gene&ei=w7KZT4jBIYTRhAf6l-jwBQ&usg=AFQjCNFn73Rk5j9wnyI78EDSotsYA4oYLg

The theory is gaining ground, but logically its obvious.

A thought experiment, if you put say 10 babies on a desert island fed them and nurtured them without exposing them to any culture.

There are things they will innately develop, they will develop hunger, thirst communication and grammar, a sexuality and religion.

Now I know they will be totally fukc ups aswell, but you get the drift.

Loomis

44leto wrote: »

http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=genetic%20religion&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CCEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FGod_gene&ei=w7KZT4jBIYTRhAf6l-jwBQ&usg=AFQjCNFn73Rk5j9wnyI78EDSotsYA4oYLg

The theory is gaining ground, but logically its obvious.

A thought experiment, if you put say 10 babies on a desert island fed them and nurtured them without exposing them to any culture.

There are things they will innately develop, they will develop hunger, thirst communication and grammar, a sexuality and religion.

Now I know they will be totally fukc ups aswell, but you get the drift.

Due to our brain capacity, we wonder where all 'this' came from. Wondering if we have a creator is not the same as religion. Wondering about a creator is a consequence of our brain power. Religion is a consequence of society.
Neither are genetic.

Duggys Housemate

opinion guy wrote: »

Oh come on now - if you want to go big name scientist who was into religion got for the grand daddy - Isaac Newton. Claimed the bible inspired his prinicpa mathematica and spent 20 years living in isolation trying to decode the secrets of alchemy from the bible (i.e. how to turn **** into gold).

You tell us - was Netwon stupid ??

Its perfectly possible for one person to be very very smart in some ways and very very not smart in others

I chose Maxwell because he was an actual presbyter, newton was a deist.

Rocket19 wrote: »

I'm sorry, but where are you getting this from? Religion or religious beliefs aren't inherent, nor are they inherited genetically. They are learned. It is true that some cultures place very high value on religion, and it is a very human phenomenon. This is due to the human tendency to ask questions, look for answers, explanations, etc.
There is no question that religion is socially constructed.

socially constructed in the sense that language is a construct of whatever social group you are born to, but there is a language gene. All human society has had some form of religion.

opinion guy

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

I chose Maxwell because he was an actual presbyter, newton was a deist.

How is that relevant ?

Duggys Housemate

opinion guy wrote: »

How is that relevant ?

It was relevant because maxwell was very clever.

user098

Should people be allowed criticize religion?

Yes of course, but they should also equally be allowed to criticise atheism, homosexuality, gay marraige etc.

Daith

user098 wrote: »

Yes of course, but they should also equally be allowed to criticise atheism, homosexuality, gay marraige etc.

and interracial marriages I suppose?

user098

Daith wrote: »

and interracial marriages I suppose?

If that's a thing you want to criticise, fire away.

Daith

user098 wrote: »

If that's a thing you want to criticise, fire away.

No sorry. Do you agree that people can criticize religion but they should also equally be allowed to criticise atheism, interracial marriage, homosexuality, gay marraige etc, if they want?

opinion guy

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

It was relevant because maxwell was very clever.

Was Newton not also very clever ?
Actually scratch that - I'm not letting you straw man me.
The point is just because one smart dude was religious does not mean being religious is smart - as you well know

user098

Daith wrote: »

No sorry. Do you agree that people can criticize religion but they should also equally be allowed to criticise atheism, interracial marriage, homosexuality, gay marraige etc, if they want?

In a respectful way yes, along with apples and politicans, and cakes. It's called free speech.

Chuck Stone

Dudess wrote: »

I agree there's hypocrisy and dismissiveness in that quote by him though - if people find something offensive (within reason) what's wrong with them expressing their point of view?

I guess what Fry means is that people use the 'I'm offended by that' statement in an attempt to shut people up who have genuine criticisms.

Daith wrote: »

No sorry. Do you agree that people can criticize religion but they should also equally be allowed to criticise atheism, interracial marriage, homosexuality, gay marraige etc, if they want?

One of these things is not like the others
One of these things just doesn't belong
Can you tell which thing is not like the others
By the time I finish this song?

Sesame Street

J. Marston

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0la5DBtOVNI

Sykk

user098 wrote: »

Yes of course, but they should also equally be allowed to criticise atheism, homosexuality, gay marraige etc.

Homosexuality isn't a belief.. It's not a choice.. Like judging someone from the color of their skin. That's called being a dick...

Duggys Housemate

opinion guy wrote: »

Was Newton not also very clever ?
Actually scratch that - I'm not letting you straw man me.
The point is just because one smart dude was religious does not mean being religious is smart - as you well know

Nope, the original poster I was responding to said that religious believers were universally stupid. I responded with Maxwell, I could have mentioned Newton ( although he was mostly a deist), or - to stick with Christian priests - Bayes, Boole, Faraday, Le Maitre; or just Christians, Descartes and Pascal. And lots more. And the granddaddy of them all Roger Bacon, sometimes called the first scientists -a Franciscan Monk.

Duggys Housemate

Sykk wrote: »

Homosexuality isn't a belief.. It's not a choice.. Like judging someone from the color of their skin. That's called being a dick...

The idea that homosexuality is not a choice is a relatively new idea - up until about a decade ago it was assumed that 10% of men engaged in homosexual behaviour at some times in their life , and a lot of that was often just circumstantial ( i.e. going to a boys school). It used to be considered an act, not a genetic predisposition. It remains about the only genetic predisposition accepted by left wing thinkers, who often deny genetic realities like gender.

Lets accept that homosexuality is something you are born with though, in some cases. Does this mean it cant be criticised, or cured, by people who consider it immoral, or people who what to "cure" themselves? Not really.Its the naturalistic fallacy. If a shrink suggested a cure for shyness ( anti-social behaviour) it would be considered normal, or a cure for ADHD, or OCD - in fact that i what they do all the time. In fact homosexuality used to be considered as a mental dis-order by shrinks - it is a deviation from normal behaviour, as is ADHD et al. It still is in a lot of the literature - like Freud etc.

In any case I personally don't think anybody needs curing of homosexuality, I am merely pointing out the critical thinkers who don't think that religions should be specially privileged and laugh at their taking offence, have their own shibboleths which cant be criticised. It is always thus. We've replaced one set of orthodoxies with another. You can criticise this, but not this.

The difference with racism - I feel I must argue against this straw man - is that nobody can change skin colour, we can possibly change mental pre-delicitions - to shyness, or homosexuality, since the brain is plastic. You may disagree with this, but why get offended when people suggest it.

twinQuins

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

[...]The difference with racism - I feel I must argue against this straw man - is that nobody can change skin colour, we can possibly change mental pre-delicitions - to shyness, or homosexuality, since the brain is plastic. You may disagree with this, but why get offended when people suggest it.

I'll certainly disagree because the body of psychological research shows trying to "cure" homosexuality is incredibly harmful to the human mind. It's complete nonsense only supported by idiots and bigots.

You seem awfully keen to paint anyone who disagrees with that idea as offended - as you've done with Chuck earlier. Any reason for that?

Duggys Housemate

twinQuins wrote: »

I'll certainly disagree because the body of psychological research shows trying to "cure" homosexuality is incredibly harmful to the human mind. It's complete nonsense only supported by idiots and bigots.

You seem awfully keen to paint anyone who disagrees with that idea as offended - as you've done with Chuck earlier. Any reason for that?

Because if people say that is a hurtful, nasty, untruthful thing to say about homosexuality ( i.e. curing it), then they are getting offended.

So sauce for goose and gander here. Let everybody take it on the chin, and I agree that the Pope should be mocked, or Mohammed, and - well pretty much anything.

Duggys Housemate

It's complete nonsense only supported by idiots and bigots.

It used to be standard theory in psychology. In any case that statement is taking offence.

twinQuins

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

It used to be standard theory in psychology. In any case that statement is taking offence.

twinQuins wrote: »

You seem awfully keen to paint anyone who disagrees with that idea as offended - as you've done with Chuck earlier. Any reason for that?

Pointing out that it's an idiotic idea used by bigots is not getting offended. It's just that - pointing out how it's used.

Saying "it used to be standard" is also an insipid argument. Should we hold every old idea as valid simply because there was a time it was held true?

eyescreamcone

If you believe in the christian god and the divinity of jesus and the holy ghost, the virgin birth, original sin, transubstantiation, heaven, assumptions into heaven, purgotary etc etc then you are stupid

Maxwell was an eminent mathemathician and physicist, his study of saturn's rings was way ahead of it's time.
But if he believed in all/any of the gobblydegook listed in the first paragraph, without EVIDENCE, he (more than anyone) should have known better!!!

Duggys Housemate

twinQuins wrote: »

Pointing out that it's an idiotic idea used by bigots is not getting offended. It's just that - pointing out how it's used.

Saying "it used to be standard" is also an insipid argument. Should we hold every old idea as valid simply because there was a time it was held true?

No, but you want to call people stupid and bigoted, which is getting offended at the very idea that people have an idea which is different to yourself. Clearly you are getting upset that somebody is criticising homosexuality.

If a Muslim came on here and said that the Mohammed Cartoons were an idiotic idea used by bigots, we would say he was offended by the Mohammed Cartoons.

This to me seems to be a simple theory. If you weren't offended you wouldn't react. You are offended. Therefore let other people be offended.

Duggys Housemate

eyescreamcone wrote: »

If you believe in the christian god and the divinity of jesus and the holy ghost, the virgin birth, original sin, transubstantiation, heaven, assumptions into heaven, purgotary etc etc then you are stupid

Maxwell was an eminent mathemathician and physicist, his study of saturn's rings was way ahead of it's time.
But if he believed in all/any of the gobblydegook listed in the first paragraph, without EVIDENCE, he (more than anyone) should have known better!!!

People often do do a bit of disconnect between faith and reason even in one brain. I used to be a fan of the NOMA - non-overlapping magisteria, the idea that faith and reason are distinct, even in one mind.

I do understand however, how someone like Dawkins is not going to accept this because the religious side are not keeping their side of the bargin, and are attacking his science more than most other sciences.

moonboy52

Anything that hinders our species development should be questioned.

And that most certainly is organised religion.

One just has to look at our "fornication" TD to see just why :P

twinQuins

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

No, but you want to call people stupid and bigoted, which is getting offended at the very idea that people have an idea which is different to yourself.

No, I'm annoyed that there are people stupid enough to believe such obvious twaddle. I'd be equally annoyed if someone said the earth was flat or the sun orbited the earth. Offended? Obviously not.

But you seem awfully desperate to paint me as such.

And if they're so desperate to justify their prejudice - say what you want about offence that's what it is - then yes, they are stupid for ignoring such facts.

You can cry "offended!" until you're blue in the face but the simple matter is these people are wrong, I'm just pointing that out. Try to twist that if you want, go ahead but I think it's obvious enough to everyone what you're doing.

Clearly you are getting upset that somebody is criticising homosexuality.

Clearly you're getting upset that someone's pointing out the ridiculousness of those ideas.

Care to share why?

If a Muslim came on here and said that the Mohammed Cartoons were an idiotic idea used by bigots, we would say he was offended by the Mohammed Cartoons.

This to me seems to be a simple theory. If you weren't offended you wouldn't react. You are offended. Therefore let other people be offended.

But they're not the same thing. Why are you now resorting to straw men to bolster your argument?

Could it be because I've hit a nerve with you?

MagicSean

Theres a difference between criticism and ridicule. Nobody should be prevented from challenging an idea but likewise nobody should be ridiculed for what they believe, especially if they've been indoctrinated with this belief from an early age.

Duggys Housemate

twinQuins wrote: »

Care to share why?

Cos, I is a homophobe? That's seems like a bit of well poisoning. I already said I dont think homosexuality should be cured, but that

1) People should be allowed to say it
2) The people who condemn people even mentioning curing are getting offended. There is no other word for it.

But they're not the same thing. Why are you now resorting to straw men to bolster your argument?

Could it be because I've hit a nerve with you?

Asking me about whether I hit a nerve, is another attempt at well poisoning. I'll report you next time.

They are exactly the same thing. It could well be, and probably are, bigots who are drawing cartoons of Mohammed - after all one could leave well enough alone. I agree with the rights of secularist to draw cartoons, and for Islam to dislike homosexuality.

You are exactly mirroring religious beliefs here. There is an idea which cant be criticised, even by people who are wrong - but people have the right to be wrong. Thats not all, you move on: anybody who defends the "bigots" is himself probably ( and sub consciously, and unfalisifiably) a bigot. Just like anybody who defended the rights of free speech for heretics, was thought probably a heretic.

The well of "critical thinking" doesn't run very deep. Pretty sure that Dawkins and Hitchens would agree with me ( on all sides taking offence). Fry, less sure there.

Mr.Biscuits

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

It all about how you phrase things and your general inability to say anything intelligently hinders you I think.

Think you might be missing a word there, how deliciously ironic.

twinQuins

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Cos, I is a homophobe? That's seems like a bit of well poisoning. I already said I dont think homosexuality should be cured, but that

1) People should be allowed to say it
2) The people who condemn people even mentioning curing are getting offended. There is no other word for it.

Condemning bad science, perhaps? No, that can't be it, they must be offended.

As I've said, these practices cause psychological harm, how is expressing a desire not to see that harm being caused taking offence? If I say that people who peddle crystal healing are idiots preying on the gullibility of others is that taking offence?

No, it's obviously not. Yet, by your reasoning, it is. How can't you see that?

Asking me about whether I hit a nerve, is another attempt at well poisoning. I'll report you next time.

Can I also report you for the continued assertions that I'm offended? I suggest you check the rules before you report anything.

They are exactly the same thing. It could well be, and probably are, bigots who are drawing cartoons of Mohammed - after all one could leave well enough alone. I agree with the rights of secularist to draw cartoons, and for Islam to dislike homosexuality.

You are exactly mirroring religious beliefs here. There is an idea which cant be criticised, even by people who are wrong - but people have the right to be wrong. Thats not all, you move on: anybody who defends the "bigots" is himself probably ( and sub consciously, and unfalisifiably) a bigot. Just like anybody who defended the rights of free speech for heretics, was thought probably a heretic.

No, I'm saying because you're so insistent that I'm (and anyone else who disagrees with you is) "offended" there must be a reason for that. I'm obviously not yet you can't accept that.

So what's left? Either you're a homophobe who won't admit it, you're being deliberately obtuse or... you really are that obtuse.

Or you're just a WUM. I'd nearly go for that seeing as you're being so dogmatic.

nozzferrahhtoo

Sykk wrote: »

"Shhh, that's discrimination" or "Racist"... I generally dislike Islam as a religion.

One common thing I have noticed during my last 17 years of interest in the subject of religion is that in differing ways most of them are very good at stifling dissent and disapproval. In recent times, especially with the advent of the internet, they are not doing this as effectively, but occasionally we see ingenious ways of shutting people up coming from their camp.

The move some people try to make to equate Islam with a Nation rather than with an idea is one of those ingenious moves. It actually allows people to shut you up by suggesting you are being racist.

There are similar tricks at play within the Jewish faith too where if you dissent with anything one of them says you will find people comparing you to the Nazis.

Simply my advice to you is do not fall for this canard and do not pander to those who try and tell you that disagreement with the ideas of the Islamic religion is in ANY way synonymous with Race. It is a religion like any other and there are people in every country of every race who subscribe to it.

Remember there is no evidence, argument, data or reasons on offer at this time that adds even a modicum of credence to the idea there is a god. So expect those who want to pretend there is to use tricks to shut you up when you dare to point this uncomfortable fact out to them.

toexpress wrote: »

I don't think it needs to be mocked. Why would you do that?

I would not be so quick to dismiss the utility of humor in discussion. Humor and mockery and ridicule... used correctly and not crassly of course... and towards the idea not the person who holds the idea... can be very useful in highlighting the flaws and issues with an idea or system of ideas.

An issue of this of course is that we are dealing with ideas. Ideas can not be offended. That does not stop people getting offended vicariously on their behalf however. While I sympathize with this I certainly refuse to pander to it though. If someone wants to get offended on behalf of an idea that is their business and I wish them well in getting over it.

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

The term "critical thinking" is meaningless. You cant teach it, you either can or you can't.

Not so sure this is true but I fear it would simply end up with us finding out we merely mean different things when we say "Critical thinking" rather than we actually have any real disagreement.

On the face of it however it seems like saying that schools could not teach Art, yet they do. While people clearly have more natural ability towards certain things that others, like art, I see no reason to think such subjects unteachable.

With Critical Thinking for example there is much we can teach. A deep exploration of the fallacies for example... what they are... how to spot them.... why we are prone to them.... and more.... if done with all school children would likely transform massively the content of most of the conversations I have with the religious.

Focusing on statistics would be another massive part of such a course I think. Statistics, how to interpret them, how to critique them, and how they are twisted to make it look like they say something they barely do (my fave always being when two results are 0,0001% and 0,0002% the news papers will go with the Headline like "X causes 100% increase in Y!!!!") would all massively change peoples critical faculties across many areas of discourse.

The evolution of the scientific method, what it is, why we use it, how it developed and the biases and errors it erodes in human inquiry would all be useful issues too.

There is more to add to this list but they are the most obvious in my mind.

44leto wrote: »

Religion and religious beliefs is part of our genetic evolution and not our cultural one. There are even genes for it, some people have a stronger one then others. As an evolutionary development it was and still is useful.

The common cold is also a part of our evolution. What "genes" are you referring to however? I known of no genes "for" religion or religious belief. Just like there are no genes "for" catching the common cold. However genetically we have genes "for" other things which leave us with a predisposition to others things, like the common cold or religious belief.

None of this suggests religion is, was or ever will be "useful" or an evolutionary advantage in anyway.

opinion guy

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Nope, the original poster I was responding to said that religious believers were universally stupid. I responded with Maxwell, I could have mentioned Newton ( although he was mostly a deist), or - to stick with Christian priests - Bayes, Boole, Faraday, Le Maitre; or just Christians, Descartes and Pascal. And lots more. And the granddaddy of them all Roger Bacon, sometimes called the first scientists -a Franciscan Monk.

What difference does it make if one was a deist and the rest were Christian ? Why do you place emphasis on this ?


The point was - even smart people in one area can make stupid decisions in another. You've yet to respond to that. Most likely most of those guys were religionists anyhow because every was and you had to be or get shunned, or worse. Need I trot out Gallileo and his unfortunate experiences ?

mikemac1

It's hard to criticze at times

There was a thread I read yesterday on boards
Someone criticized Alan Shatter and the OP reckoned that person must be anti semitic

Why? Alan Shatter is doing a terrible job imo and I've zero confidence in him
Ooops, can't criticize a man of his faith

irishconvert

Sykk wrote: »

I generally dislike Islam as a religion.. I know it's a massive stereotype, but I think their views on women's rights are absolutely absurd, their religion is based on the belief that people who are not Muslims, should become one, until the world is a Muslim only religion. Muslim believers bring in Islamic Laws into countries that severely violate human rights and especially the rights of women.

Sure, critise away, nothing wrong with intelligent informed critism. But be sure to make sure you know what you are talking about and don't just shout out stereotypical ignorant comments :rolleyes:

Corkfeen

irishconvert wrote: »

Sykk wrote: »

I generally dislike Islam as a religion.. I know it's a massive stereotype, but I think their views on women's rights are absolutely absurd, their religion is based on the belief that people who are not Muslims, should become one, until the world is a Muslim only religion. Muslim believers bring in Islamic Laws into countries that severely violate human rights and especially the rights of women.

Sure, critise away, nothing wrong with intelligent informed critism. But be sure to make sure you know what you are talking about and don't just shout out stereotypical ignorant comments :rolleyes:

So there's complete equality between husband and wives? How about enforcing Sharia law? Would you consider it acceptable for all believers of Islam to be punished under Sharia law. I'm actually genuinely interested as I assume many believers do not agree with the above. Somewhat similar to Irish people and church doctrine. I'd also be interested to hear your opinion on secularism.

efb

Did the nuns 'cure' my grandfather when they got him to write righthanded??,

You cannot 'cure' something that's not ill.