A question of morals

Zukustious

Why is it morally wrong to crticise a religion. This is partly inspired by the thread about the catholic church losing it's touch. Why is it that I am obliged to respect someone's beliefs? Say if I were to proclaim that most religions are preposterous, I would, for some reason, be frowned upon. I don't get it. If something is obviously silly, why is it that I have to accept the fact that people follow this way of life, and not point out how crazy it is? If I were to tell you of Jeff, the giant giraffe who brings you into some kind of afterlife, would you have to respect that? What's the deal?

dudara

Because when you criticise a religion, you're criticising peoples beliefs. And to some people, those beliefs define them.

I personally do think all religion is a waste of valuable human time. But I won't criticise anyones beliefs.

However, while I was typing this, I realised that I will criticise peoples opinions, but never their beliefs. It seems odd, but does anyone else think this way?

Sleepy

Because morality is something defined differently by each person. To me it's not immoral at all. It can be considered rude by some and tbh I know this when I criticise it myself, I'm just not the type of person that is overly-concerned about being rude about something that disgusts me. I'd be far more tolerant of people's religious choices IRL than on this board where the discussion of such matters is pretty much the purpose of the thread. To me, that's all about context. I'm not about to castigate someone on the street for wearing a crucifix, but if they spout what I consider to be religious nonsense on a Humanities themed bulletin board, I feel safe to assume that they are prepared to debate about their faith. Why else would you post about it here?

pretty*monster

If someone’s beliefs involve limiting your freedom or criticising your way of life in any way (religious nuts of all creeds basically) then I think ok to criticise them.

But if they're just going about their own business believing what they believe then it's not really fair to criticise them.

Sleepy

dudara wrote:

Because when you criticise a religion, you're criticising peoples beliefs. And to some people, those beliefs define them.

I personally do think all religion is a waste of valuable human time. But I won't criticise anyones beliefs.

However, while I was typing this, I realised that I will criticise peoples opinions, but never their beliefs. It seems odd, but does anyone else think this way?

Personally I'd find it very difficult to distinguish between an opinion and a belief
tbh.

dictionary.com wrote:

be·lief ( P ) Pronunciation Key (b-lf)
n.
The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another: My belief in you is as strong as ever.
Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: His explanation of what happened defies belief.
Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.


o·pin·ion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-pnyn)
n.
A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof: “The world is not run by thought, nor by imagination, but by opinion” (Elizabeth Drew).
A judgment based on special knowledge and given by an expert: a medical opinion.
A judgment or estimation of the merit of a person or thing: has a low opinion of braggarts.
The prevailing view: public opinion.
Law. A formal statement by a court or other adjudicative body of the legal reasons and principles for the conclusions of the court.

Dictionary.com would seem to have a similar problem in definint the differences between the two.

Zukustious

pretty*monster wrote:

But if they're just going about their own business believing what they believe then it's not really fair to criticise them.

Why? There's a point here like. They're believing something that's founded on absolutely nothing. It doesn't make sense.

If it's my belief that religion is a load of nonsense and you'd have to be a bit thick to follow it, would those who complain that I'm bitching about their beliefs have to respect my belief? Seems to me that this whole thing of not touching religion is just an excuse for people who can't properly defend it. It's as though they just don't want to talk about it and it seems to me like a pretty weak escape from a debate on the topic.

Zombrex

There is a difference between criticising a religion and attacking someone for believe in it.

For example, the Catholic church telling people not to wear condoms I believe is wrong and stupid, and I will tell people that. Likewise the Bible saying homosexuals are sinful I think is wrong and stupid.

But I would never attack (i don't mean physically) or citicise someone for their personal beliefs unless it was, as Sleepy said, in a forum of debate. I would not go down the road shouting at Catholics for being stupid just because I don't agree with the Pope. But I still have the right to say "I don't agree with the Pope or the Church, what they preach is stupid". If that makes Catholics angry or insecure I really don't care.

nesf

I don't think it has anything to do with morality to be honest. I think you are confusing the right to have an opinion with the right to force that opinion on others. The first one exists, the second one doesn't.

Condemning religion when talking to a similar minded person in private is fine. Forcing a person into a debate about it because you disagree with their beliefs is wrong. By all means ask them if they want to talk about it, but if they choose not to, you must respect that. Openly condemning it in a manner that could insult people who truly believe in their faith is not PC and you are not showing courtesy to other's beliefs and their choice of life. It has nothing to do with morality which is essentially subjective to the situation.


See this is the thing. People have beliefs. Everyone does. People have a right to their beliefs.

You do not have a right to belittle their beliefs and if you insist on doing this you cannot expect them to just take it and not be insulted or angry. I'm not saying you can't do it, it's just you seem to expect people to listen to you and go "Hey your right! My lifelong deeply held belief in my religion is wrong! It's so clear now!" etc. People don't work that way.

If some guy came upto me and told me I was an idiot for a belief of mine being idiocy in his opinion, I would be less than impressed, and I can assure you that my response wouldn't be polite.

However if I choose to debate a belief of mine then it is fine. If I choose to engage in discussion about my beliefs I must accept that not everyone will agree with them. The important part though is choosing this. You cannot choose for them.

Some of the most intellegent and educated people I know are deeply religious. Personally I'm not. But I respect their beliefs. I do not belittle them for holding these beliefs. That is up there on the list of basic things about other people you have to respect.

You need to respect, in no particular order,

a) privacy
b) body
c) religious beliefs
etc.

There is a long list of them. You know they are the basic things involved with being part of our society.

simu

Didn't we already have a thread on the exact same topic all of a few weeks ago?

/edit

Ah yes, here it is: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=244346

rightleftright

For example, the Catholic church telling people not to wear condoms I believe is wrong and stupid, and I will tell people that. Likewise the Bible saying homosexuals are sinful I think is wrong and stupid.

Wrong and stupid?!
Something un-natural and dirty like homosexuality is wrong and shouldnt be de-classified just becuase we have suddenly arrived at a time in our history where liberals are actually being listened to, which has been a big mistake.

rightleftright

something that disgusts me.

Sleepy, is its just the catholic religion that disgusts you?

nesf

rightleftright wrote:

Wrong and stupid?!
Something un-natural and dirty like homosexuality is wrong and shouldnt be de-classified just becuase we have suddenly arrived at a time in our history where liberals are actually being listened to, which has been a big mistake.

Why is homosexuality wrong?

Regular sex is very dirty and messy.

Driving around in car's is unnatural.

And animal husbandry is both unnatural and dirty.

Are the above wrong too?

*pokes the troll with a stick*

rightleftright

*pokes the troll with a stick*

Pokes troll back with a bigger stick.

Why is homosexuality wrong?

Its un-natural. Men arent created to have intercourse with other men. Simple. If everyone was gay then we would have no future and woundnt exist!

ApeXaviour

rightleftright wrote:

Men arent created to have intercourse with other men.

Sure they were.. Why not? Who says so? It's not like there is a victim..

rightleftright wrote:

Simple. If everyone was gay then we would have no future and woundnt exist!

If everyone was sterile this might also be the case.. Should we persecute sterile people?

Silly boy

rightleftright

Sure they were.. Why not? Who says so? It's not like there is a victim..

Sick. Whoever has warped your mind has done a very good job.

If everyone was sterile this might also be the case.. Should we persecute sterile people?

No we should not. And obviously sterile people cannot have children. Either can old people, babys........etc....

nesf

The meaning of life is not to procreate.

It's 42.

rightleftright

The meaning of life is not to procreate.

Well done, great post :rolleyes:

ApeXaviour

rightleftright wrote:

Sick. Whoever has warped your mind has done a very good job.

Why.. because your logic falters utterly? Take an objective point of view will you. To you, my mind is warped. To me, your mind is warped. However, so far I have the benefit of deduction and reasoning. You have nothing but speculation based on the ever fallible "it just is" argument.

Either put up or shut up..

rightleftright

Why.. because your logic falters utterly? Take an objective point of view will you. To you, my mind is warped. To me, your mind is warped. However, so far I have the benefit of deduction and reasoning. You have nothing but speculation based on the ever fallible "it just is" argument.

Well I believe the majority of the Irish people think the same way. So I think your the idoit with the warped mind mate!
Wasnt gays illegal a few years ago? And you think it pure, natural etc..!

Fysh

rightleftright wrote:

Well I believe the majority of the Irish people think the same way. So I think your the idoit with the warped mind mate!
Wasnt gays illegal a few years ago? And you think it pure, natural etc..!

Dude.

You're posting on the internet via a computer powered by a national electricity network. Talking about what's natural and wrongly assuming that this is the same as "what happens in nature when there's no species around intelligent enough to manipulate its environment to suit it better" is not a clever way to go. Besides which, you seem to be equating "natural" (ie occuring in nature) with "legal" (ie in accordance with man-made codes of conduct). Well done.

Never mind the extremely reductive view you're claiming to adopt through which being gay is wrong because they "can't reproduce". Firstly, thanks to current gene technology, they can.

Secondly, what about sterile heterosexual people? Should they be banned or killed since they can't reproduce? Or what about the handicapped?

Thirdly, you've yet to give a valid reason (ie not "they can't reproduce, invalid because of my previous point) as to why homosexuality is wrong. Contrary to what you seem to believe, it is natural - not only because it occurs in the world and does not violate any known scientific laws (and therefore must be "natural" by the word's proper definition) but also because it has been observed frequently in various mammalian species (therefore being "natural" by your convoluted interpretation of the word). Off the top of my head dogs and bonobos come to mind, and I'm sure there's more. Hell, in nature we've recently had necrophiliac homosexuality observed in ducks. I suspect nature is a lot more open-minded than you care to give it credit for.

Then we've got the fact that we're a democratic nation (which you seem to have missed, judging by your posts in other threads). You don't get to force your beliefs on anyone, no matter how much you'd like to. You can't tell someone who they can be attracted to, what job they can do, or what religion to follow. Deal with it. If you really genuinely believe yourself to be in the right and the majority, feel free to start a campaign for the constitution to be amended to make homosexuality illegal again. I don't see you getting all that far.

Lastly, you've yet to provide any sort of argument whatsoever as to why I should respect or pay attention to your beliefs (much less adopt them myself); apparently all you can do when confronted with people who disagree with you is label them deviants and try to claim that the irish population agrees with you (again not bothering to do anything daft like, oh, say, prove it. In the context of this thread, I'll accept a recent non-biased public survey regarding people's opinions on homosexuality and whether it should be legal, as a starting point).

Zombrex

rightleftright wrote:

Its un-natural. Men arent created to have intercourse with other men. Simple. If everyone was gay then we would have no future and woundnt exist!

Blow jobs have absolutely no evolutionary purpose. The only reason why we hope to god your girlfriend/boyfriend is in the mood to do them is because they feel nice.

Does that mean blow jobs are sick and un-natural. THe next time a girl goes down on you (I assume you are a man) are you going to scream and run out the room ... i doubt it :rolleyes:

ApeXaviour

Well said fysh

I've just outlined my argument for this in a more relevent thread however:
http://rightleftrighttalksbollox.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=252960&page=3

Sleepy

rightleftright wrote:

Sleepy, is its just the catholic religion that disgusts you?

Judging from your other posts I get the feeling I'm wasting my time but I'll answer it anyway. No. All forms of religion disgust me. I believe mankind is too strong a species to have need of such a crutch as the belief in an afterlife, too violent a species to have unnecessary divisions, too intelligent a species to believe in the notion of a deity when no proof of one is available and too important a species to allow die because some idiot believes that their wealth is better spent on gold chalices, mosques, cathedrals etc than on feeding their fellow man.

nesf

Sleepy wrote:

Judging from your other posts I get the feeling I'm wasting my time but I'll answer it anyway. No. All forms of religion disgust me. I believe mankind is too strong a species to have need of such a crutch as the belief in an afterlife, too violent a species to have unnecessary divisions, too intelligent a species to believe in the notion of a deity when no proof of one is available and too important a species to allow die because some idiot believes that their wealth is better spent on gold chalices, mosques, cathedrals etc than on feeding their fellow man.

MAY GOD SMITE YOU FOR YOUR INSOLENCE!!

*waits impatiently*

zenith

rightleftright banned for not particularly relevant *ism and dragging the whole thing off topic.

Was going to be a warning until I noticed that others were having trouble with him.

Sleepy

nesf wrote:

MAY GOD SMITE YOU FOR YOUR INSOLENCE!!

*waits impatiently*

You're not the first to suggest that and I remain unsmote so I suggest you don't wait around

nesf

Sleepy wrote:

You're not the first to suggest that and I remain unsmote so I suggest you don't wait around

This God fella isn't really very pro-active is he?

Wibbs

Wicknight wrote:

Blow jobs have absolutely no evolutionary purpose.

I would say they do as they're likely to engender feelings of intimacy and make it more likely that a couple would stay together for longer thereby increasing their chances of reproducing successfully. Pretty good for a species all in all. Well that's my excuse when I'm looking to recieve one anyway. Use it yourselves with my blessing.....

On topic for a moment. I do think religion needs to be debated but respect for others beliefs has to be acknowledged so long as they don't interfere with the running of a modern society. The interpertation of some creeds is far more dangerous than others. The anti abortion christians who target doctors are one, radical islam being an even bigger example.

My worry for liberalism in the face of creeds like radical islam is that we'll keep on espousing the (laudable)notion that all cultures are equally valid while our rights, or at least our freedom to speak out is slowly eroded by the very PC liberalism that was designed to protect such rights.

I remember when salman rushdies "the satanic verses" came out amid all the fatwa nonsense there was a joke doing the rounds along the lines of; the title of mr. rushdies new book is going to be "buddha is a bollex". It was funny in one way because you can't imagine a buddhist strapping semtex to themselves and blowing up a writer. catholics are a fairly easy target too.

How many here would feel uncomfortable(on many levels) if someone was to critique radical islam in the same way. I know I would, but any religion that responds violently to my right to have a valid opinion makes me very uncomfortable indeed.

elvenscout742

Sleepy wrote:

Judging from your other posts I get the feeling I'm wasting my time but I'll answer it anyway. No. All forms of religion disgust me. I believe mankind is too strong a species to have need of such a crutch as the belief in an afterlife, too violent a species to have unnecessary divisions, too intelligent a species to believe in the notion of a deity when no proof of one is available and too important a species to allow die because some idiot believes that their wealth is better spent on gold chalices, mosques, cathedrals etc than on feeding their fellow man.

Look, I do not disagree with you, IN PRINCIPLE, but what you are saying does not fully apply to all religions.

Mythologies (some more than others - Hebrew mythology is fairly narrow, IMO) provide us with an infinitely deep well of funny, beautiful and exciting stories, and we have religion to thank for that (or perhaps the other way round - I'm not going to get into that, though).

Most religions provide fairly sound advice as to how one should live one's life, and do not promote imperialism and hatred like Christianity does. The belief in gods and goddesses is not holding humanity back - that is done wonderfully by small groups of Christian fundamentalists and the like.

Our ability to imagine such gods and goddesses has been called by many the main difference between us and the lower animals on this planet. How can we be too intelligent for religion if everyone else is too stupid for it?

Phil_321

elvenscout742 wrote:

Our ability to imagine such gods and goddesses has been called by many the main difference between us and the lower animals on this planet. How can we be too intelligent for religion if everyone else is too stupid for it?

I like your logic.

Donkey: Doesn't believe in God
Human: Believes in God

Human is more intelligent than donkey therefore there must be a God.

I don't have any respect for any religion or peoples' religious 'beliefs'. I wonder how many Christians would look at an American Indian doing a rain dance and not say to themselves "What a load of bollox". Sure their own beliefs are just as absurd.

elvenscout742

Believe what you want, but that's not what I said, and I don't have to listen to you.

elvenscout742

HEY! Donkeys aren't intelligent enough to imagine such a god!

Fysh

Well, the problem with what you said is that our intelligence is what made us conceive of gods and goddesses back in the day, and yet now that our intelligence and the scientific method it led us to has thrown many questions about the legitimacy of such gods and goddesses as anything other than stories you don't seem to think that we should apply that intelligence to what we believe.

Put it this way : in my opinion, there is only one difference between someone ardently believing in the Christian God and someone believing in an invisible pink rhinoceros. The difference being accumulated history and duration of the belief conferring on it the appearance of legitimacy (because all those millions of people couldn't have been wrong, could they?). In the abscence of any kind of proof, it's illogical.

People who just sort of amblingly go along with it and to whom religion is basically a source of ethics don't count. I'm not talking about the social or political effects of religion, I'm talking about the faith part.

Zukustious

rightleftright wrote:

Something un-natural and dirty like homosexuality is wrong and shouldnt be de-classified just becuase we have suddenly arrived at a time in our history where liberals are actually being listened to, which has been a big mistake.

Now this is what I'm talking about. Let's say I were to say this man's beliefs on homosexuality were ridiculous. He's saying it's not natural, despite the fact that it is, as it seemingly occurs in nature. I'd imagine most people would have no problem with me saying this man's beliefs are silly. Why is it a bit of a taboo to say belief in god is silly too?

nesf

Zukustious wrote:

Now this is what I'm talking about. Let's say I were to say this man's beliefs on homosexuality were ridiculous. He's saying it's not natural, despite the fact that it is, as it seemingly occurs in nature. I'd imagine most people would have no problem with me saying this man's beliefs are silly. Why is it a bit of a taboo to say belief in god is silly too?

Actually some people would take serious issue with you thinking his beliefs were silly. Just pop over to stormfront and see for yourself.

It's not taboo to say belief in god is silly, it's a mark of respect to people who do have faith that we don't ridicule their beliefs. Saying God is silly will just insult and get some peoples backs up.

For instance I have a few friends that are very homophobic. I don't talk about how natural and normal homosexuality is to them because they would be very uncomfortable. It's a mark of respect to them rather than anything else.

Zukustious

Well, in fairness, this guy doesn't deserve much in the respect department, as he blatently just said homosexuals are unnatural, which is hugely disrespecting to them no?

I think it's perfectly right to say belief in god is silly, because that's what it is. God is founded on nothing, only other people saying it's true, which is without a doubt silly.

elvenscout742

Fysh wrote:

People who just sort of amblingly go along with it and to whom religion is basically a source of ethics don't count. I'm not talking about the social or political effects of religion, I'm talking about the faith part.

Well, as I'm sure I said (or if I didn't, I was probably thinking it so much that on some level I felt it was implied), most religions do not place so much emphasis of "faith", but on how one should live one's life. Just look hard at other religions from around the world: you'll see it. I agree entirely, however, that Christianity is an extremely dangerous thing.

Zukustious wrote:

Well, in fairness, this guy doesn't deserve much in the respect department, as he blatently just said homosexuals are unnatural, which is hugely disrespecting to them no?

Not to mention plain incorrect. If homosexuality wasn't a part of nature, it wouldn't exist.

Zukustious wrote:

I think it's perfectly right to say belief in god is silly, because that's what it is. God is founded on nothing, only other people saying it's true, which is without a doubt silly.

Actually, why not try reading some books on the origins of myth and the Gods, before going onto the Internet and saying something silly like that? May I suggest the "Masks of God" series by Joseph Campbell or Brian Branston's The Lost Gods of England? (I should point out to those of ye unfamiliar with these writers, they are not some intolerant fundamentalists or Creationists; they were two of the greatest scientists in their field.)

Sleepy

nesf wrote:

For instance I have a few friends that are very homophobic. I don't talk about how natural and normal homosexuality is to them because they would be very uncomfortable. It's a mark of respect to them rather than anything else.

So, you think you're doing your friends a favour by allowing their bigotry go unqestioned?

Zukustious

elvenscout742 wrote:

Actually, why not try reading some books on the origins of myth and the Gods, before going onto the Internet and saying something silly like that? May I suggest the "Masks of God" series by Joseph Campbell or Brian Branston's The Lost Gods of England? (I should point out to those of ye unfamiliar with these writers, they are not some intolerant fundamentalists or Creationists; they were two of the greatest scientists in their field.)

What did they have to say?

mrben

I think it's perfectly right to say belief in god is silly, because that's what it is. God is founded on nothing, only other people saying it's true, which is without a doubt silly.

How dare you say that. Jesus Christ died on the cross for our sins. Just because something isnt proven by science doesnt mean its not true. How can you say Jesus didnt come to earth 2000 years ago?
Its very sad listening to people like you.

Fysh

mrben wrote:

How dare you say that. Jesus Christ died on the cross for our sins.

No, Jesus Christ died on the cross to allow us the possibility of redemption from Original Sin, which was lumped on us by His Dad. Not the same thing, and utterly irrelevant if you aren't a committed Christian.

I note how swifly you removed the "cockroach" comment too, although it's rather telling of your opinion of anyone not as devout as you. And tends to suggest that you're nowhere near as loving of your fellow man as your alleged saviour suggested you should be.

mrben wrote:

Just because something isnt proven by science doesnt mean its not true. How can you say Jesus didnt come to earth 2000 years ago?
Its very sad listening to people like you.

It's far sadder listening to people like you, who don't see the comedic value of trying to claim that God put dinosaur skeletons in the earth to test people's faith in him.

It is generally accepted that there was a philosopher called Jesus around 2000 years ago. Where people argue is over what he said and what he did, especially when some of the written records seem to date from rather later than his actual lifespan.

There again, where a science-oriented person likes me loses any interest is in reading the bible wherein Jesus carried out miracles on a regular basis. Firstly Thomas is mocked for having doubts, despite the presence of various other religions in the world and the commandment that one should have no false gods (which you might expect to encourage some degree of care in who you follow and worship, but apparently not). Then (more importantly) we've got the lack of any miracles these days. Surely if God is up there, and genuinely wants us to believe, a bit of proof isn't much? A burning tree that talks to you, whatever you want. Proof is not much to ask. Until you ask the converse question - what's the benefit of a congregation that believes without proof? The benefit is that they do what you tell them, conferring power on you as the preacher or head of church.

mrben

only when you come face to face with the lord when you die will you think, why was i such an idiot.

oneweb

mrben wrote:

only when you come face to face with the lord when you die will you think, why was i such an idiot.

I already know why you're an idiot.

Fysh

mrben wrote:

only when you come face to face with the lord when you die will you think, why was i such an idiot.

Nah. Actually I'll think "wait a minute, this hypocrite was in charge the whole time? Wow, men really *were* made in the image of God."

Then I'll kick his ass for it. Or attain whatever the afterlife's equivalent of death is while trying to, anyway.

mrben

Then I'll kick his ass for it.

God will send you straight to hell for all eternity.

Fysh

mrben wrote:

God will send you straight to hell for all eternity.

So you say. But then again, the old testament and new testament don't really tally all that well do they? Old testament was fire and brimstone, new testament was the new covenant of forgiveness under which man could "redeem" himself (from a corruption present through God's own work, presumably - but people tend to skim over that part...).

Since there's little to no evidence regarding what God can or cannot do, much less what the soul can hypothetically do when departed from the body and faced with this hypothetical God, you should really withhold judgement on whether I can kick his arse or not until my boots are within punting range of his buttocks, so to speak.

This is getting to the playground level now, though....

amp

Mr Ben is no longer welcome in Humanities and has been banned for personal abuse.

elvenscout742

Zukustious wrote:

What did they have to say?

An awful lot. The former is 1,600 pages long. They get fairly complicated, so I'm going to bother explaining it in detail (I haven't actually read that much of Masks of God myself, anyway) but one can be sure that religion can't be fully removed from the human consequences... EVER.

Zukustious

mrben wrote:

God will send you straight to hell for all eternity.

See this kind of thing is silly. Why would God send you to a place of eternal torture for not believing in him? It's just cruel. That's not an all loving God, or all forgiving for that matter.

Boston

Sleepy wrote:

So, you think you're doing your friends a favour by allowing their bigotry go unqestioned?

There are worse things then being a homophobe. Nobody is perfect, and it is merely a character flaw, the person on the whole may be an ok person. For some people it would be an irreconcilable character flaw for others it would not. you have to get on with your life, no matter how distasteful it maybe and you can't challenge every bigot out there.

Eoghan-psych

Zukustious wrote:

Why is it morally wrong to crticise a religion.

It isn't. Religion is just another idea - until such time as a particular religion is demonstrated to be valid, religion is just as open for criticism as any other idea.