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.