Do we really have the right to criticize peoples' beliefs?
Offline Okay... I've been feeling really confused lately. Now... I've meantioned it before, but I've seen in myself a bit of an "elitist complex." I've been looking around the forums, and around YouTube too at atheist, and theist views. I've seen a lot of atheists that speak about it being "us vs. them." Before becoming an atheist, I had always criticized religion for the fact that they believe that they are completely right, and that they try to impose their beliefs on others. However, it seems that I am doing exactly the things that I despised.
Let me explain. I have a big mouth. I was always facinated by religion, and I always liked to have open discussions about it. Before becoming an atheist, I liked to philophysize. I had some pretty weird ideas on how the world worked, which most were adopted on eastern mythologies. One of my theories I had was that humans were made of energy, and they conincided with an infinite other "yous" in different parellel universes. So you exist infinately, and that explains past lives. Also all religions had basis in facts, because if you thought about something hard enough, it would manifest in the spirit world. So gods like Zeus or Odin were all real. Then I had myself convinced that I was hearing spirits talk to me, and that I had magical powers. As silly as it seems... that's what I believed.
I have now put that all behind me, and turned to atheism. Atheism makes much more sense than anything else I have believed in, which is good. However here is my problem. I have always tried to keep an open mind, and keep my options open. I never wanted to get too involved with any belief structure, in fear that I would lose myself like I have done before. So perhaps I'm reluctant to get too much into atheism because I might lose myself... However, atheism doesn't preach mythology or anything like that, but reason right? But still... I have a hard time believing that I'm right. I used to believe that I was absolutely right when I was in that oogy boogy way of thinking... but does being an atheist automatically make you "right?"
Okay... in summary:
1) Does atheism give you any more of a right to criticize someone else's beliefs?
2) Is atheism the "right" way of thinking or the "truth?"
3) Should atheists look down on religious people?
4) How can you hate the "disease" (religion) without hating the person who carries it?
JESUS SAVES!!! .... and takes only half damage!
- Login to post comments
- Login to post comments
.
1. Ask yourself whether their beliefs affect nonbelievers and believers in other religions. Stem cell research funding is one example, safe sex education in AIDS affected regions is another. If so, their beliefs are not merely "personal," but presume to provide objective explanations of the real world. In that case they should be subjected to scrutiny like any other claim. (I'm paraphrasing Sam Harris partially here.)
2. In the case of religious belief "truth" isn't a very useful word. There are claims that are substantiated and there are others that are not. When the two compete, the choice is whether evidence or faith will be your guide.
3 & 4. It sounds like the "Hate the sin, love the sinner" BS I've been decrying in the other thread. I don't hate any of the theists I know, probably because most of them are just secularists with a sort of spiritual conceit. I don't know any fundamentalists, so I can't predict how I would react to them. The fundamentalists and apologists I've seen and heard from are just an obstacle to progress as far as I'm concerned, which entales quite a lot for humanity's well being, so I don't like them much.
If you view it as a 'right' instead of a human 'responsibility' then there is nothing more I can say to you.
Dear friends,
We are witnessing the continued rise of reason as a new way of life in our society. For thousands of years in our history, religious faith has ruled over human ignorance. The few who looked for answers outside of the theistic box have contributed to all of humanity in ways that we may never fully be able to credit them. Did we ever ask them why? Did we ever question their motivations? My answer is 'No. why should I have? Their motivations weren't the issue.'
We have built an ideology based upon their work and we have continued to add to it. Great human beings have made the list of those whom we quote because our names are not among them... YET.
The voices in our human history that we have heard the most are those unafraid of the consequences in face of the benefits that their ideas brought to humanity's attention. From Russell's teapot to Dawkins' memes and Stanton's women's bible, humanity has been brought to a state of awareness concerning the illogical reasoning behind religious faith... or so one would like to think.
There are so many people in the world that have never heard of these concepts let alone the questions themselves. Some have no reason to think about their own questions either. As one of the activists that willfully associates myself with the Rational Response Squad, I have seen many theists come to the site to defend their theism against the perceived 'onslaught' of atheism and freethought. Atheism has been given the proverbial 'black eye' by religious leaders whose paychecks depend upon those people's unwitting ignorance or worse, by tradition. The people, deluded by empty promises, are the victims even though we are constantly reminded that without them, there would be no theism. It is my opinion, that the religious followers are relatively blameless until their 'faith' approaches cognitive dissonance and/or willful ignorance.
Are we to sit idly by and allow this ignorance to persist? How far can tolerance be stretched until it is depraved indifference? Elie Wiesel, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, once said, "...to remain silent and indifferent is the greatest sin of all..." and I think that we can probably see on an intersubjective basis that it rings true for us as well.
Yet we are moved by our professed compassion to simply 'allow them their god(s)' and declare that we are tolerant of their religious ideology. I want you, on an individual basis, to ask and answer one question of yourself: "Can tolerance be negligent?"
I have answered this question for myself. That is why I am outspoken concerning what I perceive as the harmful ideology or 'mind virus' that is theism. I was negligently tolerant for far too long and I realized that it manifested itself as a sort of 'elitism', but that is when I asked myself the question. I was guilty in the past of depraved indifference toward my fellow humankind. I have a chance to make up for that by using my own voice and those of great atheists that came before me to make a difference in this world.
I understand the anxiety that accompanies speaking one's mind when in the minority. However, the time for fear has passed. As I said at the outset of this letter: "We are witnessing the continued rise of reason as a new way of life in our society." Shall we sit idly by and watch as society stumbles into ignorance or give it a hand to hold onto and aid it in learning how to think for itself devoid of belief in god(s)? The choice, as ever, is yours to make, but you are not alone in your decision.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
There is an article about this very topic in this month's Skeptical Inquirer - about how atheist vs. atheist, we divide ourselves into two disparate camps.
Dawkins, Sam Harris, et al are considered the 'militant' branch while others feel that as long as someone's beliefs aren't shown to be incorrect, then it's not our place to dissuade them. The second group wants religion out of science completely, however.
My personal standard is a variant on a theme found in the Bible: "Thou shalt not suffer a theist to live." By being direct, we risk injuring someone's ego - by being passive, we let them think incorrect things.
For the pacifist atheists, I suggest the concept of a three year old and a hot stove. You can tell the three year old (theist) that they shouldn't touch the stove burner (believe in invisible parental units in the sky) because it's "hot" (read: moronic), but the average three year old will touch said burner out of curiousity (stupidity, brainwashing, laziness, et al).
Instead of letting them burn themselves (become religious because it's nonoffensive), I suggest direct education and counseling. Watching 300 in the theaters again was a call to action - that few can stand against many, that reason, thought and justice can prevail over the idiocy and backwardness of faith.
We should be on the attack, not the defensive.
"Like Fingerpainting 101, gimme no credit for having class; one thumb on the pulse of the nation, one thumb in your girlfriend's ass; written on, written off, some calling me a joke, I don't think that I'm a sellout but I do enjoy Coke."
-BHG
Our very existence is an affront to them. We need only stand and wait for them to come to us, much as the Spartans did in your movie analogy.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
It sounds to me as if you're almost trying to make atheism out to be a religion (whether intentional or not). I've heard many strong atheists who try to say that atheism is about more than just lacking belief in god(s). Atheism is simply the opposite of theism. Nothing more, nothing less. There are irrational atheists just as there are irrational theists. The atheist who says there's absolutely no chance whatsoever that any higher power exists is just as irrational as the theist who says that god absolutely exists without any imperical evidence. If imperical evidence were to ever present itself I'm sure most atheists would then become theists.
As for criticizing religion, I don't see why more respect should be given to someone's belief than to any other aspect of life. If someone were to say to a Christian that he holds the belief that there is a giant cyclopse in the sky that holds a flaming sword, ready to smite those who do evil the Christian would promptly attempt to refute that belief and impose his own. The atheist, when hearing irrationality, should feel inclined to do the same, should he so choose. Belief in something for which there is no evidence can be very harmful and should be treated as such, which brings me to the last point.
Concerning hatred for religion, one should not hate the religious. It is a disease of the mind that these people possess. You wouldn't hate someone because they have cancer would you? On the contrary the person should be encouraged to seek treatment for their disease. The chemotherapy for theism is rational thought.
1) Being human gives you the right to criticize other beliefs. The only people who have more right to criticize anyone are those who know what they're talking about.
2) Depends. Is atheism faith that there is no god, at all, or is it a belief that none of the known gods are correct? I, myself, think that there is no way to know there is no god, but if there is one, we've not found it, and it likely doesn't care. Am I wrong? I don't know for certain, no one can. But to hold to the belief that it is impossible for a god to exist assumes that all the many untrue religions we have on earth are the only possible gods, which is arrogant and unprovable, and disproven every time a new deity emerges somewhere (which probably happens on a monthly basis).
3) No, unless they do something to deserve it.
4) You hate AIDS, I assume. Do you hate those who carry it? Most believers, especially those born into it, were indoctrinated from birth. They're victims as much as they are victimizers, often more so.
Look at my blog! It's awesome!
I'm also on this Twitter thing
Atheist or theist, you could view it as being your responsibility to point out what you perceive as incorrect beliefs as incorrect.
I wouldn't see atheism as a way of thinking but rather as a view of truth.
We shouldn't really look down on religious people; we should look down on them for what they do.
You hate the disease and love the carrier by trying to kill the disease.
"What right have you to condemn a murderer if you assume him necessary to "God's plan"? What logic can command the return of stolen property, or the branding of a thief, if the Almighty decreed it?"
-- The Economic Tendency of Freethought
Yeah, I must admit sometimes I feel this way. What gives me the right to say, "That's retarded." ?
But then I see the other people in my life pussyfooting around people's ludicrous religious beliefs. It's like, we all make fun of the guy who thinks global warming is a conspiracy, or scientologists, or the tinfoil hat guy on The Drive, but the moment a christian(or other theist, this is just the most common) person is brought up everyone gets all uncomfortable looking, and then it's all, "Well, I don't agree with that, but I 'RESPECT THE BELIEF'."
And that's when I just kind of have to ask, "Why?" They honestly think the person's beliefs are just as ridiculous and laughable as the other things, but the religion card makes it SO innapropriate somehow? It's not just a case of a deeply held belief, because holocaust deniers and people who believe in fairies BELIEVE it, and some base their whole LIVES on those "facts". It's just the fact that we've been brought up not to criticize these beliefs for the solitary reason that they are a religion, and criticizing religion is a "no no".
Someone on here said something that really made me think. Hypothetical situation.
You have a blue chair. Someone sitting with you points to it and says, "Hey, that's a nice yellow chair."
What would you do? Smile politely and nod? Or say, "That's not a yellow chair. That's a blue chair."
Criticism is not inherently bad in itself. It's a valuable tool that humans use to evaluate and re-evaluate the concepts, ideas and habits that we have in our lives.
Do I sometimes feel "elitist"? Yes.... Probably the same way Galileo felt while being prosecuted by the Church. Is it right to feel that we're better or smarter than the religious? Don't know.
Sometimes I feel like I'm telling a 3 yo that Santa Claus doesn't exist.
Religion is a disease of the mind. No question about it. It will make people jump around naked if they believed God commanded it.
However, humans are sheep (most of us). Not all humans are ready to think for themselves, like us (here I am being elitist again). Like children, they need to be guided. Like children, they need Santa Claus.
Religion works as a sort of "parent" for these sheeps. Moral guide, spiritual comfort, etc.. we all know all that bullcrap.
But I wonder if one day, Religion was suddenly gone. Would we have civil war? These sheeps without religion or philosophy would have nothing to live for. Specially the poor. Religion is particularly important for the poor and the suffering because it gives them comfort.
Bah.. I'm just rambling.. I know I didn't have any logical point in this post.
http://www.dailywackadoo.com
I think its a duty.
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
I don't think it's elitist. Religion is simply beneath us -- all of us. You literally have to affect an impairment of your basic faculties not to see that the major religions don't stand apart from the continuum of mythology.
That question would *seem* to imply that other belief systems tend to refrain from doing this more-so than atheism. This couldn't be further from the truth, at least as far as most religions are concerned. That said, I don't believe being an atheist gives me the right to criticize someone's beliefs. I believe having knowledge they do not gives me that right; just as I might criticize someone who thinks 94 octane gasoline has "more power" in it.
Atheism is, for now, the "truth". Atheism only refers to lack of belief in a spiritual deity, not a complete set of beliefs or views(as Christian or Hindu might).
3) Should atheists look down on religious people?
I don't believe anyone should look down on anyone, but that doesn't mean you should respect every belief you come accross. Expanding earth? I don't look down on that guy, but I sure do look down on his line of thinking.
As has been mentioned, one can hate AIDS without hating AIDS carriers. However, a serial killer maybe one who suffers from a sociopathic disorder. Is this the killer's fault? Likely not, but it would be hard to argue a case for not faulting the killer for the murders. Don't hate anyone for what they are, if you must hate someone, hate them because of what they do.