Jump to content
MultiB48

Can atheists critique religion ?

Can atheists critique religion ?  

8 members have voted

  1. 1. Are atheists better placed to critique religion ?



Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

Get off your high horse, Hindutva fake videos are a norm that the left propagates on SM. They are also used by jihadis to recruit misguided youth in radicalization factories . If they are true, there is no Hindu who is sane will justify innocents killing. Thanks for condemning the jihadis, btw.

Again proving my point, you cannot condemn your religion without a If clause. You would go to extreme length to justify any action and spin any video. But if it is about the other religion, you won’t verify the handle, the source or anything, even with minimum evidence you jump the gun. Remember the Virat Kohli daughter incident when the forum was convinced that the accused was a Muslim without any evidence?

 

I don’t know why are you trying to project yourself as a neutral person when obviously you are not. You have picked a side, it is not wrong and it is not a mistake. You picked a side and you support your side no matter what. I don’t have any side so I don’t support either.  That makes me neutral. 

Edited by ash
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Yoda-esque said:

The joker's on this thread who claimed to be "rationalists" will have no qualms disrespecting shivlings but their balls drop off when it comes to saying anything about some other religion lol


These type of statements adds nothing to the argument, if you can’t contribute to the debate better stay away.  Where have the rationalists in this forum disrespected Shivling? Where did they support the death threats against Nupur? Is there any post like that? 
 

From yesterday I keep saying that I don’t believe in Mohammed, I did not try to prove what Nupur said is fake, I condemned the death threats against her and have repeatedly said Islam also has fanatics. But somehow you guys come up with this victim mentality, as if all atheists in this forum target only Hindus and we give a free pass to Muslims. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, ash said:

Again proving my point, you cannot condemn your religion without a If clause. You would go to extreme length to justify any action and spin any video. But if it is about the other religion, you won’t verify the handle, the source or anything, even with minimum evidence you jump the gun. Remember the Virat Kohli daughter incident when the forum was convinced that the accused was a Muslim without any evidence?

 

I don’t know why are you trying to project yourself as a neutral person when obviously you are not. You have picked a side, it is not wrong and it is not a mistake. You picked a side and you support your side no matter what. I don’t have any side so I don’t support either.  That makes me neutral. 

VK daughter saga happened fresh after Shami controversy which was a Pakistani ISPR triggered one and hence the speculation was it was similar to that and blamed Pakistanis. Nobody blamed Muslims unless you think Muslims and paxtanis  are one and the same which is delusional like Shoaib Malik did. 

 

For me CJWerleman is an idiot like Rihanna, can’t be convinced about his cred.

 

In any case, let’s go back to OP as we are both not wrong as per you and you are allegedly unbiased!!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

Definition of Rationalization ::

 

 

rationalism has it's limitations ,for eg if we take 50+50=100 and then hide 50+50 ,then no amount analysis of the
number 100 will reveal the original source ,you can only get a set of possibilities.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, anyone can. If the argument is "hey ur not perfect coz u got similar flaws" there will never be any discussion or debate on earth coz you know, hypocrisy. I would argue the point of concern isn't whether one can/should criticize, the much bigger concern is whether both sides are able to respond to it in a reasonable manner. At the very least, keep it verbal and not physical.

 

BTW atheists come in various flavors. The scientifically minded ones are driven by the search of truth & facts and hence more critical of some faiths over others. The communists have often been a bunch of criminals. The western woke crowd is primarily driven by PCness. The bunch is diverse and can include people with agendas or biases, and that applies to both sides.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
50 minutes ago, Clarke said:

Of course, anyone can. If the argument is "hey ur not perfect coz u got similar flaws" there will never be any discussion or debate on earth coz you know, hypocrisy. I would argue the point of concern isn't whether one can/should criticize, the much bigger concern is whether both sides are able to respond to it in a reasonable manner. At the very least, keep it verbal and not physical.

 

BTW atheists come in various flavors. The scientifically minded ones are driven by the search of truth & facts and hence more critical of some faiths over others. The communists have often been a bunch of criminals. The western woke crowd is primarily driven by PCness. The bunch is diverse and can include people with agendas or biases, and that applies to both sides.

 

 

I was trying to find if atheists have any viable arguments and alternatives,of course one can question god but religion is not just about god,it has various other constructs attached to that central theme .Which is why it has lasted this long .Even atheistic ,secular societies cant run purely on reason ,evidence and objectivity.

 

As for hypocrisy, what's wrong in exploring it ,is it as horrible as it is made out to be ? I would argue it helps us to live competitive yet healthy lives ,else we might face stagnation or have to outright lie,the alternatives arent that enticing,maybe that's why it's popular.

Edited by MultiB48
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Clarke said:

Of course, anyone can. If the argument is "hey ur not perfect coz u got similar flaws" there will never be any discussion or debate on earth coz you know, hypocrisy. I would argue the point of concern isn't whether one can/should criticize, the much bigger concern is whether both sides are able to respond to it in a reasonable manner. At the very least, keep it verbal and not physical.

 

BTW atheists come in various flavors. The scientifically minded ones are driven by the search of truth & facts and hence more critical of some faiths over others. The communists have often been a bunch of criminals. The western woke crowd is primarily driven by PCness. The bunch is diverse and can include people with agendas or biases, and that applies to both sides.

 

 

As a resident atheist, I will say just one thing - most ironic, a head-scratcher to me, is the existence of organized atheism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

As a resident atheist, I will say just one thing - most ironic, a head-scratcher to me, is the existence of organized atheism.

If you are not an atheist when you are 20 , something is wrong with you.

If you are an atheist after 40, something is wrong with you.

Disappointed guruve! :heh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Clarke said:

Of course, anyone can. If the argument is "hey ur not perfect coz u got similar flaws" there will never be any discussion or debate on earth coz you know, hypocrisy. I would argue the point of concern isn't whether one can/should criticize, the much bigger concern is whether both sides are able to respond to it in a reasonable manner. At the very least, keep it verbal and not physical.

 

BTW atheists come in various flavors. The scientifically minded ones are driven by the search of truth & facts and hence more critical of some faiths over others. The communists have often been a bunch of criminals. The western woke crowd is primarily driven by PCness. The bunch is diverse and can include people with agendas or biases, and that applies to both sides.

 

 

this is very true. I have seen atheists of all stripes and colors; some are sensible people with whom one can engage and some others are fanatics. this is a large community nowadays, so it's difficult to make generalizations

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Vijy said:

this is very true. I have seen atheists of all stripes and colors; some are sensible people with whom one can engage and some others are fanatics. this is a large community nowadays, so it's difficult to make generalizations

US when formed proclaimed, “In God We Trust”. There is serious objection to this by atheists with so many legal petitions that it hurst their sentiments. Towns can’t have Christmas celebrations.

 

Our atheists will copy these strategies very soon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

US when formed proclaimed, “In God We Trust”. There is serious objection to this by atheists with so many legal petitions that it hurst their sentiments. Towns can’t have Christmas celebrations.
 
Our atheists will copy these strategies very soon
That's what's on my car plate.

Imagine govt issued plates saying Jai Shri Ram..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

As a resident atheist, I will say just one thing - most ironic, a head-scratcher to me, is the existence of organized atheism.

Why? Seculars and atheists are better in organizing wars and managing politics than religious groups .It's been quite successful in the last 100 odd years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
16 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

If you are not an atheist when you are 20 , something is wrong with you.

If you are an atheist after 40, something is wrong with you.

Disappointed guruve! :heh:

I wasn't an atheist at 20, but i am an atheist when I am close to 40.

Edited by rkt.india
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you identify yourself as an atheist in order to be considered rationale, you are anyway an idiot. Pardon my French. This is a standard thing about those who are too intellectually bankrupt to even argue based on borrowed ideas. 
 

True atheist will never call himself. Any kind of group think or identity is antithetical to rational thought process. 
 

What you want to check is intellectual sharpness to keep cutting through BS with first principles without getting identified as this or that. Socrates was all about questions. But question so sharp that he had to eventually be taken out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...