Talk:Criticism of religion/Archive 2

message: ::Is there any relation between Poverty, corruption, Hunger and attrocities on women and children in India with Hindu Religion?
:::vkvora 17:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poverty, Corruption and Hindu Religion. 

message: Proof for this is the very clear sixth commandment in Jewish, Christian and Muslim religions concerning murder. These three religions have clashed so many times in the past, with a profane number of deaths. This violence continues in the present day, particularly in the Middle East, a key centre for these religions. The
This is getting involve in too much details in specific religious doctrine. Furthermore it is highly misleading because while Islam does "respect" the sixth commandment, there are also other verses in the Koran that clearly commands muslims (during the time of the prophet Muhammand) to kill infidels.
The fact that the violence continues to the present day is irrelevant to the section.
Ohanian 23:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed section 

message: One can understand the concept of dilution. Chinese wispers, the message gets changed as it is handed down. This happens allot in religions. Politics changes religions from what is right to what is expedient to one person or one group of people's political objective. If you read the books of many religions you will see that some things are common  accross all denominations. These commonalities are likely to contain the true message, as it is less likely that one corruption will spread through all denominations. Of course people take virtuous principles for granted, as society promotes them and we are surrounded by them constantly as we grow up. Without religion, these virtues wouldn't have gained support accross society. That is why Chritians can't relate to Muslim virtues of promoting shyness in women. Shyness is seen as a virtue for women in many religions, indeed if you think about it, in general women are more shy than men concerning their bodies. There is something to be said about people in general who cover up their exterior. You can't see their front cover, so you will judge them more for what they say and how they act. Religion is against selfishness, a politic that often gets in the way of 'logical virtue'. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.4.59.203 (talk) 01:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Virtue comes from religion

message: Ban religion, says Elton John
Sat Nov 11, 4:27 PM ET
LONDON (AFP) - Religion should be outlawed because it lacks compassion and promotes hatred of homosexuals, gay pop star Elton John said in an interview.
The singer was speaking in a special "gay edition" of The Observer newspaper's Music Monthly Magazine, where he shared his views on subjects ranging from being a music icon to Prime Minister
Tony Blair's stance on the Iraq war.
At a time when religion is the subject of fierce debate in Britain over the right to wear the Muslim veil and other faith symbols, John complained there was a general lack of leadership from spiritual leaders.
"I think religion has always tried to turn hatred towards gay people. From my point of view, I would ban religion completely," he was quoted as saying.
"Organized religion doesn't seem to work. It turns people into really hateful lemmings and it's not really compassionate. The world is near escalating to World War Three and where are the leaders of each religion?
"Why aren't they having a conclave? Why aren't they coming together? I said this after 9/11 and people thought I was nuts. Instead of more violence why isn't there a meeting of religious leaders?" he said.
"It's like the peace movement in the Sixties. Musicians got through to people by getting out there and doing peace concerts but we don't seem to do them anymore.
"If John Lennon were alive today, he'd be leading it with a vengeance."
: Thank you for posting this, I have added the original source of the interview to the article.  --Merzul 02:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elton John 

message: If God is willing to prevent evil, but he is not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
If he is able, but he is not willing? Then he is malevolent (wishing to harm people).
If he is both able and willing? Then why does evil still exists?
If he is not able and not willing? Then why call him a God?
: Yes, yes, but this is more an argument against the existence of God. I have added a section that could mention this. Since the problem of evil is probably the main objection people have, you can add something about it.  --Merzul 02:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Riddle of Epicurus 

message: http://www.acgrayling.com/secular.html
: Yes, A. C. Grayling seems notable enough to be cited in the article, although I hadn't heard of him before. Thanks for posting this. --Merzul 02:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A C Grayling 

message: I have tried to turn this list of criticism into more of an article, splitting it into 3 main areas of criticism. Now, my moving stuff around and putting similar material closer to each other should highlight some overlap in the criticisms. Thus, some criticism could be removed and responses to the criticism can be added. I also added a stub-section of what is probably one of the most significant criticisms, namely of the content of religion. While this is often religion-dependent, the fact is that most critics of religion focus on the semitic religions and the God concept of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, so the stub section I added I think is quite important. So, what else... well, one problem, the title "Religion is obsolete" I admit is not very NPOV, but then... what part of the article is? :) At least we are seeing some references being added!!! --Merzul 02:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major reorganization 

message: The following phrase quoted by a supposed scholar does not stand the test of logic, and is in my opinion poor critism.
"Faith may be defined briefly as an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable"
Logic can only be reasonably applied to things that we know of and can quantify or describe or research using our senses. Religion (theology) is a branch of philosphophy that deals with what is outside our physical domain. By logic, 'the improbable' suggests a statistical improbability. As the spiritual domain can't be measured, it is impossible to quantify the likelyhood of its existence, and therefore one cannot logically assert that faith in spiritual deities is either illogical or improbable. Granted, one can't logically assert that spiritual deities exist from a scientific standpoint. We can however point indirectly to evidence of a divine creator. Take the mathematical symetry behind the physics of the universe, something that is quite non random, and definitly an intricate design. The presence of an eternal God is quite consistent with our own earthly logic. Everybody knows that you don't get something from nothing. So therefore it is logical that the material world(s) could well have been instigated by God. If not, then logically how can one ascertain where abouts matter came from, and how it came to be formed with such mathematical precision.
I suggest that a better definition of faith: Faith is the belief in the existence of something indefinable (or beyond human measurement) by use of logical theoretical reasoning (much the same as theoritical physics). 
Someone's faith is not necessarily illogical. Many scientific hypotheses assert assumptions that have not been tested scientifically, however they are logical extensions of our existing knowlege or material derived logic.
In short, I think it most un-scientific to assert that something is improbable when you can't even measure its presence. As humans we should be happy to accept that our powers of perception are somewhat limited to that which we can measure.
Some people may have faith or belief that they can't or haven't fully thought through or researched. Such faith would be better described as baseless. Those whose faith is bounded by logical extension of their world, then that person has discovered metaphysics.
:This page is for recording attested and documented criticisms of Christianity, whether they are justifiable or not. Some criticisms of religion are irrational, but that does not make them automatically not worth mentioning. Your definition of faith is not adequate, since very few people who have a religious faith make any reference to logical theoretical reasoning. Ming the Merciless 10:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Critisism should be scientific not irrational

message: http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext98/hcbrs10.txt —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.168.50.40 (talk) 21:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: This should be merged with religious war 
 		 
Another criticism of religion is that it is commonly used as a justification for war and other atrocities. The followers of a religious doctrine try to make life miserable for those of other belief structures because they think they are doing god's duty. When religions people say that their religion is peaceful what they really mean to is to be peaceful only toward those of the same belief. In fact religious people are encouraged to see people of other faiths as inferior and to hurt them whenever possible. Because of this religion is analogous to racism, in that people are treated based on their belief structure instead of skin color and both ways are equally wrong. 
I wish to point out that a lot of the points above has already been mention in various sections of the article. The only new bit is
* Used as an excuse for violence in order to advance (some) political aims.
Even this has been mentioned in religious war
 
:220.239.110.225 07:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Causes followers to hurt others