Where is the line between critiquing a religion and attacking a religion

[Tzaphkiel]

Originally Posted by Cyno

And maybe you'd actually have made a valid point if non-belief (atheism) were a belief system or a belief, as you keep erroneously claiming it to be. But keep saying it and demonstrating your misunderstanding, over and over

there are atheists on the forum who have stated their belief that there is no god.
there are people who self-identify as atheists, who hold the belief that there is no god.
that belief is held by some atheists.

just as atheists on the forum freely express their beliefs about the "origin of religion"
so too can believers freely express their beliefs about the "origin of atheism"

[Cyno]

Even if an atheist states they believe there is NO god with certainty, that goes outside of just atheism. It is a supplemental belief to atheism. Just like you might say you believe there is no coffee cup floating around the next galaxy over, that is a believe, outside of your theism. ( I was going to use other gods from other cultures, but recognized, you might suggest your belief system required you not believe in them, so still a sub belief in your existing belief system). So You are arguing about and conflating atheism with some atheist's supplemental beliefs.

If you want to appear sensible, argue with those people specifically about those supplemental beliefs, rather than non-belief in general.

[phetaroi]

Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel

so then that would explain why atheists object to having atheism "critiqued," for the reasons put forth in bold above. If one thinks atheism could be "critiqued" then "it is the same as saying that one’s dreams could be critiqued." Because after all, atheists "believe what they believe for whatever reason they have due to their circumstances."

Who says we "object" to having atheism critiqued?

[NatesDude]

Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel

what was stated (in post 170) was a belief about the "origin of religion."
what was stated in response (post 171), using the same framework of context and expression as the post it was responding to (post 170), was a belief about the "origin of atheism."

either both those beliefs posted are "completely valid observations" and "trying to have an actual discussion"
or they are both "deliberate misunderstanding" "mocking" "trying to one up your perceived opponent" "not posting honestly"

again, note the different language used. that is the point i am making, on the topic of this thread.
so, critique or attack
regarding word choice used about those with different beliefs compared to word choice used for favored beliefs.


in a nutshell: hear what it sounds like, when it is said about your own beliefs.

Well, first off , there is no origin of atheism unless we trace it all the way back to the initial self realization of humans,before they came up with the idea of supernatural beings influencing their world and the need to deal with these supernatural beings somehow. Or to the beginnings of the first case of the idea of an invisible supernatural being put forth to early humans trying to make sense of their world , and someone saying " no, I don't think I believe that". Nonbelief both pre-exists the conception of supernatural beings and exists as a response to the claim by others of the existence of supernatural beings. In either case the concept is rooted in rational thought. Early atheists either dealt with the world without inventing concepts of invisible beings influencing the weather and other natural phenomenon , or they rejected the concept when others came up with the idea. Take your pick.

But my post was more to the claim of atheists needing coping mechanisms to deal with theists. This is rather silly, and to be honest was employed as nothing but a tit for tat parroting of the other posters claim that religion started as means of coping with the unknowns of the pre scientific world , which is a completely valid point. Atheists think religion is silly . There is no coping mechanism needed for that. I am not an atheist, but I need no coping mechanism to deal with beliefs I find silly, like people thinking crystals have some power, or that they can astral travel, or that there are scores of virgins awaiting the faithful men in heaven. Why would I need one ? Silly ideas pose no threat to my psyche that I need to "cope" with . Why would an atheist of the Bronze Age need a coping mechanism to process the rejection of a belief by some desert nomads that their god requires its believers to show their commitment to it by cutting off the foreskin of all the male penises ? Christians today don't need coping mechanisms to deal with the belief by Hindus that one of its gods has an elephant head and others have 4-6 arms . They just blow such things off as silly. No coping mechanism needed . So it is with atheists . The only thing atheists feel threatened by regarding religion is its unwanted imposition on them and their rights to live free from its influence in society , whatever brand the predominant one is in their area. Some deeper thinking atheists may feel concern for the nationwide or global dumbing down of the human intellect through the influence of various religions , but thats about it. No rational person needs coping mechanisms to deal with pre scientific concepts carried forward by tradition and religious dogma into the 21st century , despite the wishes of theists trying to portray them as threatened by the devotions of others , except to the extent these devotions impinge upon their civil rights. Mindfulness , gathering in groups to celebrate sacred ideas, and other such ideas don't threaten atheists, many practice them while remaining atheist .

[Harry Diogenes]

Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel

that is an example of different terms used for belief, regarding varying views on topics discussed by atheists and theists: "irrelevant fiction" "inventing" and "pretend" when a person disagrees with a view or belief stated, but "conclusion" and "valid point" when a person agrees with the belief or view stated.
curious.

No, that is your MO.

You were definitely simply changing words in a valid position to make an irrelevant argument.

Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel

attack or critique?
because regarding the two posts above (post 170 and 171) they are both sharing beliefs, about "origin of religion" and "origin of atheism"

Then deal with those instead of inventing your own arguments.

[cb2008]

Originally Posted by Cyno

It seems like the last several exchanges with cb2008 demonstrate exactly why this thread was created, because generalizations about group behavior are taken as a personal assault, as so successfully demonstrated

Generalizing a group behavior is is the vert tool to attack the individual.
Like this.

Originally Posted by phetaroi View Post
I did not say that literacy is a condition for spirituality. In fact, I said just the opposite. That spirituality doesn't need to be complicated.

All you do is argue. What an odd religion you must be a student of.

Generalize and Label the the religion as odd (Not an American Religion.)
You are a member then you too are odd.

[hungoutodry]

You have already crossed it. The Authorities are on there way now.