Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Should we respect something we feel strongly against? That's a difficult question, in my view.
Thanks for your thoughtful post!
There is a second element that plays into your thread in that there is the pure essence of a belief and its teachings/etc. (or lack of belief in Atheism, etc.) And then there are the "practitioners".
As you may be aware, the "practitioners" can easily take the core essence/teachings and corrupt, bastardize, adapt, change these elements, or otherwise make <<bleep>> up as they go along and as it suits them.
It can be difficult to surgically extract the bad parts and have the patient survive, and multiple surgeons may argue over whether or not the parts are bad to begin with because many religions are rather subjective in their essence/teachings.
This makes the critique/attack equation all the more difficult to categorize and/or measure.
Last edited by mensaguy; 10-16-2021 at 06:01 PM..
Reason: language
From time to time things can get a bit heated on this part of the forum, and that's often when some poster gets frustrated because his religion (or his atheism) is being "attacked". But I expect religions to be critiqued by atheists on a chat/discussion board, just as I expect religionists to critique atheistic positions. What is the difference between a post that 'critiques' a religion (or atheism) and a post that 'attacks' a religion (or atheism).
I don't think we should ever let things get nasty here, and our mods do an a very good job of heading that off in most cases. But another part of me thinks, "If you can't stand the heat..."
Thoughts?
easy ...
People believing in something like "past lives" using the exact same flawed logic as "died and rose for our sins" but attacking the other beliefs systems for the exact same process they use.
Sticking within "religion" only is fine. Its when we start using things like ...
" ... I even go as far as to suggest "one could -- and should -- leave religion," but truly explore this notion of spirituality as well. Always seems to me that spirituality is the spark that religion relies upon to get started and to keep going. As such, spirituality may be part of man's problem as well. We humans are the only ones who have conjured up that notion as well ..."
to define atheism. Or things like atheist creeds and what not.
But the biggest thing is is holding ourselves to the same standards as we do them ...
There is a second element that plays into your thread in that there is the pure essence of a belief and its teachings/etc. (or lack of belief in Atheism, etc.) And then there are the "practitioners".
As you may be aware, the "practitioners" can easily take the core essence/teachings and corrupt, bastardize, adapt, change these elements, or otherwise make <<bleep>> up as they go along and as it suits them.
It can be difficult to surgically extract the bad parts and have the patient survive, and multiple surgeons may argue over whether or not the parts are bad to begin with because many religions are rather subjective in their essence/teachings.
This makes the critique/attack equation all the more difficult to categorize and/or measure.
Good post ...
"how can we tall?"
Is there a process we can use to help us.
Is seriously scarred and recovering the best standard we have?
What it comes down to, to use the old adage, is it's not so much what you say, as they way you say it.
Just be mindful to never say anything to anyone on an internet forum what you wouldn't be prepared to say directly to someone's face. It's a pretty good rule of thumb.
People hide behind their anonymity as an excuse to say mean things, that if you said to someone in real life, you'd get a punch in the face!
I try to be mindful that it's never my intention to say things that might deliberately upset someone or ruin their day. I don't want that.
Just be mindful of the language you use. That's all it comes down to.
All that being said, some people are offended by my very presence here because I'm an atheist and that alone seems to be enough to cause offense.
They think that my not believing in their god alone is a personal affront.
Not much you can do in those cases.
We are all entitled to our beliefs and opinions.
I'm not offended that people believe in god. People shouldn't be offended that I don't or that I express opinions about that.
I will also add that if someone attacks me first I usually try to fend off the attack with a gentle approach, but if they keep on I'm going to defend my corner.
Critiquing is when you can not only consider a belief you do not hold personally with respect and consideration regarding elements that trouble you or that you may take issue with, but also have an "out of body experience" with your own belief and apply it without prejudice or malice when taking issue with another belief.
Attacking is when you take issue with a belief with personal prejudice and malice and do not afford said belief respect and consideration.
critiquing a religion is only useful if you are within the fold and want reforms. one needs to have deep understanding of a subject to offer any useful critique. and critiqe and reforms happens all the time in all religions by the practitioners. that is how Buddhism was born. Siddhartha was taught all about his religion by the best scholars and priests of Hinduism. He knew what he was breaking.
attacking a religion that one knows little of is for entertainment. it only has value to oneself. it is attack of the person such as Buddhist monks for their obsession with non-violence or not eating meat.
that does not mean practitioners cannot be stopped when they violate other people’s humanity, such as anti gay activism. or anti muslim hate or or anti semitism. we all have duty to do that.
From time to time things can get a bit heated on this part of the forum, and that's often when some poster gets frustrated because his religion (or his atheism) is being "attacked". But I expect religions to be critiqued by atheists on a chat/discussion board, just as I expect religionists to critique atheistic positions. What is the difference between a post that 'critiques' a religion (or atheism) and a post that 'attacks' a religion (or atheism).
I don't think we should ever let things get nasty here, and our mods do an a very good job of heading that off in most cases. But another part of me thinks, "If you can't stand the heat..."
Thoughts?
A critique is, or should be, based on valid arguments and evidence.
An attack is something different, as one can argue a critique can also be an attack. And an attack can be disguised as a critique. But I believe you are using 'attack' as the counter position to a critique, so my argument here is based on that presumption.
Many theists either see a critique as an attack, or misrepresent it as one, hence the use of words like 'militant' for someone who simply posts on the internet. The Taliban is militant. The posters on the Christian forum are not.
Nor are the usual attacks here by theists on atheists 'militant'. But they are attacks, it is rare to see theists discussing the actual points, they would rather attack the atheists.
neither "critique" or "attack"
fall in the category of "discussion" or "clarification" or "seeking to understand"
I'd say that depends.
When I was at art school we would have weekly group critiques of our work.
The critiques were designed to helpful, to help you to see how others saw your work, to listen, to think about what people said and to help you to improve. Critiques were always hard. They were very personal and felt very personal. They could be upsetting sometimes. Art is a very subjective thing, so it was really up to you which bits you would want to take on board. But they were always useful in some way because it helped you to have different perspectives that you were likely not seeing yourself, even if you rejected those perspectives.
I still find critiques of my work useful now. They are still part and parcel of my art practice. I find the critiques that are the most useful tend not to come from close friends. Friends only ever say nice things and I'm not learning anything from the compliments. I want to know what people really think. My brother is actually my harshest but most useful critic. He's one of those people that can tell you what he really thinks, but you know it's coming from a good place.
Critiques are of course not useful at all if the only motivation is to attack. Nobody is going to listen to that. It's not constructive.
for this statement, critique or attack
"Your inability to understand simple concepts may be due to increased blood pressure in your neck from constant navel gazing."
I'd say that depends.
When I was at art school we would have weekly group critiques of our work.
The critiques were designed to helpful, to help you to see how others saw your work, to listen, to think about what people said and to help you to improve. Critiques were always hard. They were very personal and felt very personal. They could be upsetting sometimes. Art is a very subjective thing, so it was really up to you which bits you would want to take on board. But they were always useful in some way because it helped you to have different perspectives that you were likely not seeing yourself, even if you rejected those perspectives.
I still find critiques of my work useful now. They are still part and parcel of my art practice. I find the critiques that are the most useful tend not to come from close friends. Friends only ever say nice things and I'm not learning anything from the compliments. I want to know what people really think. My brother is actually my harshest but most useful critic. He's one of those people that can tell you what he really thinks, but you know it's coming from a good place.
Critiques are of course not useful at all if the only motivation is to attack. Nobody is going to listen to that. It's not constructive.
It's all psychology really.
I agree. A critique based on valid arguments and evidence can lead to discussion, clarification and understanding.
Apparently not everyone has the skill to critique a position.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
