Talk:Criticism of religion/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Criticism of religion. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

I know that correlation is not necessarily causation, but can I put some stuff about religion being negatively correlated with IQ here. There have been theories that religion lowers IQ. Also, I think there are some statistics that crime is correlated with religion and inversely correlated with porn-which religions consider immoral. 72.209.71.249 01:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)Me:)

I don't think that would be acceptable, for the exact reason you stated (i.e., "correlation is not necessarily causation"). However, if you could show that the two are related, then that would be a different story, because then it is definitely a criticism of religion. Otherwise, it would be like comparing rising global warming with the shrinking number of pirates. You would also need to cite references. GSlicer 17:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how applicable this is. I know that christian fundamentalists in the US are typically in favour of environmental irresponsibility. And anticipation of the rapture is often given as an excuse.

But elsewhere in the world, and among moderates, the view is more common that the environment is a gift from God and should be respected.

And I confess I know little about muslim and jewish attitudes towards the environment.

Perhaps a more general point can be made about irresponsibility motivated by eschatology. But if this point can't be backed up, I think it should go.

I disagree with the 'original research' accusation on this point. That certain religious groups make territorial claims based upon divine authority is widely known and undisputed. However the text as it stood was clumsy. In what way is it a criticism of religion that it may involve territorial claims? If it is just the error of dogmatism, this is covered by dogmatism. If there are consequences of the claims, then these consequnces should be described.

Also I don't think there is much point having a page of everything anybody has ever done wrong motivated by religion. I think we should stick to problems that are reasonably attributed to religious causes. Quite whether the land thing is common enough for this to be the case, I don't know. --ExtraBold 12:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

No, to quote one of Wikipedia's most prolific administrators, We don't accept "Trust me. I'm a doctor." here. All information added to Wikipedia must, must, be verified by reliable sources. If it isn't, then it is original research, which is forbidden. -- IslaySolomon | talk 23:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The current tone of this article is matter-of-fact and perfunctory. I'm adding a POV tag. Perhaps even a few rebuttals or adding words like "claim" and "supporters of xxxx beleive" would even it out a bit. That is not to say that the quality of the current information is not good, but it needs some qualifying statements throughout. Mylakovich 18:28, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Remove POV tag. This is a criticism of religion page. In any criticism page, the subject criticised will not be presented in a neutral tone, rather it is presented as its ugliest view. If you disagree with any of the criticism presented, you are welcome to discuss it here on the Talk page. Merely saying that article present religion in a bad light is not a valid arguement because the article is about criticism. For example: Saying the "religion is a social construct" is not "a neutral point of view" is technically correct but it is also a general criticism which has put forward by many critics of religion. As such it has its place on the Criticism of Religion article. Oh! By the way, any criticism of any subject is of course a POV, so the POV tag is a bit redundant. Ohanian 00:42, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

While it may be true that criticism of anything is inherently POV, that doesn't mean that using POV should be assumed to be the only possible way to list criticism of an ideology. As is mentioned in the anonymous rant below, the article Critique of Atheism is a good template that I think this article should follow. Sure, the criticism itself may be POV, but it is at least balanced by mentions of the opposing view. I believe that so long as there is a lack of opposing viewpoints in this article, it should be tagged as POV. - 219.95.168.245 27th June 2005

---

I feel that the section on social construct needs a bit of fixing up. I'm a bit uncomfortable with the bit in bold.

Religion is a social construct. That is to say its origins lie in human beings and human societies, not in the intervention of some divine being or cosmic truth. As such they generally include information about their own origins that is not true.

In particular religion is syncretic, and is in denial of its syncretism.

Ohanian 11:39, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

---

I propose that the section below be rewritten or removed.

Some people, such as proponents of Anarchism and those on the far left, object to religion on principle because they view the hierarchical organization of most religions to be an affront to the ideals of democracy and equality. They bristle at the idea of submitting to the rules or doctrine of an entirely man-made and non-democratic institution such as the church.

• * *

The reasons are

1. The article is entitled "Criticism of religion" and not "Opposition to religion". The main purpose of the article is to list arguements against religion and provided grounds for each arguement.

2. After reading the section several times. It's not at all clear what is the criticism put forward by the article. The best I can think of is "Religion with hierarchical organization is an affront to the ideals of democracy and the ideals of equality". If this is the case then the section should be split up into

• Religion is non-democratic

• Religion does not respect human rights

3. The other case in the section talks about "submitting to doctrines of an entirely man-made institution". I don't see why this is a criticism of religion as Democracy is also a man-made institution. Why is submitting to the doctrines of democracy any different than submitting to the doctrines of religion.

Ohanian 09:34, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I think this part should stay because all of these reasons are rather moot points. the difference between some forms of criticism and opposition are mostly a matter of perspective and semantics, and if, for example, god was proven not to exist beyond the shadow of a doubt it would be cynical to continue that belief, but it would be possible. As to the second point if you believe it should be split and each point be worked on, then do so instead of suggesting deletion, the idea is to get more information not less. Finally it is a criticism of religion because no other doctrine asks blind belief in itself as a requisite to be accepted, and democratic institutions do not claim to be the sole source of good, or always having the moral high ground without any evidence or logical argument. --Lyojah 14:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I deleted the Warning section (it doesn't belong in Wikipedia) and attempted to clean up and NPOVize some paragraphs. It needs more work. It should be obvious that each section is a criticism of religion; a warning section is -not- the way to do it. 69.59.212.172 01:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Many recognised evils, such as domestic violence, sexism and slavery have enjoyed much support from religious leaders in the past, on the grounds that they were supported by doctrine.

Citation is not needed because each of the three examples domestic violence, sexism and slavery has been going on for hundreds of years (in the past) and each time the reformers tries to change them the supporters quoted the scriptures and the religious leaders failed to condemned the use of the scriptures by the supporters of these evils. Read the history books. Ohanian 20:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

There should be a section added to this article about criticism of religious people's irrational, antagonistic and hateful attitude towards those people who note that religious beliefs are irrational, prone to create antagonism, and likely to spread hate.

See below. 71.19.38.228 21:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I am a devout yet very moderate Christian (Baptist), and strongly encourage religious discussion (which includes the criticisms of it). However this article is a pile of crap. The author is obviously some Far Left-Commie-hippie-Secularist-Atheist nut. The vocabulary and phrasing suggests the author is educated, however, his/her tone and arguements are extremely biased. Obiviously his/her education hasn't included some philsophy or the theories of knowledge, truth and reason.

His/her writings suggests that religion is outside of what is "rational" and that this "rationality" is surpreme, overlooking the paradoxical and philosophical issues assosciated with it, and the limitations of human reason (e.g. eternity and infinity). What is truth? What is rationality? The author needs to go back to high school and take some basic philosophy/studies in religion/theory of knowledge classes. I'm definitely not telling him/her to believe in anything, but merely to understand and to be open and most of all, unbiased.

The author is exactly the opposite of a religious fundamental (who is implicitly criticized in the article), he/she is a Secular/Atheist fundamental, which puts him/her in exactly the same category. Do not think that religions are an 'add-on' to everyday non-religious living principles. Those principles are in exactly the same category as any religion or belief, in the form of Atheisim/Extreme Secularism. This article seriously needs a "neutrality disputed" sign. And for the love of God, go and count the wars that are caused by religion, then compare that with the wars caused by greed, hatred, vengence, territorial/economic gain, dispute over an arranged bride, secular nationalism/racism, 'honor', colonial disputes, terrorism, WMD's etc. etc. then come back and talk about religious wars.

GO TO HELL, YOU COMMIE BASTARD/BITCH

Have you finished talking garbage? Come back when you are not in your usual religious delusionary trance. The cruz of your arguement seems to be "I dont like criticisms of religion therefore you must be an arsehole."

You say "There are limits to rationality." I say "So what?"

You say "There are limits to human reasoning." I say "So what? That we should abandon rationality and accept limitless irrational superstitions instead?"

You argue that more wars have been caused by non-religious reasons than religious reasons. I say "So what?"

If more crimes have been commited with the help of a gun than with a cricket bat, do that mean we cannot criticise crimes commited with the help of a cricket bat? Or that it is any less of a crime? Ohanian 11:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Is there something intrinsicly wrong with being far left, a Commumist, a hippie, a Secularist, or an Atheis? [An enquirey from New Zealand]

I say : the criticism about these people generally revolves around the fact that they *think* for themselves, rather than accept the doctrine, and so not being *docile* and follow the ruling caste. This also applies to nationalism.

---

This section should be removed, it is not polite. The Real Walrus 16:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

If I could find a reference, I would add something to the article like this... Religion is a form of mental illness that is caused by defects in a particular region of the brain. Experiences that are described in religious terms can be induced in the brain using powerful alternating magnetic fields (if I remember the experimenter's claims correctly) on this part of the brain. Atheism is the result of having a brain that does not have this defect. pigeon pigeon cat pigeon pigeon The Real Walrus 16:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

You say that this section is "impolite", but your post quoted here from below isn't exactly a shining example of understanding; it seems more supported by an antagonism towards religious belief than by the pursuit of knowledge and understanding. Additionally, I'm sure if this were a scientifically valid conclusion, it would have much more evidence to back up this claim. Besides, since we do not know the scientific specifics of the "experiment", it could be equally assumed that atheism is a trait displayed in people who lack a particular brain function, much like people who may lack an inability to taste coriander, or those people with hippocampal problems who cannot normally construct memories. Of course, I don't believe that there is anything wrong with the minds of atheists.

My point is to emphasise the disturbing nature of a minority of atheists who would like to think of "theists" as ignorant villains who are devoud of rationality or open-mindedness. That strong atheist thinkers would go through great pains to prove that religion is a "mental illness" is very troubling, and a disappointing show of character on behalf of all atheists. I do not try to attribute an "illness" as the reason that atheists do not believe in God; I understand that each person should come to their own understanding of the reality of the universe. Each person has to choose their own method to achieve this understanding. In this vein, atheists should be supportive of religious believers in at least the fact that many of them believe as they do merely to achieve a higher level of understanding.

I believe it's unfair that some of the atheists that I've been friends with have seen religious people as ignorant, while also believing that atheists are a fortress of indomitable knowledge.

The opposite is also untrue. There are, and will always be, ignorant people of both major viewpoints; I've had the fortune of meeting many of them, and seeing what reasons they have for their beliefs. In general, and idea in critical thinking may yield 1 person who understands, and 10 who do not; 1 person who understands, and 1,000 who do not. There are ignorant atheists, ignorant Christians, ignorant Muslims, ignorant Buddhists (though that one is a bit of an antithesis), ignorant Shintoists, etc. I'm sure we can agree on that. Rather, it would be better to share with eachother why we hold the beliefs that we do, in hope of better understanding and brotherhood between the different schools of thought. If you read this, thank you for your time.--C.Logan 14:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to make it perfectly clear to everyone. I have never made and will never make any claims that religion is a "mental illness". Ohanian 14:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you would think I was referring to you, since I quoted TheRealWalrus, which is for whom my response was intended.--C.Logan 22:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this article could be better (all articles can.) You make a good point of philosophy, how virtually everything is unkown. However, that argument works both ways. When I consider the fact that all I can know is I think therefore I am, I become agnostic. However, when I assume what I experience is real, I am an atheist. This article is written assuming that what we percieve is real, a viewpoint of many articles on wikipedia, such as Douglas Adams, food, and colors. However, "GO TO HELL, YOU COMMIE BASTARD/BITCH," is hardly an argument of anything.Tuesday42 01:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

One question, you, Mr. New Zeelend: WAHT THE HELL IS A CRICKET BAT? ALL ENQUIRIES TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!

A cricket bat is similar to a baseball bat, but flatter.

A cricket bat, its obvious dumbass, its a genetic cross between a cricket and a bat.

(1) Are religious beliefs justified?

This is already presented in the section of "irrationality"

(2) paragraph below

Many religions also support claims that are widely considered to be false. For example, the creation of the world and the earth, as presented in many religions, is seen to contain claims that are apparently false in the view of current knowledge (for example, the first page of the Bible mentions "firmament"). Also holy books of several religions have been accused of inconsistencies. Apologists of religions often may appeal to allegorical nature of scriptures, and this may lead to discussion about whether holy books were initially meant to be allegorical. For example, in christianity the idea of allegorical explanation was officially instroduced in the fourth century. Often, the criticism towards the religions goes to very detailed issues. The good example of this is the controversary about the second coming of Jesus. Some particular verses of Bible are seen to imply that Jesus was meant to return before the generation he is talking to, vanishes. Then a debate follows about the actual meaning of those verses.

Too much detail about a specific religion. Already covered under "irrationality". The rule is to keep it short and simple. This is not an essay.

(3) Paragraph below

Also, positive actions are supposed to originate not from compassion, but from the fear of punishment. The followers of religions are sometimes critized of acting fine in order to please god or in order to get reward from god rather than for the sake of morality itself or because of benevolence. It has been asked, whether a person can be truly moral if he or she believes that he or she is constantly being watched by god or some other supernatural creature.

Also, many central characters of religions have been blamed of immorality. For example, the god of Bible has been criticized of committing several genocides (like the conquering of promised land) and giving immoral laws (such as capital punishment from homosexual acts and allowing slave owner to hit his slave), and prophet Muhammad has been critized of starting wars and supporting incruel laws (for example, in famous biography of Muhammad, he orders a woman guilty of adultery to be stoned to death).

The criticism towards the cruel laws supported by some holy writings has led to another kind of criticism: the criticism that followers of religions do not respect the teachings of their holy books. For example, jews do not stone people guilty of adultery to the death, even though their holy book gives such a law. Also, most of christians do not generally consider that it is immoral to marry somebody who has been rejected by his or hers former spouse, even though Jesus says this explicitly.

Also the idea of punishment in afterlife has been criticized of being morally questionable - especially, if the punishment lasts forever. Many people find the idea of eternal punishment - no matter what crime has been committed - too cruel. Also, many religions (like christianity and islam) support the idea that those are punished who do not believe in dogmas of some particular religion. It has been often claimed however, that disbelief is not an immoral act. According to this claim, not to believe in god is not any more immoral than for example not to believe in the existence of eskimos.

Again this is not an essay. This is an encyclopedia.

(4) More lives are lost in religious wars

It is sometimes claimed that more lives have been lost in wars fought in the name of religion than all other wars in human history, although there has as yet been no valid historical justification for this statement.

Wherether more lives are lost is immaterial. If it is wrong, it's wrong.

I combined irrationalism and justified beliefs -sections. Examples are allowed also in dictionary articles and because other additions are relevant, it is not reasonable to criticize them just by saying that "this is not essay" (as long as the writing style is appropriate and material is relevant from the point of view of article topic). Making article longer is not problem. It still does not deal with many criticisms or does not deal with them very comprehensively. --128.214.205.4 12:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure you have a lot of things you want to rant about but again this is NOT AN ESSAY. This is an encyclopedia piece. If you want to poo poo Jesus, you can do so in Criticism of Christianity. If you want to poo poo Muhammad, do so in Criticism of Islam. You do not need to include all the examples here. Ohanian 07:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

This article is most biased, obviously written by some fundamental/extremist Atheist. Also, if you see the Criticism of Atheism section, it is most probably written by this same author; it is more a rebuttal of all posiible criticism of Atheism than an article on the criticism of Atheism. This is meant to be an encyclopaedia, not an Atheist forum. I'm no Religious Right Evangelical myself, but anyone who has taken the slightest philosophy course in high school knows that there is more to existence than the boundaries of human reason, so called rationality. While this does not mean believe every fanciful idea possible, it certainly means there is more to existence than the perceivable, discerningly scientific findings or greedy economic systems. On the limits of human perception: (and this is scientific truths, widely considered to be true) a bee sees in the UV range, while we do not- then of course life would be different if we could-perception would be different, therefore the whole world would be different; a wolf hears 70 times more acutely; goldfish have very short memory etc. etc. It is perhaps more irresponsible to not have a critical analysis of basic human perception.

On a issue about morality, scientific findings widely regarded as true find that young, pre-pubescent children are far less aware of moral, ethical reasons; adults will see far more 'grey areas'. eg. a wide study found that when asked the question: "George's wife was ill, and needed a medicine to get better, or she'll die. George has absolutely no way to get the money needed, and it was her only hope. Is it right for him to steal it?" The vast majority of pre-pubescent children gave the simple black-and-white answer: "No, because it is wrong to steal." While teenagers and certainly the older people surveyed were far less certain. The study, and many like it (and indeed it is a commonly accepted scientific theory), further finds that is not due to any less exposure to these ethical dilemmas (indeed, many of the teenagers had had very little exposure to them), but simply because before puberty, the areas of the brain that deals with ethics and morality is undeveloped. It therefore asks the question that what if humans had a 'second puberty' that would let them figure out many of the ethical dilemmas and other paradoxes of today? Is it not plausible, from the evidence given by puberty and its effects on human thought? Which all goes to show there are certainly areas of human perception beakers and test tubes cannot solve.

Justification is not a word to be used lightly. eg. If A happens, then b will happen; c is the same as b, therefore we conclude/justify that if A happens, c will happen. Now, this is true ie. it happens as aforementioned the 1st time, and the 10th time, and the millionth time, and the billionth time for a thousand years. But if it doesn't happen like that in the 10294829384729387th time, then would that make the entire theory redundant? Even this is a grey issue. And what of paradoxes- "All Cretins are liars; I am a Cretin, therefore I am a liar" or "If the Barber of Seville shaves all people that cannot shave, who then shaves the Barber of Seville?" or "Is it possible for an omnipotent being to create a rock so heavy that the being itself could not lift it?". The latter example is the most interesting. The 'heaviness' of the rock can hardly be a matter of pounds and tonnes. Imagine, if an omnipotent being could only lift x pounds and not one more! It is obviously implied to be a 'state', a 'rule' that the rock cannot be lifted i.e. the rock is 'unliftable' therefore will the ALL powerful being be able to create such a rock? If it can, then we have a paradox, since if the being could if it, it is hardly 'unliftable', and hence the paradox. What does all this show? That human reasoning is a failure, we should believe absolutely anything? Of course not. It just shows there are certain 'holes' in human perception/reasoning/rationality/reality which means we must be much more open to plausible ideas.

Another key issue is that allegedly, religion 'restricts' science- the age old Science Versus Religion. However, when you think about it, what is the purpose, ultimat goal of all science? IT IS FOR THE PURSUIT OF TRUTH, OF KNOWLEDGE, NOT FOR THE SAKE OF SCIENCE! When science becomes pursued for the sake of itself, then of course they are at odds with religion. But when you think about it, religion is also about the pursuit of truth, the truth of the world, of the spiritual, supernatural (super=above i.e. what is beyond the scope of the perceivable world), and should encompass science, not detriment it. Some of the greatest scientists were very spiritual people, notably Albert Einstein, and due in no part to his upbringing (his parents were very unorthodox, 'relaxed' and generally undevout Jews, and Einstein himself was even less of a Jew. Today, most religions (at least, more moderate sects thereof) do not agree with the concept of an actual evil entity; that is, eg. Satan in Christianity. The churches now generally agree that it is rather a literary personification, manifestation of the concept of evil, which is generally undisputed (that there are evil actions one can take, and many things in life are or can be regarded as 'evil'). And rather than spending life being 'besieged' by a devil, it is a test of every action we can take -and if you think about it, this is undisputable-: We can either take the kitchen knife and use it to help make dinner for the family, or we could pick it up and murder the family. Hence the so called 'test'. A purely logical, perception based life without any moral or spiritual considerations also makes a very 'narrow' experience. To be as biased and unreasonable as the author of this article, science can also said to be a falsehood, (e.g. the age old saying that theories are made to be broken) true relative only to the times it was publicized in: e.g the countless atomic models (ie. theory on the nature of the structure of atoms) that have disproven previous model theories like Dalton, Rutherford and Bohr; or the age old medical belief before William Harvey (1749-1823) that blood ebbed and ebbed back from and to the heart rather than around the body; the famous negative, scpetical responses to Galileo's theories when he first proposed them, only to be proven 'true' eventually and then to have many of those theories shattered by Newton, who in turn had many of his theories shattered by Einstein, who today has some of his theories under intense scutiny in the scientific world. And of course the famous Theory of Evolution by Darwin has never been PROVEN as other are other scientific 'truths' (ask any scientist. widely regarded 'fits', but not PROVEN). So to be as biased as the author, one can say that science is only a paradigm of relative theories that are only waiting to be shattered, and therefore not 'eternal' (since Plato, whose ideas/definitions on truth and knowledge are still standard today, defined truth as 'eternal') and therefore not true. We live in an everchanging world of lies. Not very pleasant when it is coming from the other end, is it, author?

The author's arugument on "Moral Deficiency" is one of the most laughable ideas in this book. Religions, (whether practised or not) is built up on moralty, or ethics, at least in a significant part. The author staes that: "People who break these rules are often condemned and victimised even though they have done no harm to anyone." No harm to anyone. So people who break the commandment "Thy shalt not murder" do no harm to anyone? That the guy who breaks the commandment "Thy shalt not commit adultery" or "thy shalt not steal" or Judge not, lest ye be judged" or "love thy neighbor" does no harm? And of course, what about the other end of the spectrum on moral debates- the Atheists are taking an equal but opposite 'hardline' stance as any religion, and thereby causes more suffering than necessary. Who can say that 'voluntary euthanasia', however strictly controlled, cannot lead to more 'involuntary' voluntary euthanasia, if you catch the drift? Will this not cause suffering? What about the abortion debate? (I am firmly moderate on this issue, since both argument has its merits and only agreeing to one is disastrous) There are of course, the cases where the fathers are just jerks that take off, but judging by the tone and content of this article, I assume the author is not claiming immaculate conception i.e. it is not just the 'woman's choice'. And abortion can be abused by some very 'evil', atheist people too. A lot of college females, a wide survey found, have or would have had a abortion due to carlessness in sex. Some have even had operations to abort the baby that would otherwise have been born soon. So a few months is the difference between 'abortion' and murder? And of course, there is the other side of the debate, which has equal merit. I justifiably assume the author knows most of them.

The evils, such as slavery, that the author alleges religions support, is a highly selective and uneducated statement. For all those thing and more, secular reasons play a much bigger role which unsurprisingly by now is not mentioned in the article. For example, the economic factor of having slaves was a much bigger factor to the South than religion ever was- in fact, by the time of the civil war, the South criticized the continuing of slave trafficking (for by then the slave owners simply 'bred' slaves- a hateful practice motivated by economic factors), especially in other countries, believing they treated them humanely. Of course, one cannot blame religions and their good teachings for the immorality of their followers; rather, what is to be blamed is inability of the follower to follow the teaching- plenty of Christians have murdered (and for moral clarity, I am only referring to unambiguous, ordinary homicide rather than executions and such), but the Bible could not be clearer- "Thy shalt not kill." And the arguement that people live life to appease their deity and/or avoid punishment from that deity- an oft repeated sermon on why God doesn't strike me with lightning when I do something bad or shower me with miracles if I help some sick kid at the orphanage is that then, you would not be doing something because it is the right thing to do, rather, you are doing it out of greed for a reward or fear of punishment i.e. selfishness. The arguement of contradictive holy scriptures- one has to remember that just about each part of the Bible is written by a different person over thousands of years. The equivalent would be to say that a scientific theory is wrong because a key measurement was slightly 'off' because of an apparaus reading error.

The Communist arguement, the "Opium of the People"- well, that's another whole article on the evils and failings of Communism, and under almost every category (particularly the moral ones) the author has 'neutrally' criticized religion in this chapter, we can criticize communism, and these criticism would actually be valid.

As for authoritarianism, for every religously driven dictator, there are at least ten Secular/Atheist dictators (e.g. today, Fidel Castro of Cuba, the Communist regimes of China and North Korea, the virtual dictatorship in Russia etc.), which again, the author fails to mention.

On political opposition, I believe Anarchists are also considered a little 'out there'.

And as on the idiotic remark of religious wars, for every religious war, there are a hundred war driven by diplomatic tensions, economic, racial rivalries or blatant expansionism (e.g Hitler), which again, the author fails to mention, making out as if religion is the sole cause of war. As for focus on the 'afterlife', one can also criticize pure foci on the present. For example, after seeing many animal documentaries, students at a school remarked how boring animal lives must be, simply eating, sleeping, breeding and dying. The only thing that really sets us apart from them is our pursuit of knowledge and truth (religious, scientific or otherwise), for apart from all our little 'animal needs' all else not in the pursuit of knowledge can be considered just very elaborate forms of entertainment, very advanced forms of the lions' chasing each other around for fun. So while religions partly emphasize the situation after death (which is obviously considered too much by the author), then less focus is just like animals- on the present, no thought on the future and planning for the future.

OK, thankyou for sharing YOUR point of view. Many probably disagree with your logic, many probably agree. More to the point though, it belongs in an academic discussion on Sociology and philosophy (and from the content, socio-economic policy) not on Wikipedia (by the way, academically speaking, most researchers would require far less subjective and discriminatory examples, backed up by scientifically conducted research).—Preceding unsigned comment added by UncleSam01 (talk • contribs)

Your lengthy comment however doesn't actually specify what you consider biased about this article. Remeber it is an article about "Critisisms of Religion". Many of the statements you make appear in Criticisms of communism article, which, like this article, lists publicly stated critisims of that philosophy. Like this article, the "Criticisms of communism" does not attempt to answer whether communism or unregulated capatalism is the optimal socio-economic policy. That is an entire subject area (in fact it's multiple subject areas) which many very intelligent academic researchers have spent their entire lives trying to answer, with no definative result. Therefore, as with communism, trying to answer the "which is best?" question between atheism and religion is far beyond the scope, or even the subject matter, of the article.

Rather the aim of this article, as clearly defined by the title, is to list the common and academic critisms of relgion. It is not to enter into a debate on whether religion is a "good thing" or not. Keeping this in mind, can you please state what exactly you consider biased within the article or else the "POV tag" will be removed. Canderra 16:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

--Greasysteve13 09:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I laugh at all the religious nutcases here saying how religion can't be criticised.They think that religion gives us morality that atheism cannot.Anyway this is wikipedia best article because it gives a good argument against religion by including criticisms that i never thought of.Dermo69

If you are able to form your own perfect morality, how is it that you still suffer. If you are perfect, nobody would ever dislike you, you would be so secure in yourself that everybody would be drawn to you. I suspect that you do have emotional problems occasionally and still have a hugh ego with resulting insecurities? If you are so worried that religion robs you of free thought, you will therefore obviously avoid researching religions and their roots. By your fear of being controlled by so called brainwashing religious texts, you short change your own ability to make your own mind up on thorough inspection of these texts. Of course you can critize something, but rather than avoid what you don't like, maybe you could find out more about why that something was included in the doctrine. If you don't relate to your own religion, why don't you try an eastern religion, and see if they make any more sense to you. Its important for people to study their history, including their religious history. Why fear what you don't understand and relate to, nobody can know it all, except perhaps the guy with all the blue prints. Why do you need religion, well, if you have all the answers by being atheist and anti religion that would make you God. So you wouldn't,

Religion often may be "criticized" as an object of humor.

In religion and politics, people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination.

Ha Ha very funny. But seriously, real criticism please. No jokes. Ohanian 23:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually it is a shame that people take for granted their religious beliefs and believe they are somehow going to benifit from something they know not.

NOBEL Peace Laureate, muslim and human rights activist Dr Shirin Ebadi has spoken out against undemocratic Islamic countries justifying "oppressive acts" in the name of Islam. Dr Ebadi said some Islamic countries were turning their backs on modernisation and the need for democracy and as a result were creating tensions internally.

Speaking today at the Earth Dialogues 2006 conference in Brisbane, Dr Ebadi said her native Iran as well as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Yemen "among others" were guilty of human rights violations.

"In these countries, Islamic rulers want to solve 21st century issues with laws belonging to 14 centuries ago," she said. "Their views of human rights are exactly the same as it was 1400 years ago.

"Undemocratic Islamic governments justify their oppressive acts by taking advantage of the name of Islam, in exactly the same way as the United States justifies its war mongering by abusing the name of democracy."

---

This justifies the following paragraph in the article.

Critics claim dogmatic religions are typically morally deficient, elevating to moral status lots of ancient and ill-informed rules that may have been designed for reasons of hygiene, politics, or other reasons in a bygone era. People who break these rules are often condemned and victimised even though they have done no harm to anyone.