|
Somewhere along the line, people started confusing the notion that you can disagree or satirize a religion with "discrimination". If I think poorly of certain aspects of a religion (or the culture bound up in it) - I have an inherent right to speak out on the subject if I can articulate my rationale for doing so.
If a religion is used to subjugate a portion of the population, or to silence intellectual inquiry, or to promote an agenda of personal gain or hegemony -- it deserves the skewers and barbs (see Swift, Voltaire, Twain, Vonnegut, etc). Some people seem to be so insecure about their "articles of faith" that instead of just smiling and saying "maybe you'll find your way one day".... they must crush any disturbances to their 'safe bubble'.
@Diaboso: atheism is reached by people who have usually thought long and hard about going "against the flow" .... I'd argue its people who do the socially expedient thing by attending their church who may be intellectually lazy. They just don't examine what they do or why. How many people attend their church or temple simply because it is what they were raised to do? I will give *some* of the evangelical churches credit in that they try to get people to actively *think* about their spiritual life.
I reached my current "theory of everything" after 40 years of fairly extensive research and belief examination. I find I know far more about the Bible than most of the Christians I encounter and an exasperatingly amount more about the other major religions. If I'm going to rule something out, especially something commonly accepted -- I'm going to make sure I'm well-versed on the subject.
@VK-Pitt: be careful there.... "belief" and "logic" don't really go together. If an atheistic viewpoint best explains the data you've encountered, that is your worldview as long as new data doesn't contradict it.
|