Post by Varangian on Jul 7, 2013 22:53:41 GMT -5
It really depends what you mean by 'bashing', in this case. 'Bashing' could to shake the faith of people who make decisions based on unjustified belief, or it could simply be there to insult them(depends on both sides, really). The bashing of religion is usually riddled with true facts here and there, backed by evidence, whereas the bashing of atheism has no evidence pointing to its validity whatsoever. While they are both initially born out of spite and fear that the other is harmful, the atheist side has a factual basis for their arguments as a bonus. This would realistically make an atheist bashing religion a more worthwhile statement than a religious person bashing atheism. Not all opinions are worth the same, and not everything can be fitted into the mold of an opinion.
I think the main problem is that people confuse the right of an opinion to the right of an untouchable, sacred opinion. Nothing's sacred in science, and it constantly questions itself and sets challenges to itself to improve our knowledge of the universe. Let's have an example:
In school, a strong Hindu attends the science class. They are talking about evolution. The hindu then, after class, tells the teacher: "I don't believe in evolution." The wording doesn't matter, really. The teacher asks: "Why?" and the answer could vary from "It's just my opinion" to "Faith." I've heard lots of them. But then would the problem arise: if something has been proven to be true both through historical evidence and actual observation itself, why do people deny it?
It doesn't fit with what they've been taught at home or at the previous school. Denying reality is one outcome of unjustified belief. Over 1/3 of all schools in the UK are faith schools, for example, where you take the word of the Bible or Qoran over scientific explanation. If these two conflict, it is the dusty old book that wins there. That's indoctrination in its most brutal form.
I think the main problem is that people confuse the right of an opinion to the right of an untouchable, sacred opinion. Nothing's sacred in science, and it constantly questions itself and sets challenges to itself to improve our knowledge of the universe. Let's have an example:
In school, a strong Hindu attends the science class. They are talking about evolution. The hindu then, after class, tells the teacher: "I don't believe in evolution." The wording doesn't matter, really. The teacher asks: "Why?" and the answer could vary from "It's just my opinion" to "Faith." I've heard lots of them. But then would the problem arise: if something has been proven to be true both through historical evidence and actual observation itself, why do people deny it?
It doesn't fit with what they've been taught at home or at the previous school. Denying reality is one outcome of unjustified belief. Over 1/3 of all schools in the UK are faith schools, for example, where you take the word of the Bible or Qoran over scientific explanation. If these two conflict, it is the dusty old book that wins there. That's indoctrination in its most brutal form.