• Anti-Religionists don't look at the religion debate as objectively as they claim to

    Many, not all, Anti-Religious people tend to attack religions because, they claim, that members of these religions force religion down the throats of others and do not look at things objectively. That is true for an ever decreasing minority of religious people, but the majority allow their children/friends at least some freedom in pursuing what they want. They may not be happy if another chooses not to accept their religion, but most people won't attack or shun the person for their beliefs and those who should are probably not following what their religious texts tell them to do (as in the Bible for example). What anti-religions classify most religious people as crazy zealots who won't take no for an answer, and when you look at most religious people that just isn't true. There is the exception, but of course there are bad people in every kind of group who give the entire group a bad name. Many religious people use their religious texts to determine their decisions, but that would be expected when you believe that that text is the key to life and and eternal prosperity.
    SOME, anti-religious people tend to be people who actively criticize and harass those who choose religion. They go back on their own principle of "letting people make their choice" by persecuting those who made their own choice and saying that they are merely pandering to the majority, which is now actually those who shy away from religion. They claim using examples of a few religious psychopaths that all religion is evil and people all act like that, but that is not the objective way to look at it. The objective way would be to judge on the collective WITHOUT bringing in personal experiences, but many people would rather insult the religion and point out several outliers who don't represent the group as a whole. For the most debated example (Christianity), It is now to the point where anti-religious zealots who claim to hate "what Christianity did to the world", citing back to medieval times and things like the Crusades even though many Christians have publicly apologized and stressed that , are acting the exact same way, persecuting those who have Christian beliefs all over the world and saying that THEY are the stupid, terrible ones for not acting objectively. And there are examples of many other religions coming under persecution like that, such as the persecution of believers of Islam in America, etc.
    While I am not saying this applies to everyone, and religion is not even close to being blameless, but it does tell that a lot more of this occurs on the anti-religious side than they claim.

  • Yes an average anti-religionist does have double standards.

    They say religious people are close-minded. But they call religious people dumb when they try to convince them. They say that they are good people without religion while swearing and promoting hatred. The list goes on and on... So I think an average one does have double standards . .

  • More than double standards ...

    Any dolt who defines himself in opposition to the vast majority of humanity is going to have issues. Attempting to hold modern Christians accountable for the Crusades is like blaming the Iraq war on Attila the Hun. The convoluted logic to even pretend that kind of thing is rational is ... Alarming. And so the standard is war is bad? Yet the same guys, like Sam Harris, actually advocate ... Crusades against Islam.

    Is it double standards? Yes. That is what happens when someone has an irrational hatred of an entire group of people, indeed the majority of people, based on ... Religion. Its the same thing as the KKK.

  • Coming from an open minded atheist, no.

    Everybody loves to generalize a group of people to make themselves feel better, and I'm getting real tired of it. I personally think that the only reason religion still exists is because parents force their beliefs on their children instead of allowing them to think for themselves. That said, just because I don't believe in a god does not mean that it's impossible, and if given proof, I would change my beliefs in a heartbeat. Sadly, no such proof has ever been found... Ever...

  • I wouldn't consider myself "anti-religion"

    But I suppose after consideration I'm against more about religion than I'm for.

    I suppose EVERYONE has double standards, it's more of a human trait than anything, and is an exercise in deception to target one group specifically. I could go on and on about laughable and downright evil double standards that the most popular religions facilitate and condone on a daily basis, however I won't, as this again an act of deception to imply they are singular in this problem.

    Reading the author's statement it's increasingly clear this is a very subjective question to allow he or she to vent about their frustration towards people who don't agree with them.

    I'm not sure what an "anti-religionist" looks like, as I can't conclusively say I've ever met one, but I imagine they, like everyone else on the planet is guilty of a double-standard at some point in their world-view.

    Just like our morality and knowledge, these standards will become more clearly defined and corrected with time.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.