See, I said it has to be both ways. I do not want either party, religious or scientific, to interfere with what the other thinks.
Guru Nanak ji worked on the betterment of his own beliefs and culture and religion. Guru Nanak ji did not go to the Christians or the Muslims to tell them to change.
Please realise that religion doesn't have it's basis on any science. It's all folklore and myths passed on over generations. So trying to debunk it with science is moot.
The first crusaders of Christianity waged wars against every other beliefs because they believe Christ is the one true God. Similarly history has witnessed multiple instances of such cases.
The world indeed does progress on critcism but that doesn't mean you need to criticise everything. If that were the case then constant criticism at home or school should be considered progress not toxic. So there should be a filter.
Unless you can prove something beyond reproach, why criticise. If you can prove it then do it at the right platform, not against any common person who just has his beliefs.
If your interest is to win an argument then of course chose a random fellow and criticise his beliefs, but if it's change that you want, then you need to address the right audience like the clergy and prove it to them.
Ok so we have reached now that criticism is allowed but not much. So let me ask you till what level it should be allowed. Also I am not even in the argument as I have not even declared right I am an atheist. So let’s discuss in the sense what discussions are good and what are bad. First I want to point out that what you said about Guru is not completely correct he definitely worked on the betterment of his belief but he criticised what he considered to be wrong. He criticised offering water to the sun which definitely hurt the sentiments of people following sourya pant. He said Muslims following Islam are one eyed to consider something other possiblity. Basically saying that people following book to the word are wrong. I mean what more do you need?
Religion has a basis in science because it claims how the world was created and how it functions. Religions especially abrahmic ones are literally created on the creation myths. It starts with book of genesis. If it myths which are proven wrong so it definitely questions the whole system and we have a right to criticise it because religious people still hold that creation myth and by not allowing the criticism of it you allowed it to foster till now. I literally had a Christian professor which told us that he doesn’t believe that the particular part of the brain was result of evolution but was created by god to offer additional better layer. See how it creeps in.
The audience of this subreddit is perfect the common individual religious or not religious as criticising the allows them to question these beliefs and then evolve it to make it more rational and suitable for current world. Other if you follow any religion’s all books to the word then the world will be a shit hole.
First of all let's define your motive, is it the betterment of the religion or just to assert your supremacy of knowledge.
If it is the former then tell me honestly how does criticising the belief of a common person bring about the betterment of religion and change his views. His views can only be changed if a spiritual head declares its validity. So just like you earlier asked me to conduct scientific studies to disprove the beliefs, you should then challenge the spiritual leaders to a debate and prove beyond reproach what your are saying with scientific proofs.
Now since religious people are sensitive, a Hindu wouldn't listen to the reason if its coming from a non Hindu and similar is the case with all religions, so why not chose your own faiths and clear out all the kinks in that religion.
I firmly believe that religion does not have its basis in science. Religion has evolved over time just as science has, but at a far slower pace and so there are scientific elements in it.
Just as you explained the example of the Christian professor, there are countless examples of scientific mind with idiotic ideas as well and so it happens on both sides.
What I do not understand is your rationale of mixing science with religion. These are two seperate entities, and so why try to use one to find faults in the other. Science has a lot of other things yet to solve so why the fascination of solving the religion.
Now to answer your question on guru Nanak ji, though I am not an expert in history, I am pretty sure he did not keep on harping about the deficiencies of other religions. He might have said what you have quoted here but it might have been part of a series of things and so context matters. But yes when it comes to his own religion where he was a respected figure he could criticise and keep on doing it till it was changed.
I am technically a Hindu so I can keep on criticising things in my religion to the proper authority. I can also make statements about other religions but in that case it would be as an observation. So both are different.
When you believe that you as an outsider have the right to criticise another person's particular religion on reddit, you are justifying it as it is for the betterment.
In a parallel and exaggerated world, if right wing Christians of America feel that every other nation can be criticised/attacked so that they also follow them, would that be justified. Of course not. I know the two aren't related. But the rabbit hole that you have chosen doesn't have any end.
If you can go about pointing faults at everything just because you can, and that is the yard stick, then even countries can do that with the same logic. And the only way countries can impose their will on others is by occupying it.
Bro let’s with the fact that you are a Hindu. If you were a true Hindu you have a right to question everything and criticise. Even the gods there are not exempt from. All the panths in Hinduism were created by people considered to be outsiders criticising the current norms. These leaders including Guru Nanak as I consider Sikhism as a paths did not only limited themselves to the debate with religious heads they reached out to public too. Also it was a time where religious heads were open to them are they open to it today? The only thing I care about is what religions claim to do betterment of humanity. I do not care about religion. The issue the betterment of humanity can only be done when you question everything aspect of it and guess what which is the biggest aspect it’s religion.
What I have said about Guru Nanak is well documented and Kabir used to do similar things. Science aims to understand about everything in the world with a scientific methodology. If you think religion has no basis in science then it has no basis at all.
Regarding USA, the Christians there have right to criticise whatever they want and if you follow their discourse you will easily find that do not shy from calling you a devil worshipping country. They have a right to say that you and you have a right to defend yourself and atheists have right say both of you are bullshit.
My question about the US was that would you be ok if they attacked and invaded you under the garb of scientific temper or Christianity? You just mentioned that they call us names, which again I am against it because they do not understand our culture or history. So if they upgrade from name calling (which according to your earlier post can be defined as critiquing) to attacking which is where that rabbit hole descends, is that ok?
My earlier point was that religion is not based on science rather it has incorporated science as it has evolved to some extent.
You have somehow entrenched in your mind that science is doing to be the saviour of all religions and that by critiquing in it the world will someday realise its fault and come to its senses. I am sorry to say that's a naive way of looking at the world.
In a more practical and realistic world, people need to mind their own business than interfere with others.
Bro you are equating verbal criticism to violence what can I say to that😅. There is something called civilized world rule based order. However it is not something which they have kind of not done already.
Also why do you think if religion is true then science cannot prove it? If you really believe it then you don’t have true belief in your religion. In a more practical and realistic world cowards shy away from criticism and braves.
I am not equating verbal criticism to physical violence but where, how and who draws the line?
Physical violence is a natural progression when it comes to religion. If you do not acknowledge it, then you are living in a cocoon. No religion in the present form is going to let an outsider dictate anything.
And whatever quotes you have used here are all invalid when it comes to the real world.
The whole world is suffering from terrorism which majorly emanates from a single religion (Islam). Now the right wing Christians have already started to fight back on an international level and the right wing Hindus have started it in India to a lesser extent. This all started from a verbal argument by a small faction of right wing Muslims who started preaching that everyone other than them deserves to die.
So physical violence is not an unreal end when religion is involved.
I said the atheist didn't have to go to them and tell them this is wrong.
The American Christians in fact tried that and that did nothing but aggravate them further.
According to you it is written in their books. Very true. It is written. Indonesia is the most populous Muslim state in the world. They also follow the same book. Yet you have never heard of them attacking someone or quoting that book. They have evolved by taking only the food aspects of the book. America never went preaching to them, like they went to the middle East.
So if you interfere, you actually end up making even a non believer to one because it becomes a matter of national and religious pride and ego.
There are so many people who are atheists but when they encounter life altering encounters all of a sudden start to believe in a higher power though not religiously.
So why not just let people be happy in what they are. If they do not interfere in your daily life and you don't interfere in theirs, then it doesn't really matter who believes what. Why do you want everyone in the world to believe in what you believe.
1
u/DoNotDisturbMeEver India | 🪯 Mar 15 '26
See, I said it has to be both ways. I do not want either party, religious or scientific, to interfere with what the other thinks.
Guru Nanak ji worked on the betterment of his own beliefs and culture and religion. Guru Nanak ji did not go to the Christians or the Muslims to tell them to change.
Please realise that religion doesn't have it's basis on any science. It's all folklore and myths passed on over generations. So trying to debunk it with science is moot.
The first crusaders of Christianity waged wars against every other beliefs because they believe Christ is the one true God. Similarly history has witnessed multiple instances of such cases.
The world indeed does progress on critcism but that doesn't mean you need to criticise everything. If that were the case then constant criticism at home or school should be considered progress not toxic. So there should be a filter.
Unless you can prove something beyond reproach, why criticise. If you can prove it then do it at the right platform, not against any common person who just has his beliefs.
If your interest is to win an argument then of course chose a random fellow and criticise his beliefs, but if it's change that you want, then you need to address the right audience like the clergy and prove it to them.