Is posting everything twice a statement on dualism or the dialectic? :-)
1. Practices prescribed for the faithful. It's hard to get worked up over these.
In the abstract, no, but some practices can be actively harmful from the perspective of people not of that religion. "Cut out the beating hearts of victims to feed the Sun God.", to take an obvious example. Or "Don't mingle with the lower castes, because they are unclean." Was Lord Napier right or wrong when he threatened to execute Hindus in British India who attempted to carry out the religious rite of sati? And then there's the whole question of circumcision/genital mutilation.
3. Claims about transcendence. Atheists seem to tend to find religionists believing these things to be silly and wrong, but I don't think that much vitriol can be really served up by a metaphysical disagreement alone.
That's not my experience. :-) See how well things go when atheists use a reductio ad absurdam argument involving invisible pink unicorns or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and theists see this as mockery of their deeply-held beliefs...
I don't know if you'd include this in one of your other categories, but there's also "Claims about human nature." Original sin; are we naturally good, or naturally evil? Do we have eternal souls, or do we return to nothingness when we die, or do we merge with the greater universe? Is our individuality a good thing or a tragic flaw, on the cosmic scale?
no subject
1. Practices prescribed for the faithful.
It's hard to get worked up over these.
In the abstract, no, but some practices can be actively harmful from the perspective of people not of that religion. "Cut out the beating hearts of victims to feed the Sun God.", to take an obvious example. Or "Don't mingle with the lower castes, because they are unclean." Was Lord Napier right or wrong when he threatened to execute Hindus in British India who attempted to carry out the religious rite of sati? And then there's the whole question of circumcision/genital mutilation.
3. Claims about transcendence.
Atheists seem to tend to find religionists believing these things to be silly and wrong, but I don't think that much vitriol can be really served up by a metaphysical disagreement alone.
That's not my experience. :-) See how well things go when atheists use a reductio ad absurdam argument involving invisible pink unicorns or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and theists see this as mockery of their deeply-held beliefs...
I don't know if you'd include this in one of your other categories, but there's also "Claims about human nature." Original sin; are we naturally good, or naturally evil? Do we have eternal souls, or do we return to nothingness when we die, or do we merge with the greater universe? Is our individuality a good thing or a tragic flaw, on the cosmic scale?