1. Comment #98293 by bartvdo on December 13, 2007 at 12:46 pm

Any body can start a religion (see the latterday saints and the scientologists for modern examples)

So my guess is that everybody can question it.

I get the feeling somebody has hacked the way to post, because most of the questions raised are answered in this book that is advertised on the right :-)

Other Comments by bartvdo

2. Comment #98307 by Tom Morris on December 13, 2007 at 1:07 pm

A human being. That is all the necessary qualifications one needs to promote, discuss - or indeed question - religion.

I say this as someone who has a degree in philosophy and religion - ideas are simply ideas. If Jerry Falwell said that the sky is blue and Richard Dawkins said that the sky is pink, Falwell would be right and Dawkins would be wrong. This is true at least for all topics which we consider to be scientific.

Now, whether you choose to take someone's work as truthful or not is up to you. Qualifications are only a sometimes useful shorthand for knowledge, not the primary measure of it. My university has determined that I know enough about philosophy to give me a degree in it, they have not conferred infallibility on me.

So, read, think and listen based on truth, not based on letters.

If you do operate on the basis of letters, on what basis should you believe what the Pope says? His qualification is that a group of other human beings decided he was the Pope.

Other Comments by Tom Morris

3. Comment #98310 by Diacanu on December 13, 2007 at 1:11 pm

I'm Captain Impossible.

If you can't believe a guy who can juggle aircraft carriers, who can you?

Other Comments by Diacanu

4. Comment #98342 by rnewson on December 13, 2007 at 1:45 pm

"That which can be proposed without evidence can be rejected without evidence"?

Once evidence comes into play then any rational person can jump in and examine the evidence.

Religion has no credible evidence to date, everything put up (Noah's Ark, creationism, etc, blah, blah, blah) has been demolished by rational enquiry.

Other Comments by rnewson

5. Comment #98343 by Fiziker on December 13, 2007 at 1:47 pm

Tom Morris wrote:

A human being

Not to nitpick but I would be more general than that. Any being of enough sapience would be capable of questioning religion. In fact, a nonhuman might be even better because it would more dispassionate about the subject then most humans are. All anyone needs is to know the facts about the subject and be able to critically reason.

Other Comments by Fiziker

6. Comment #98346 by Corylus on December 13, 2007 at 1:50 pm

If you don't need qualifications to believe - then you don't need qualifications to question.

Other Comments by Corylus

7. Comment #98350 by Quetzalcoatl on December 13, 2007 at 1:56 pm

I'm a human being who lives in a world where religion holds too much power. Who are you?

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

8. Comment #98365 by Diacanu on December 13, 2007 at 2:22 pm

Fiziker-

That causes me to wonder if dolphins have a religion.

You just know it would be less dogmatic than human ones.

It'd probably involve eating fish, and playing with beachballs.

Other Comments by Diacanu

9. Comment #98388 by USA_Limey on December 13, 2007 at 2:40 pm

I hate these stupid 'debating points' so much I am going to be childish and petulant.

They completely mess up the 'lates visitor comments' section which helps us keep track of responses to the latest articles posted.

So there.

Other Comments by USA_Limey

10. Comment #98404 by Diacanu on December 13, 2007 at 2:52 pm

USA_Limey

I hate these stupid 'debating points' so much I am going to be childish and petulant.

Ditto, hence my first reply in post 3. ;)

Other Comments by Diacanu

11. Comment #98409 by Fiziker on December 13, 2007 at 2:58 pm

Diacanu-

At the very least debating dolphins might be more constructive than some (although not all) human theists. However, regardless of his followers playfulness, the Great Porpoise is fiction--although an omnipotent cetacean would be very interesting.

USA_Limey-

I don't like what these pages do to the RSS feed but I just thought I'd comment on how you are annoyed how they mess up the 'latest visitor comments' section and yet your comment has done what you find irritating.

Other Comments by Fiziker

12. Comment #98425 by USA_Limey on December 13, 2007 at 3:19 pm

Comment #98409 by Fiziker:

I just thought I'd comment on how you are annoyed how they mess up the 'latest visitor comments' section and yet your comment has done what you find irritating

Exactly! The irony was not lost on me.

That's why I did it.

Petulant moment over however and apologies to all, etc etc.

Other Comments by USA_Limey

13. Comment #98436 by EmilFremy on December 13, 2007 at 3:33 pm

First posting was lost!

What are your qualifications to question religion anyway? Just who are you?

I have been forced to go to the confirmation classes when I was 13 for several reasons, mainly social.
Although I questioned the almighty god to be the one one and single cause, a everlasting being.
I remember my childly feelings about the priest telling me such nonsense.
In the later course of my life I left the evangelical (lutherian) church but studied other religions
and pilosopies just privatly.

So my first qualification is SELFDEFENSE:
I got the confirmation and some christian education on this topic although I did not want it.
After growing strong enough it is my right to question what I have been taught or forced to accept.
That way I keep my mind clean and smooth.

My second qualification: INDEPENDANCE
I am a free born human who can think and act however I like,
provided I don´t hurt others. This is a basic right in all democracies.
Since I´am allowed to question politics without qualification,
I may also question Religion even without qualification.

My third qualification: TRUTHLOVING
This means, whatever I find illogical or what I cannot experience (after some trial)
is not TRUE for me, I won´t accept it from the depth of my heart.
The dogmas propagated by churches are not truth but intellectual violance.

My forth qualification: EDUCATION
I have studied engineering, philosophie, ethics and religion for decades.
So I have learned to use my brain and may even be able to help others
who do not use their brain or do not want (believers) to use it.

My fifth qualification: INTEREST
I´m deeply interested in Ethics, Philosophie, Science, Politics, Worldviews.
Interest is a tremendous advantage over professional priests
who have to think and pray what Mother church tells them.

I think just one of the qualifications mentioned is enough!

Other Comments by EmilFremy

14. Comment #98442 by woodm on December 13, 2007 at 3:41 pm

What are your qualifications to question religion anyway? Just who are you?

I somewhat reject this question. What are my qualifications to do anything? I don't own a breathing-license or a certification of completion/competence from a voting class.

Any two year old can and will let you know what the qualifications are to question anything. Who hasn't experienced the "why why why" game?

A good answer to this question would most likely follow the form of the Declaration of Independence or the spirit of "The Rights of Man".


That said, it's pretty clear that "the big 4" are much better at this debate than I am. I'd hesitate to debate Christopher Hitchens on just about anything because I know I'd have my hands full. But if he told me that pigs can fly, I'd definitely tell him that they don't.

Other Comments by woodm

15. Comment #98470 by Spinoza on December 13, 2007 at 5:23 pm

I am a duck with four wooden legs.

Don't believe me?

Yeah, well I don't believe in your God, so we're even.

The evidence for my amputee mutant talking typing duck status is actually higher than for religious beliefs anyway. hehe

Other Comments by Spinoza

16. Comment #98473 by BigJohn on December 13, 2007 at 5:30 pm

In my necessarily humble opinion, this jejune question sounds peevish and childish. It wouldn't spark any debate from me.

Other Comments by BigJohn

17. Comment #98475 by Intergalactic Hussy on December 13, 2007 at 5:44 pm

The fact that some people wish to teach our children anti-science and prohibit human rights such as gay marriage, birth control, abortion, etc.

This is what I have a problem with. Agnostic theists aren't the real "problem". Religion is!

Other Comments by Intergalactic Hussy

18. Comment #98478 by Rational_G on December 13, 2007 at 5:55 pm

Yeah, move these "debating tips" somewhere else. I don't remember asking to be coached. Just read TGD.

My first reaction to seeing all these postings was "WTF is this?"

Other Comments by Rational_G

19. Comment #98496 by automath on December 13, 2007 at 7:05 pm

One doesn't need a qualification to ask questions.

What isn't to be questioned? Something that goes out of its way to avoid questions needs to be questioned all the more.

Other Comments by automath

20. Comment #98498 by stereoroid on December 13, 2007 at 7:07 pm

Tom in comment #2 beat me to it: the ability to ask these questions is a fundamentally human trait. If someone takes away that right, or you voluntarily relinquish it to become a follower of blind faith, you become a little less human than you were before.

Other Comments by stereoroid

21. Comment #98713 by Acleron on December 14, 2007 at 5:35 am

According to religious leaders, no-one has the right to question religion.

To allow questions would undermine their authority. A blind belief, without questioning, is what they demand. It's the only way they can cling on to power.

Other Comments by Acleron

22. Comment #98758 by sidfaiwu on December 14, 2007 at 8:12 am

What are your qualifications to question religion anyway? Just who are you?

The same qualifications that we all have to question public policy. We can question anything that effects us.

Other Comments by sidfaiwu

23. Comment #98902 by prettygoodformonkeys on December 14, 2007 at 9:30 pm

I used to be caught in the cycle of belief/guilt, but I reasoned my way out of it.

How is it YOU decide what to think?

(otherwise known as the: "who-the-fuck-are-you-and-what-the-fuck-are-you-looking-at?" defense.)

Other Comments by prettygoodformonkeys

24. Comment #98935 by dialector on December 15, 2007 at 12:06 am

My qualifications? I have studied Christian theology and the bilical text a 1000 times more than the average Christian. I have read the bible in Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic and latin. I can run circles around the average PhD in theology. But what are my qualifications to ask a question???

The only qualification that any human being needs to ask a question is ignorance. Anyone who insists that one must have "qualifications" to ask a question is horrendously deluded. If something does not make sense to me, I am going to question it. The very idea that we need to be qualified to ask a question is the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

Other Comments by dialector

25. Comment #101777 by Jake Atkisson on December 21, 2007 at 12:58 am

"What are your qualifications to question religion anyway? Just who are you?"

I am I, begotten by the realization that I Am. That is my one and only requisite qualification; I need no more.

Just who am I? That is my concern, not yours. Perhaps the figurative 'you' in this reference should concern yourself more with answering that of yourself to yourself than with questioning my 'qualification' to do so for myself, to myself.

Qualifications. Text is a poor conveyor of contempt, but I feel that anyone who attempts to tag a list of pre-req qualifications onto the 'right' or 'ability' to question religion is, themselves, to be held in grave suspicion and certainly not to be trusted.

Why? They're probably wanting you to buy something, and likely not with money, but rather the currency of yourself.

I am. That is my qualification to question, to pursue, to investigate and to learn.

I'll say it again for the fundamentalist religious goomba's in the proverbial back row that still think you need a college credential to question religious authority; I Am.

Say it with me now. Say it like you mean it.

I Am. Feels good, don't it? Empowering, even. Such vistas open up when you really realize it.

But, it's scary over here. Because You Are, you have to do something about it; that's how 'being' works. If you don't pursue learning, well, there's a whole army of whackjobs ready, willing and cheerfully able to tell you what to learn.

So, you'll either think for yourself or someone else will do it for you.

I. Am. And as far as it goes, I need no other qualification, 'cause hey, let's face it; all the qualifications of man-made titles, pieces of paper that say "You've officially learned stuff and this bunch of pundits will confirm it" and agreement of your peers don't mean squat.

Why? Nobody actually knows anything about religion anyway. Not like we know, for example, about directly observable, interactive things, like tire irons.

Rambling babble? Hey, that's my right and privilege too. While I realize that the author posed the query as a debate point and not his personal inquiry, I'll respond like it's personal.

What's my right to question? What's your right to claim?

Who died and left me boss of what I will and won't accept as right and true? Turn it around; who died and made you the distributor of what's right and true?

Jesus did? Your storybook tells you so? Well hey, I'll write my own storybook. Then we can compare storybooks, and you can yell and scream and howl about how your wrathful man in the sky that actually loves everybody but is apparently as meglomaniacle and bi-polar as eternity is long is the real one, and my buoyant pasta creature is clearly the most absurd thing ever.

Closing thought: "I read it on the internet, so it must be true."

I mean, really, if you're into religion, you'll doubtlessly say things like that repeatedly and often in your life, as you're demonstrably quite gullible.

But, but, but...there's a tragic twist to this ending. Direly tragic. It goes a little something like this.

You're the author of your own delusions; your delusions of grandeur, your delusions of moral and ethical superiority, your delusions of infallibility, your delusions of universal correctness; all just delusions.

Vapor; smoke; hot air. So...anyone who'd seriously ask me what my qualification to question religion is should be prepared for equally stupid answers.

I shouldn't have to explain it. If I have to explain it, there's virtually no chance of a given audience 'getting it' anyway, and any attempt at explaining would thence wind up becoming an exercise in preaching, which I abhor.

I've also observed that water never apologizes to drowning victims. It's kinda like how 'bad' and 'good' are subjective, life is what you make of it and, at the end of the day, life just isn't conforming to anyone's specific notion of 'fair'.

Maybe, maybe, just maybe...there's a link somewhere in those notions.

We'll just call it 'natural consequence', and with that, I'm out.

Other Comments by Jake Atkisson

26. Comment #107117 by Tagred on January 4, 2008 at 5:50 am

Ok, I shall make my point from what might seems a weird point of view.

If there is an omnisicent, omnipotent god that created everything including humans, clearly my qualifications come from god himself. I shall explain.

A god that knows what everything was and what shall be and has a plan for everyo human, clearly knows what we are all going to do minute by minute, therefore god himself planned for my questioning of religion and god himself. In short god did it. Also there is one special thing that god gave to all humans, and that is free will, he has allowed us all to have the ability to question his existance and the role of religion.

But since god knows everything he knew about freee will and knew what i would think and therefore planned it for me, so in fact do i have free will or not? No, god did it.

The qualifications i have to question religion are those given to me by god, after all i am made in his image by him. There is no higher authority to give me this knowledge or qualification because it came straight from god. That is who i am to question religion, and if you dont like it, take it to the man upstairs.

If theists can use strawmen and nutty answers then so can I.

For a proper reason. I question religion precisely because of the education i had and sought, and with each discovery of science and each example of hypocrisy of religion it pushes the need for religion furhter back into the dark ages. It is a man made contstruct, out-moded, out-dated and not needed. As Terry Pratchett once indicated in (please note this is paraphrasing) "Small Gods"; "gods are only as strong as those who believe in them." Or, (still paraphrasing)"he really believed in a god, suddenly a god appeared from nowhere."

Other Comments by Tagred

27. Comment #107682 by manolo007 on January 5, 2008 at 1:24 am

1. You don't need qualifications to ask questions. Do children in school need qualifications to raise their hands and ask a question? Of course not.
2. There are three main abrahamic religions each one claiming to be true, Do they expect not to be questioned? Ridiculous.
3. You do need qualifications to answer questions and in the case of religion the only qualified entity would be god himself, unless you claim to know exactly what his or her or its answer would be. Ludicrous.

Other Comments by manolo007

28. Comment #109082 by mattTR on January 8, 2008 at 9:37 am

Saying that only qualified theologians can talk about religion is like saying that only political scientists should be allowed to vote.

Religion isn't science, its a branch of philosophy, and like any other Arts subject, one doesnt need to be an 'expert' to hold an opinion upon it.

In any case, theologians are no more qualified to discuss the Philosophy of Religion than the man on the street - they can only tell someone about the implications of their faith, with the existence of God already presumed (as it is in many theology courses).

Other Comments by mattTR

29. Comment #110708 by ghost of numf-el on January 12, 2008 at 4:41 am

What are my qualifications to question religion anyway? Just who am I?

Why?
Who the fuck do I have to be, and what fucking qualifications do I need to have to ask what I deem to be a perfectly reasonable fucking question?
Or are you trying to fucking weasle out of it, you fucking evil power crazy charlatan?

(Perhaps dial down the sweariness and vitriol if you have any respect for the person you're talking to.)

Other Comments by ghost of numf-el

30. Comment #111906 by Q Jordon on January 16, 2008 at 1:28 am

I find it interesting that one would need qualifications to question or debate religion.

If one must truly "seek and you shall find" then questioning would be a prerequisite to be able to correctly understand what you have found.

My qualifications are simple, I am human and I have reasoning. If one cannot find the evidence in religious truth through logic or reasoning, then the true qualifications to question religion would be based in faith and belief.

If faith and belief are the only qualifications needed to question religion, then I have faith in the belief to use logic and reasoning.

I love circular arguments.

Other Comments by Q Jordon

31. Comment #113860 by Alyosha on January 20, 2008 at 7:35 pm

I'd be tempted to counter with a question:

What are your qualifications to tell me I can't?

Other Comments by Alyosha

32. Comment #114808 by Ertt on January 22, 2008 at 10:26 pm

"What are your qualifications to question religion anyway? Just who are you?"

My qualification is that I use language, for
I am a language user.

Perhaps the asker means to ask "What are your qualifications for coming up with a different conclusion about religion than the preachers and theologians?"

I gave the preachers lots of time. Sundays that I could have been doing something enjoyable and/or constructive were diverted to the preachers. Confirmation classes, Sunday school all that time I soaked up the teachings and actually listened to the sermons.

What qualifies me to reject religion is precisely that which was supposed to qualify me to accept it.

Other Comments by Ertt

33. Comment #117228 by decster on January 28, 2008 at 12:38 pm

Im just as qualified as any human being that ever lived and ever will.
WHO AM I?
Im the person your non existing god claims is his property, i tend to disagree.

Other Comments by decster

34. Comment #122646 by daddydowse on February 5, 2008 at 6:09 pm

Who am i? I am a collection of atoms.

I qualify to question your beliefs by the simple fact i exist. You have that exact and simple right, however i do not show opposition to your right question me. I have nothing to hide.

Other Comments by daddydowse

35. Comment #125745 by the_ultimate_samurai on February 12, 2008 at 1:25 am

this is a common question, it goes into the catagory of "the arrogance of science" essentialy the existance of an all knowing, all powerful god is assumed from the start, the very thing we are debating is assumed at the begining extant, which is notably fallacious. so then by this assumption that such a creature exists, any questioning whether he exists or his supposed word is considered arrogant because then you are saying you know more than god, you are raising yourself to the divine.

the error here is the assumption of the existance of such a creature, an assumption that seems impossible for these people to expell for the sake of a debate, and then such impossible to debate logically.

so the answer is simple, anyone with a brain can argue the existance of god.

Other Comments by the_ultimate_samurai

36. Comment #130207 by martino on February 20, 2008 at 7:12 am

What are your qualifications to question atheism? You have many false conceptions of that so it does not look like you are qualified to do so. I am not questioning religion, I am questioning why you should impose it on me or anyone else.

Other Comments by martino

37. Comment #130782 by the_ultimate_samurai on February 21, 2008 at 9:23 am

i shall have to play god's advocate on this one,
the issue on questioning atheists beliefs have something of a different connotation to questioning christian beliefs, because on the later you are questioning the will of god, who in their vies is an all knowing, all powerful being, they are so conditioned to accept what he says (or what they are told he says) without question, thus questioning the bible is questioning him, thus you can only question him if you are BETTER or more KNOWING than he.
again christians bring the idea of gods existance as accepted ahead of time, so any logic they tend to follow automatically follows from the supposition that god exists, which makes questioning his existance harder, because its already assumed. (in other words they use the thing they wish to prove to prove that very thing, definition of circular)

questioning atheism holds different for them, because god isnt presupposed for the atheists side, so its only questioning the wisdom of a human, but it is presupposed on their side, so they are shielded from inquiry..

funny how that works out eh?

Other Comments by the_ultimate_samurai

38. Comment #138386 by 4horsefins on March 4, 2008 at 8:58 am

What qualifications do you have to question religion anyway? Just who are you?

To me, this question begs the question (or statement)Name one qualification that is an acceptable one when questioning religion.

They have obviously just asked a question which they believe has no correct answer, or there is no qualification.

What qualification does the religious person have to question the flying spaghetti monster?

Other Comments by 4horsefins

39. Comment #142279 by daniel_garrison on March 12, 2008 at 8:51 am

What are anyone's qualifications for questioning anything? I have a desire to know the truth about religion so I ask questions. If you are asking what are my qualifications to challenge religion, then I would say that my qualifications to challenge religion are on par with your qualifications to claim that religion is irrefutable.

Other Comments by daniel_garrison

40. Comment #146746 by pawiz on March 19, 2008 at 10:53 am

That sounds like an ad hominem attack? What do you mean who am I? I am a person preached at every day by the religious. I have more knowledge of many religions than an accuser would have as he/she would have only the single point to which he/she attests by faith. Who are you to question when you have only a single perspective?

Other Comments by pawiz

41. Comment #147268 by dadamo on March 20, 2008 at 5:08 am

Answer: ""My qualifications for questioning your religion exceed your qualifications for believing in it."

For one, I've read scripture, which is more than many religious people have done. Secondly, rather than blindly accept what I read, I thought about it critically, which hardly any religious people do. Do I need any more qualifications than that?

Many Believers would say "yes." They would say before you can question religion you must study scripture in the original Hebrew and Greek. But if teams of scholars - supposedly under the direction of the Holy Spirit - oversee the translation of scripture into English, then why should it be necessary to read scripture in the original languages? Why shouldn't I expect any contradictions and nonsense I read in an English translation to be in the original languages, too?

Besides, what qualifications are needed to believe a religion?

Apparently, none. No qualifications are needed to believe that God once impregnated a woman who was not his wife, and that God later saw to it that his only son was tortured to death. Religious people think that a six-year old child has all the qualifications necessary to believe his or her parents' religion.

So my answer to "What are your qualifications for questioning my religion?" is "My qualifications for questioning your religion exceed your qualifications for believing in it."

http://ACounterfeitGod.com

Other Comments by dadamo

42. Comment #147482 by AlanF on March 20, 2008 at 3:14 pm

I was raised in a form of fundamentalist Christian religion (Jehovah's Witnesses), spent many years figuring out why it and Christianity in general have little to do with reality, and have studied a good deal about the roots of Christianity. I know a lot more about the Bible now than I ever did when I was still a Christian. I've successfully debated with any number of apologists for many years, and have been told by many former believers that my writings helped them get out of the muck of belief-without-real-evidence. I've paid the price of leaving a cult, since most of my family that is still in the JW cult will have nothing to do with me.

AlanF

Other Comments by AlanF

43. Comment #149512 by nancy on March 25, 2008 at 7:33 pm

My own alien superbeing told me I could:-)

Other Comments by nancy

44. Comment #150445 by Bigorra on March 26, 2008 at 11:31 pm

My qualifications?
--The First Amendment to the Constitution and a restless quest for truth.
Who am I?
--A person who does not surrender his reason to dogma or irrational, subjective, shifty interpretations of "final" truths or constantly changing revelations.

Other Comments by Bigorra

45. Comment #151643 by fuzzyfox on March 29, 2008 at 5:59 am

summon religion to court?

Other Comments by fuzzyfox

46. Comment #156362 by Seti on April 7, 2008 at 11:59 am

Why would I need any special qualifications to discuss religion? At least in terms of xianity, it isn't supposed to be difficult. Matthew 7:7 says "Seek and ye shall find." And after all, why should it be difficult? What kind of god would deliberately choose to make it difficult? Certainly not the kind of loving god xians claim.

Other Comments by Seti

47. Comment #161271 by jpollard on April 15, 2008 at 5:00 am

It is not unreasonable to ask such a question. Priests, etc. spend many years learning the 'basis of their faith' and the means by which it should be protected. Therefore I see no reason why their combatant should not be someone equally learned. Else it could become a 'fools errand'. Nothing is served by arguing from a basis of emotional belief - that is the religious position after all. Should not we argue from the basis of proveable investigative logic (science)?

Other Comments by jpollard

48. Comment #163767 by engeln on April 19, 2008 at 2:21 am

as Wafa Sultan said, "Brother, you can believe in stones, so long as you don't throw them at me...". If you want to inflict bronsage dogmas on the society I live in I going to criticize it.

Other Comments by engeln

49. Comment #165015 by CentabyteZero on April 20, 2008 at 11:42 pm

What are your qualifications to question who has the qualifications to question religion?

Other Comments by CentabyteZero

50. Comment #166284 by T4Baxter on April 23, 2008 at 5:00 am

My qualification to question religion is an open mind. I have heard much of the evidence on both sides having converted from Christianity. Through inquisitive investigation from the historicity of Jesus, historicity of the old testament, the nature of the early church, Previous and directly comparable messiah stories based on the zodiac, genetics, evolution, chemistry, physics-history, quantum mechanics, double-blind prayer studies, mysticism, philosophy you name it. though I am a laymen in my understanding, a broader picture presents itself. Sadly, as much as I would like to defend the honor of my nearest and dearest, I've simply come to accept the overwhelmingly probable position that only a deist perspective is defensible in any real sense. If the position you are arguing is GOD is beyond the reach of science for example. 'the first mover etc'. You may as well throw the 'instructions' (bible) away, if thats the only sensible religious perspective. All arguments for the interfering GOD fall flat on their face, it seems.

Other Comments by T4Baxter