Criticism of religion

Criticism of religion involves criticism of the validity, concept, or ideas of religion.^[1] Historical records of criticism of religion go back to at least 5th century BCE in ancient Greece, in Athens specifically, with Diagoras "the Atheist" of Melos. In ancient Rome, an early known example is Lucretius' De rerum natura from the 1st century BCE.

Every exclusive religion on Earth (as well as every exclusive world view) that promotes exclusive truth-claims necessarily denigrates the truth-claims of other religions.^[2] Thus, some criticisms of religion become criticisms of one or more aspects of a specific religious tradition. Critics of religion in general may view religion as one or more of: outdated, harmful to the individual, harmful to society, an impediment to the progress of science or humanity, a source of immoral acts or customs, and a political tool for social control.

^ Fitzgerald, Timothy (2000). The Ideology of Religious Studies. New York: Oxford University Press (published 2003). p. 235. ISBN 978-0195347159. Retrieved 30 April 2019. ... this book consists mainly of a critique of the concept of religion ... .
^ See Saumur v Quebec (City of).
See also:
Katharine Gelber; Adrienne Sarah Ackary Stone (2007). Hate Speech and Freedom of Speech in Australia. Federation Press. p. 179. ISBN 978-1862876538. In some belief systems, religious leaders and believers maintain the right to both emphasise the benefits of their own religion and criticise other religions; that is, they make their own claims and deny the truth claims of others.
Michael Herz; Peter Molnar (2012). The Content and Context of Hate Speech: Rethinking Regulation and Responses. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1107375611. people of every religion, as well as of no religion, have a reason for wanting it to be possible to face other people with challenges to their faith, namely that this is the only way those people can be brought to see the truth.
"No Compulsion in Religion: An Islamic Case Against Blasphemy Laws" (PDF). Quilliam Foundation. Archived from the original (PDF) on 4 March 2016. Due to the nature of religious belief, one person's faith often implies that another's is wrong and perhaps even offensive, constituting blasphemy. For example, the major world religions often have very different formulations and beliefs concerning god or gods, Muhammad, Jesus, Buddha and the Hindu deities, as well as about various ethical and social matters

[1] Fitzgerald, Timothy (2000). The Ideology of Religious Studies. New York: Oxford University Press (published 2003). p. 235. ISBN 978-0195347159. Retrieved 30 April 2019. ... this book consists mainly of a critique of the concept of religion ... .

[2] See Saumur v Quebec (City of).
See also:
Katharine Gelber; Adrienne Sarah Ackary Stone (2007). Hate Speech and Freedom of Speech in Australia. Federation Press. p. 179. ISBN 978-1862876538. In some belief systems, religious leaders and believers maintain the right to both emphasise the benefits of their own religion and criticise other religions; that is, they make their own claims and deny the truth claims of others.
Michael Herz; Peter Molnar (2012). The Content and Context of Hate Speech: Rethinking Regulation and Responses. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1107375611. people of every religion, as well as of no religion, have a reason for wanting it to be possible to face other people with challenges to their faith, namely that this is the only way those people can be brought to see the truth.
"No Compulsion in Religion: An Islamic Case Against Blasphemy Laws" (PDF). Quilliam Foundation. Archived from the original (PDF) on 4 March 2016. Due to the nature of religious belief, one person's faith often implies that another's is wrong and perhaps even offensive, constituting blasphemy. For example, the major world religions often have very different formulations and beliefs concerning god or gods, Muhammad, Jesus, Buddha and the Hindu deities, as well as about various ethical and social matters

[1]

[2]