Many online atheists try to make money from degrading religions. Is this parasitic? Likewise is it parasitic for religious leaders to profit from criticising other religions? Dictionary definition plural noun: parasites 1. an organism which lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other's expense. "the parasite attaches itself to the mouths of fishes" 2. derogatory a person who habitually relies on or exploits others and gives nothing in return. "the capitalist is really a parasite on the workers
sort by best latest
A parasite is entrepreneurial in a gross unethical way. A real entrepreneur is not unethical. Derogatorially feeding off others is abhorrent and has a nauseating yuk factor.
Giving people what they want in argument, obviously profitable in HP. Very entrepreneurial!
It's the destructive unethical aspect that we are focusing on here and if it's parasitic. Entrepeneur has a totally different dictionary meaning which is more symbiotic. Parasites aren't symbiotic.
"Is making money from religious criticism parasitic ?" No!
Granted some people may hate it but anyone launching a (legal enterprise) that sells people what they want is an entrepreneur!
It's not as if they're just holding up signs asking for $
In fact they are holding up digital signs. Externally or internally feeding off a host qualifies them for the title of parasitic as the goal is to damage the host for their own benefit. They're not giving back anything.
Can you elaborate on that?
Not really, I was just being humerous. Can you show examples where you feel people are making money via criticism?
There are examples everywhere. There are writing sites where certain unmentionable persons spend all their time disparaging religion to try to earn money from the frequency of logs.
Well, if religionists continue to feed those parasites, you might consider the relationship symbiotic. The life and argument of religion is thereby maintained, fully paid, never to be laid to rest. Good call!
Mutually beneficial creatures in nature are symbiotic but parasites are not beneficial to the host. Hence they aren't symbiotic but deleterious. Humans who do this have the same yuk factor as say a tick or tapeworm.
That's very insulting to the Tick you have pictured. I mean, ask another Tick, perhaps a female suitor (presuming that pictured is male, it's ugly, let's face it, wink wink) and she would probably swoon!
Morally ugly. Trying to make money out of regular religious intolerance is morally repugnant because it is parasitic.
I take that as a "yes". This is how parasites feed. Hence an external parasite would be an atheist feeding externally but a fundamentalist religious bigot feeds internally.
I'm talking about religious bigots and atheists who spend time online criticizing other religions while trying to make money out of it.
The question relates specifically to the subject matter. A parasite feeds off a host but doesn't contribute to the host's well being. Feeding off religion when you don't like it could be parasitic by definition.
I do get your point OZ, I certainly would not argue it's use in this application. I was putting in my fifty cents.
The successful parasite does not usually kill its host. The successful host learns to tollerate the parasite; builds strategies that support survival; knows it has to co-exist. Symbiosis eventuates. Fighting to the death is pointless for both.
Unfortunately a parasite doesn't do that. A tick for example makes a host ill. Many ticks can kill a host etc. People living with tapeworms are not well individuals. It's not symbiotic.
Not entirely true.
Some ticks can kill some animals, even humans. But most ticks simply drop off, digest, then wait for another feed. Read on: http://www.scienceinschool.org/2011/issue20/horror... It pays to keep our minds open to other answers.
Such insects are classed as parasites. I understand why you might resist that idea.
In other words you agree it is parasitic behaviour even if it doesn't sicken or kill.
Don't assume that just any parasitic behavior is necessarily bad. It might jog a believer into thinking twice about belief in God.
Parasites in nature are not held in high esteem. It's negative and disease carrying. For a human to practice the same thing emotionally is plain disgusting. A tick has one excuse: it's brain is extremely tiny.
In human terms maybe. Yet parasites have always been part of nature, just one piece of the jigsaw puzzle, the tapestry. Would you banish them? If your God made this world complete with parasites, who are you to complain?
We are agreeing that certain behaviours are parasitic. Specifically people who try to make bucks leeching off religion. That's what this is about. Insect parasites is an analogy for human parasites. Are you defending such human parasites too?
No, I'm only questioning your need to be so concerned. Is it really necessary?
The entire basis of certain persons hp efforts revolve around a broken down parasiticial premise that totally undermines their weak arguments. It definitely needs to be pointed out to all.
I agree that all paths lead to the same destination.
Making money from denigrating other religions therefore must be highly unethical.
There is Huge Traffic JAM in the Gods way it can only clear by Pure wisdom its only you can decide where to go ...
where the money goes business started its all up to intention.
money is the tool and you can use it either way Good or Evil