Is religion a farce?

AudreyHepburn

B_Fanatic wrote: »

That's just it though, religion can't both be a farce and not be one at the same time. No matter how many people believe in a deity it won't make it anymore true. In saying that however, if someone was to give me some conclusive evidence that made the likelihood that a god exists greater than the likelihood schlee didn't, then sure, I'd change my view and spend a year out travelling the world humbly apologising to religous people everywhere.

And what about god? The 'everlasting?' Where did he come from? "God has always been," screw that! Why not cut out the middle man and just say matter and energy has always been? What makes that any less likely than the existence of a god?

No need to plaster over your ignorance with a deity, just admit there's some things you don't know and work at figuring them out if that's what you want to do.

First of all I am not ignorant and I would appreciate it if you didn't call me it.

Second my point was there will never be one all-encompasing answer to the OP's question because neither side will ever agree. That's fine, it's just human nature.

I'm not interested in debating the realness or not of God because there is no point, it will go round in circles as it always does.

B_Fanatic

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

First of all I am not ignorant and I would appreciate it if you didn't call me it.

Second my point was there will never be one all-encompasing answer to the OP's question because neither side will ever agree. That's fine, it's just human nature.

I'm not interested in debating the realness or not of God because there is no point, it will go round in circles as it always does.

I wasn't calling you ignorant, I meant there are some things we'll never know and passing them off as a miracle or the exceptional work of god won't help us find out jsut how they work. Reading my post now I probably could've made it clearer. When I said ignorance I meant things humanity doesn't know, not ignorance on a personal level : / Only the first paragraph was really meant for you and still, that wasn't directed at you completely. I was kind of 'just saying' if you know what I mean.

Gumbi

luvbulmers01 wrote: »

Im just wondering what peoples perspective on religion is?

For me the world would be a better place witout it, how many wars in history have been caused by religion that couldve easily been avoided, how many times have people been persecuted against because of their religion.

Just look at the amount of times people have used religion to excuse extreme acts of violence against humanity, i.e muslims burning, stoning people to death for simple crimes. the crusades, the Nazis etc.

For me the world would be a better place without it, can people justify a reason to believe in religions in this day and age?

Are you implying that without religion, the world would be a safer place?

Ghost Buster

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

When oh when will people realise these kinds of discussions will never get anywhere worthwhile? They only descend into insult and argument on BOTH sides.

Is religion a farce.....it depends on who you ask I suppose.

Personally I do believe in God but that it is my business and I have no interest in pushing it on anyone, nor would any of the religous I know.

If you ask me the only farical things about this whole debate are the fantatical religious and those condscending arrogant athiests who cannot see that they are as bad as eachother and do no-one any favours.

Any of those in this thread ?
and linky linky please:)

starlit

May the farce be with you!

Chuck Stone

KeithAFC wrote: »

Soviet Union? Burnt churches to the ground and stopped religious freedom. Atheists can be bad too.

The rationale was Communism rather than atheism.

I've never heard of one person advocating the suppression of religion by force.

I certainly don't.

Stargazer7

ed2hands wrote: »

:pac:

I think you'll find some atheists are up their own arse aswell.

As well as theists....I was just making a factual point in reference to another boardsie saying they needed to educate themselves. Stats back it up, that is all.

Stargazer7

doovdela wrote: »

I do yes! I firmly believe that we evolved from the apes/evolution none of that adam and eve cac! They might have existed but the whole thing about the story of that is bs. I might not have been great at science and way worse at religion but I have always believed in science more so than religion not that I am into Scientology by any means. Not into any major religion at all all a cult in my eyes. I believe in astronomy, I do question a lot of things, I am curious by nature. I always like to know how things come about and how such a thing occurs. I don't like lies spun to meet an ideal such as religious teachings this is it that's all it is no other its one way or the high way at least science there is more than one way to achieve the same outcome but doing different experiments a better and more innovated, technological advanced way to keep up with modern times! I strive for knowledge and like factual things. If its proven I will believe it! If its not I won't believe it. I am mesmerised by how the human brain works! I love computer related things so guess that's where my scientific bone comes in and like researching....

Also, not sure if you're inferring this but we didn't descend from apes as we know them today - we're their cousins so to speak, a common misconception. Like the idea that evolution just "Happens". That something as complex as the eye needed a designer/creator. It took years and years and years of evolution to happen, it wasn't just magic. (not inferring you think the above btw.)

Ghost Buster

ed2hands wrote: »

:pac:

I think you'll find some atheists are up their own arse aswell.

Like my Granny used to say "Education is the ruination of this country".:rolleyes:

starlit

Stargazer7 wrote: »

Also, not sure if you're inferring this but we didn't descend from apes as we know them today - we're their cousins so to speak, a common misconception. Like the idea that evolution just "Happens". That something as complex as the eye needed a designer/creator. It took years and years and years of evolution to happen, it wasn't just magic. (not inferring you think the above btw.)

Ya of course, I don't deny that we descended from the apes but its what we evolved from before apes makes me realised we weren't created by God we were created by mini organisms that evolved over billions of years which included the evolution of plants, animals, mammals and humans etc. When we are a foetus mammals (some reptiles/animals/humans/apes) they all begin as a form of a foetus which could become any animal/human etc but its the DNA will determine whether they be human/animal and what their personalities and appearances and traits will be etc. The male sperm is the deciding factor if its a male or female baby. It's like the human brain has evolved over so many millions of years too. Like the most recent area of the brain where we have feelings not just instincts like an animal has but emotional side of the brain and cognitive thinking, judgement/decision making I suppose that part of the brain is the most recently evolved part of the brain where we don't go by instinct we think about the consequences unlike an animal would they have less emotions than us humans would they have the basics but wouldn't have as much thought processes as we would have.

Mickeroo

doovdela wrote: »

Ya of course, I don't deny that we descended from the apes but its what we evolved from before apes makes me realised we weren't created by God we were created by mini organisms that evolved over billions of years which included the evolution of plants, animals, mammals and humans etc. When we are a foetus mammals (some reptiles/animals/humans/apes) they all begin as a form of a foetus which could become any animal/human etc but its the DNA will determine whether they be human/animal and what their personalities and appearances and traits will be etc. The male sperm is the deciding factor if its a male or female baby. It's like the human brain has evolved over so many millions of years too. Like the most recent area of the brain where we have feelings not just instincts like an animal has but emotional side of the brain and cognitive thinking, judgement/decision making I suppose that part of the brain is the most recently evolved part of the brain where we don't go by instinct we think about the consequences unlike an animal would they have less emotions than us humans would they have the basics but wouldn't have as much thought processes as we would have.

AFAIK lots of animals, maybe not all, have the same thought processes we do. Humans don't have a monoploly on emotions either.

starlit

Mickeroo wrote: »

AFAIK lots of animals, maybe not all, have the same thought processes we do. Humans don't have a monoploly on emotions either.

I know what you mean, just that animals have a less selective amount than say humans do. I know that there is a slight difference in their brain processes and what parts of the brain is active and what isn't and what part of the brain has evolved and developed in humans but not in animals.

ed2hands

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Like my Granny used to say "Education is the ruination of this country".:rolleyes:

:)Not sure what you're getting at there. No worries anyway.
Just to say i fully agree with what Audreyhepburn said on the matter.

Ghost Buster

ed2hands wrote: »

:)Not sure what you're getting at there. No worries anyway.
Just to say i fully agree with what Audreyhepburn said on the matter.

Firstly I have to say, and this is not to you alone but generally, that Im sick to my eye teeth of people saying that all religious are nuts and/or all atheists are clever clogs and arrogant. Inevitably if asked where they encounter this they give boards as an example.
Boards is not representative of anything like the real world. I have very seldom had debates or discussions in the real world like i have on boards and i dare say neither has any one else.
What i am getting at is that we are barely half a generation removed from the attitude of my Granny and her era!
It is still very much a part of the irish psyche that thinking outside the box and bucking the trend is a bad thing and that this stilted attitude is often where the stereo type of the arrogant atheist comes from.

ScumLord

Stargazer7 wrote: »

Also, not sure if you're inferring this but we didn't descend from apes as we know them today - we're their cousins so to speak, a common misconception.

Indeed, saying we evolved from apes infers we're something other than an ape at the moment.

sheesh

No religion is not a farce. the vast majority of cultures on the planet have had some sort of religion, So its obviously doing something. I assume it has some sort of stabilizing or identity role in a society while it might not be good for some of the individuals society as a whole benefits by its presence.

While we can all agree in general terms as to how we should treat each other religion can also give definitive details of what is right and wrong. religion is societies value nerd.

Where I think religion shows its value is at times where the problem is unsolvable like a sick child or some sort of natural disaster or personal crisis religion gives the person the option of getting down on their knees and praying to a god that this won't happen.

ScumLord

sheesh wrote: »

No religion is not a farce. the vast majority of cultures on the planet have had some sort of religion, So its obviously doing something. I assume it has some sort of stabilizing or identity role in a society while it might not be good for some of the individuals society as a whole benefits by its presence.

It's part of the constant struggle humans have between tribe and the benefits of larger colony's. We still haven't really found a good way to operate in large groups.

One god religions do bring about a baseline agreement so that people across vast areas can have some sort of common culture but I think it's had it's time, it served us well up to a point and now we've outgrown it.

Ghost Buster

sheesh wrote: »

No religion is not a farce. the vast majority of cultures on the planet have had some sort of religion, So its obviously doing something. I assume it has some sort of stabilizing or identity role in a society while it might not be good for some of the individuals society as a whole benefits by its presence.

While we can all agree in general terms as to how we should treat each other religion can also give definitive details of what is right and wrong. religion is societies value nerd.

Where I think religion shows its value is at times where the problem is unsolvable like a sick child or some sort of natural disaster or personal crisis religion gives the person the option of getting down on their knees and praying to a god that this won't happen.

The vast majority of cultures on the planet have many things in common. This does not mean that these similarities must there fore be positive.
By that reckoning we should all still be worshiping fire and have a light bit of animal sacrifice before lunch.

How does prayer solve child sickness and natural disaster?

ed2hands

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Firstly I have to say, and this is not to you alone but generally, that Im sick to my eye teeth of people saying that all religious are nuts and/or all atheists are clever clogs and arrogant.

Don't think i've claimed either of those things things actually.
I do know what you mean though. It's good to discuss these matters, and hopefully without too much poking fun at someones particular beliefs in a nasty way. It's enjoyable hearing both "sides" and how they feel about it and you're right in that most are not what you described above there.

This is obviously a sensitive subject for many as their faith (or lack thereof) is very important to them. In saying that it seems the vast majority can take a good joke and a bit of ribbing. (Except for me; i always get upset:pac:)

Ghost Buster wrote: »

It is still very much a part of the irish psyche that thinking outside the box and bucking the trend is a bad thing and that this stilted attitude is often where the stereo type of the arrogant atheist comes from.

Am not sure where the stereotype of the arrogant athiest comes from, but i gather arrogant athiests don't help matters.
(joke;))

Ghost Buster

ed2hands wrote: »

Don't think i've claimed either of those things things actually.
I do know what you mean though. It's good to discuss these matters, and hopefully without too much poking fun at someones particular beliefs in a nasty way. It's enjoyable hearing both "sides" and how they feel about it and you're right in that most are not what you described above there.

This is obviously a sensitive subject for many as their faith (or lack thereof) is very important to them. In saying that it seems the vast majority can take a good joke and a bit of ribbing. (Except for me; i always get upset:pac:)




Am not sure where the stereotype of the arrogant athiest comes from, but i gather arrogant athiests don't help matters.
(joke;))

It usually comes from Audrey Hepburn in less than two posts swiftly followed by claims of persecution.
Youre big fan yes?:)

sheesh

Ghost Buster wrote: »

The vast majority of cultures on the planet have many things in common. This does not mean that these similarities must there fore be positive.

My point is they all have religions, All of them. From the most isolated tribe in the congo or the amazon to the astronauts in space. there are no cultures without religion. the buddist are nearly there with their concept of budda and achieving enlightment but they still have a proscribed value system and an Icon of perfection to whom you can petition for help (ok meditate on).

Ghost Buster wrote: »

By that reckoning we should all still be worshiping fire and have a light bit of animal sacrifice before lunch.

How does prayer solve child sickness and natural disaster?

my point is that in a way we still are worshipping fire and its wonderful ability to heat, cook food and defend us from predators. I'm saying that we moved from a fire god and we added other gods like rain, fertility, the sea, the sun, the hindus still have this kind of spiritual setup and it has worked for them for thousands of years. We in the west had it too until Christianity became the official religion of The Roman Empire then europe became christian.

As you say in your sig 'a person is smart people are stupid' give a group a bunch of clearly defined rules any person acting up has to justify his actions to the group thereby tempering the actions of individuals within the group.

Tehachapi

doovdela wrote: »

I know what you mean, just that animals have a less selective amount than say humans do. I know that there is a slight difference in their brain processes and what parts of the brain is active and what isn't and what part of the brain has evolved and developed in humans but not in animals.

Could you explain what specific parts of "the brain" are "active and evolved" in humans and not animals?

You might have a point but your post comes across as someone who doesn't have the slightest idea what they're talking about.

holystungun9

farce (formal English) = f#ckin ar5e (informal English)

Ans. = yes, religion is a farce.

geetar

religion was clearly made because we did not have an understanding of the world around us.

now we are much more knowledgable about our surroundings. the origins of our planet, why the sky is blue, trees are green and why birds can fly no longer mistify us, and it should be no surprise why we are less religious everyday.


personally, i struggle to believe in a gerontocratic brotherhood of corrupt people in rome, who past and present have done attrocious things to humanity. crusades, abuse of children, damnation of homosexuals and the refusal to stop the spread disease that kills millions of children.

im sure i sound like a hormonal teenage girl, but i find catholicism couldnt be a greater contradiction to christianity and itself.

if jesus was/is real im sure he could only be disgusted by whats is happening around us. im certain he wouldnt blame me for struggling to believe in such a religion.

and now that we seem to pick and choose what we want to believe in the bible makes me think the church has lost all credibilty, since its only credibilty is based on that book.


religion has its benifits, i cant argue with that. but IMO its based on the manipulation of masses of people through fear. it has caused countless wars and it was founded on a lack of understanding of our world, and an appreciation of the complex world we live in.


TL;DR: religion is a farce

Tehachapi

geetar wrote: »

and now that we seem to pick and choose what we want to believe in the bible makes me think the church has lost all credibilty, since its only credibilty is based on that book.

Didn't you hear? The parts of the bible which were proven wrong are now "symbolic". Everything else is 100% true though! (Until it's proven wrong, at which point it will also subsequently become "symbolic").

northkildare

luvbulmers01 wrote: »

Im just wondering what peoples perspective on religion is?

For me the world would be a better place witout it, how many wars in history have been caused by religion that couldve easily been avoided, how many times have people been persecuted against because of their religion.

Just look at the amount of times people have used religion to excuse extreme acts of violence against humanity, i.e muslims burning, stoning people to death for simple crimes. the crusades, the Nazis etc.

For me the world would be a better place without it, can people justify a reason to believe in religions in this day and age?

if nazi germany didnt lose its religion we wouldnt have had ww2. the pope explained this and as secular brings about wars,

B_Fanatic

The previous posts remind me of the gospel of thomas. The gospel is said to be an inaccurate account of Jesus' life. Why? Because it contradicts the other views of Jesus... In the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus does a number of crazy things such as turning birds moulded from mud into real sparrows, and killing children for blocking streams with twigs. The only reason this gospel isn't used (Like many others I'm sure) is because the church didn't like the view it preached of Jesus... It didn't fit THEIR plan, instead of their plan fitting IT.

If one is to use the existence of scripture as proof of god, how do you explain the obvious contradicts in each gospel? Matthew and Luke (I think they are the ones anyway) say that Jesus is both something like 20 - 30 generations removed and 40 - 50 generations removed from David (to fit the criteria of messiah). I'm pretty sure this is on Joesph's side too. (Hey, isn't Mary a virgin)

They also contradict each other when they say that Mary and Joesph travelled from Nazereth to Bethlehem while the other says the always lived in Bethlehem. It is also noteworthy that the names of people Jesus encounters are almost (if not always; I can't recall and don't want to assume the worst) always different in the two gospels (Luke and matthew).

If any of this information is wrong please tell me so I can quickly change it.

Tehachapi

B_Fanatic wrote: »

The previous posts remind me of the gospel of thomas. The gospel is said to be an inaccurate account of Jesus' life. Why? Because it contradicts the other views of Jesus... In the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus does a number of crazy things such as turning birds moulded from mud into real sparrows, and killing children for blocking streams with twigs. The only reason this gospel isn't used (Like many others I'm sure) is because the church didn't like the view it preached of Jesus... It didn't fit THEIR plan, instead of their plan fitting IT.

If one is to use the existence of scripture as proof of god, how do you explain the obvious contradicts in each gospel? Matthew and Luke (I think they are the ones anyway) say that Jesus is both something like 20 - 30 generations removed and 40 - 50 generations removed from David (to fit the criteria of messiah). I'm pretty sure this is on Joesph's side too. (Hey, isn't Mary a virgin)

They also contradict each other when they say that Mary and Joesph travelled from Nazereth to Bethlehem while the other says the always lived in Bethlehem. It is also noteworthy that the names of people Jesus encounters are almost (if not always; I can't recall and don't want to assume the worst) always different in the two gospels (Luke and matthew).

If any of this information is wrong please tell me so I can quickly change it.

You're arguing with people who believe a man walked across the sea, and could also transfer this water-walking ability to other people.

You won't get anywhere!

geetar

northkildare wrote: »

if nazi germany didnt lose its religion we wouldnt have had ww2. the pope explained this and as secular brings about wars,

nazi germany didnt lose its religion. the people anyway...

also youre suggesting the war was started because of religion, or a lack of. infact it was fuelled by it.

hatred of jews encouraged by a man who saw himself as a god.

northkildare

geetar wrote: »

nazi germany didnt lose its religion. the people anyway...

also youre suggesting the war was started because of religion, or a lack of. infact it was fuelled by it.

hatred of jews encouraged by a man who saw himself as a god.

ww2 was started by an anti god man and your suggesting more people should be anti god like him.

As for the jews, they had all the best jobs in germany at the time and made sure they passed on the best jobs to their own, nazi germany didnt just pick on jews for no reason,

Hitler was very dangerous because he could speak to people and draw them in and follow him, I believe he was put on earth by the devil cos nobody since has shown that gift of speech, if he was around today he could still take over germany just by talking to people.