Is religion a farce?

Son Of A Vidic

People can believe what they want, whether they believe in a God or no God that's their right. But if you are religious or an Atheist, keep your views to yourself and don't force them on me. Ironically though, I find many Atheists have become as bad as followers of organised religions with their I'm right your're wrong bullshít.

Malari

CorkB wrote: »

In order to address the original question of this thread though, I did want to emphasise the difference between the biblical and the religious. Religion is a farce, but God is outside of religion. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak.

Can you suggest an alternative, environmentally appropriate way to dispose of the baby?

God is a farce is just a subset of religion is a farce, as far as I'm concerned.

ScumLord

CorkB wrote: »

Religion is a farce, but God is outside of religion.

Religion is just a generic term for an organised belief in a god, whichever god it is doesn't matter. Saying religion is a farce is pretty much the same as saying believing in a god is a farce.

Ghost Buster

d'Oracle wrote: »

None of those terms describe anything like it.

Mouthy is an informal describing someone who is liberal with their views and opinions.

A student is someone who studies a topic(s)

Boardsie means someone who posts on boards, that would mean I am one, which is inaccurate in the extreme.

Journalist......There are plenty of pro-religious journalists.

Parent.....now you are just getting silly.

But that is precisely why i became a little more vocal. I became a parent and discovered exactly how difficult it is to bring up a child outside of religion in this country.
I dont have a term. Atheists with opinions perhaps?

Ghost Buster

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

People can believe what they want, whether they believe in a God or no God that's their right. But if you are religious or an Atheist, keep your views to yourself and don't force them on me. Ironically though, I find many Atheists have become as bad as followers of organised religions with their I'm right your're wrong bullshít.

Where do you find this?

Doc_Savage

Ghost Buster wrote: »

NO NO NONO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO AND A THOU****INGSAND TIMES NO. Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in gods. Full stop.

thanks for all your block capitals there.... surely you can see the difference between "Atheism is..." and "Atheism deals with..."

and would you deny that Secularism (which i was trying to allude to) is in the interest of most Athiests?

Doctor DooM

d'Oracle wrote: »

While I totally accept this point, is there a term for the quasi-religious anti-religious atheists who have popped up recently?

I mean they are atheists because they don't believe in god, but is there a term which describes their intolerant clattering on about not believing in god or how awful religion is?

I have yet to actually meet a person like this in real life. I am always told about them online.

Usually in forums discussing religion or the lack thereof, and, well, what are you expecting to see there?

Son Of A Vidic

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Where do you find this?

You'll find it right here on Boards.ie and that's just for starters.

nozzferrahhtoo

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Ironically though, I find many Atheists have become as bad as followers of organised religions with their I'm right your're wrong bullshít.

Alas it is of necessity. I for one would like to wake up tomorrow morning and never come up against, discuss, or bother with "Religion" ever again. I am simply... not.... let.

The religious take the fight to me, not me to them. I am interested in things like politics, education, science, morality, ethics, sexuality, human psychology and much more.

In every single one of those realms I have the religious coming to me with their unsubstantiated "god" ideas and trying to dictate policy and rules to me based on that entirely unfounded idea that such an entity exists.

As long as they take their baseless ideas to me and try to dictate how I operate or conduct my discourse in those realms, then I will be forced to resist them.

So why can we not live and let live? Because the theists simply will not let us. If they did then there simply would be no atheists harping on to your annoyance in the first place.

d'Oracle

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The -ist part of a phrase does not have to be the same as other uses of it. The process could be called "stating the obvious" the ism you could use could be rationlist if you like.

Tongue back out of cheek however... The point is that regardless of whether you use the now overused and almost meaningless word of "intolerant" there is very good reason for people to stand up and resist religious ideas in our society. It is not intolerant, it is simply the right thing to do.

I disagree.
Infact what I'm talking about is the propensity of people who attack the character of people for holding religious beliefs.

Its funny, I don't see it as ever being even close to the right thing to do to try and enforce your own beliefs on others.

Intolerant is nothing like meaningless.
I don't think its over used either.
By either side of the debate.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

"Intolerant" is just the kind of word used by the religious who have realised no one is falling for the con any more and wishes to deflect from their lack of evidence by trying to attack the character of the people who inconveniently insist on pointing it out.

Intolerant is actually a really good word for some of the stuff I see.
Infact its pretty good for what I see you post there.

You use the phrase "no one is falling for the con" I know a lot of religious people my age and younger. I know people who have "fallen for the con" recently. So as much as you like to use dismissive & emotive language you are wrong to say that "no one is falling for the con".

A lot of its-no-more-rational-than-the-religious-ists, get all bent out of shape by the "prove its not" argument. But I love it, because its the same argument and it proves what a ****ty irrational case the "rationalists" have.

I also very, very often notice how often the "rationalists" attack the character of the religious, and then get their arses up over having their character attacked.

I will gladly attack the character of anyone who tries to enforce their beliefs on others. I will gladly attack the character of anyone who displays blanket intolerance of people of a different belief to them.

d'Oracle

Doctor DooM wrote: »

I have yet to actually meet a person like this in real life. I am always told about them online.

Usually in forums discussing religion or the lack thereof, and, well, what are you expecting to see there?

Yep.

I have witnessed such people gang up on a close friend who "found God" (apparently he is in the greater London area.....Who knew?) and I took the same dim view of it then as I do with all the people who are too chicken-shít to do it away from the asshole-barrier.

d'Oracle

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Alas it is of necessity. I for one would like to wake up tomorrow morning and never come up against, discuss, or bother with "Religion" ever again. I am simply... not.... let.

Funny how you choose to post in this thread about religion then.....

RichieC

PseudoFamous wrote: »

While its possible, there's nothing to promote morality under atheism, no carrot on a string for being well behaved.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, if you need religion to tell you to act right by people then there's something seriously wrong.

Morals evolved with us, we are a pack animal who back long before religion had to conform to the norms or be foocked out of the cave to face the elements alone.

Stargazer7

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

Pure nonsense.

When I was a teenager I went through a period where I questioned this idea - I didn't believe in religion and no matter how much I tried to go along with the herd and accept what they were saying to me, I just couldn't. I realised there was no point in lieing to myself, if god or allah or whoever exists surely they'll see through the fact that I'm trying to be religious just to blag my way into heaven. Morality is such an loose term, what's immoral to one is not to another e.g. homosexuality. I decided to try and live my life as best I could, I think the fact that you bother to think about it at all is a good sign.

At least if an atheist is an asshole he doesn't go around with the label of Christian or whatever, pretending that his religion means he is somehow more moral and righteous than others. There's a huge amount of hypocrisy in religion. There's good and bad in all people, but hiding behind a set of beliefs to try to make your wrongs right is pathetic.

If people want to be religious and it gives them comfort, go ahead, that's your choice. Just don't let it affect how the state is run or my rights in any way. Also, don't expect some special tip toeing around matters because they have a religious aspect....if a bunch of religious people say atheist are evil and idiotic I don't go onto the radio complaining about how I'm being discriminated against because of my beliefs.

Knasher

CorkB wrote: »

In order to address the original question of this thread though, I did want to emphasise the difference between the biblical and the religious. Religion is a farce, but God is outside of religion. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak.

On what grounds do you accept the bible as gospel (forgive the terrible pun) considering that it was written hundreds of years after the death of the main character, by the organisation which you decry. And that for many thousands of years it was under the exclusive control of that organisation (which has a long and varied history of corruption).

Hell it being available in languages other than Latin is a new enough occurrence, so for much of its history, you didn't even have the right to know what exactly you believed without the supervision of the church.

And yet in all those years of secrecy and corruption you are certain that at no point the bible was corrupted to serve the interests of the church.

Birneybau

I'm not a slave to a god that does'nt exist.

I prefer Gandalf as my fictional hero!

Stargazer7

The Internet Explorer wrote: »

A farce indeed. A waste of precious life. Wake up my fellow apes. We are animals. Amazing animals that can do nearly anything. Stop wasting your precious life. Live now. You only live for up to 80/90 years. Make the most of it NOW. You are alive NOW.

And how dare a mothaf*cka suggest that morality is exclusive to the religious.

What's also sad is that so many religious people miss out on all the cool sciencey stuff like evolution, which is just an incredibly elegant an beautiful theory in itself. Also, I think stuff like "morality" is ruled by our evolutionary traits - at the end of the day an element of survival of the fittest and a need to pass on our genes is what we're preprogrammed to do.

Turtwig

PseudoFamous wrote: »

I do not claim to be religious, but I refuse to call myself an atheist under the grounds that I don't want to be associated with bigoted, dogmatic, thoughtless arseholes without any regard for a persons beliefs. If anything should be widespread in this day and age, it should be humanism, not atheism. Personally, I think that raw atheism is the worst thing for society, and in many ways a religion, with its own idols, prophets, texts, and a set of beliefs.

If you don't like it, then tough, it's reality you're an atheist if you don't believe in a God or Gods. Get over it, it's just a word that means you don't believe in a God. It doesn't mean anything else about your values or beliefs as a human being.

Stargazer7

Deleted User wrote: »

True, but at least it gives them hope, rather than complete hopelessness.

I don't believe in religion personally (and never will), but these days I expect more people to turn to religion as the economic situation continues worsen.

This is another thing I don't get. Why should some guy living in the sky or wherever somehow give me hope about a crippling mortgage. The god of the bible has been shown to **** with Job just for the craic...and then he berated him for losing faith.

I do sometimes wish I believed in something and that there would be a nice rosy end to everything, but the idea of eternity, no matter how awesome does sound a bit daunting. I can't understand why people can't find beauty and hope in the world around us without using religion as a crutch.

But maybe I'm weird like that. I find the lack of any distinct purpose in life pretty cool and kinda beautiful in itself.:pac:

Doctor DooM

d'Oracle wrote: »

Funny how you choose to post in this thread about religion then.....

I would suspect ol' Nozzy, much like philologos does, showed up because people were posting rubbish about their position, as he said- he gets drawn into it.

Charlie3dan

CorkB wrote: »

It comes down to simple logic. When Jesus said "No one comes to the father but by me," either this is true and there is only one or it isn't. Because of quotes like this, the belief in Christ is irreconcilible with belief in other gods. One cannot have it both ways.

Wow I wasn't actually going to comment on the thread but I really can't believe this. You said a few posts ahead of this that you want people to understand that religion is not biblical (fair enough by the way) and then when questioned why you believe in god you actually say because it says so in the bible!!!!!
I don't wish to be rude but I hope you are capable of applying some logic to your beliefs, for yourself.

Separately, the arguments about religion being the basis for morals: Do the people who argue this follow the morals laid out by religion exactly? Do you follow the teaching that (just some examples) pre-marital sex is morally wrong, homosexuality is morally wrong, abortion is morally wrong, working on the Sabbath is morally wrong?

If you don't follow the doctrine exactly then you can clearly get your morals from something outside religion, so the morality argument is invalid.
If you do follow the doctrine exactly then I would consider you to be someone with almost no morals whatsoever.

Also, in response to the original question, I’ve already put together my thoughts on this in the post below:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=67745005&postcount=459

Knasher

d'Oracle wrote: »

I disagree.
Infact what I'm talking about is the propensity of people who attack the character of people for holding religious beliefs.

I hate to generalize like this because I'm certain that you can find exceptions, but most of the posters from the atheist stand-point have been attacking religious beliefs, not the character of the people who hold them. In fact the only attack on character that springs to mind from this thread, is when one theist said that the only source of morality is religion, and therefore implying all atheists are essentially immoral.

Most atheists in Ireland come from religious backgrounds, myself included, and while I don't respect the beliefs of my parents, I absolutely respect their characters.

While I'm on the subject, why exactly should any belief be beyond criticism? If a belief can't withstand criticism then it isn't worthy of anybodies respect.

d'Oracle

Doctor DooM wrote: »

I would suspect ol' Nozzy, much like philologos does, showed up because people were posting rubbish about their position, as he said- he gets drawn into it.

One always has the option of abstaining from conversation.

HUNK

Again. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a deity or deities. Thats it. Its not a dirty word ffs

optogirl

Knasher wrote: »

While I'm on the subject, why exactly should any belief be beyond criticism? If a belief can't withstand criticism then it isn't worthy of anybodies respect.

Completely agree with this - atheists get a lot of hassle for not 'respecting' religion. Catholicism being the one I encounter the most I have to ask why I should respect an organisation that has let its followers down so badly, regards homesexuals & users of contraception as sinners who are bound for hell while hiding behind canon law for their own crimes. It treats women as second class citizens and has disgusting wealth while expecting even the poorest of its followers to contribute to the coffers.

Tigger

true-or-false wrote: »

. The validity of religion cannot be proved or disproved. The same goes for atheism/agnosticism. So let's all leave each other alone.

the validity of my magic invisible horse cannot be disproved either

Lollipops23

HUNK wrote: »

Again. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a deity or deities. Thats it. Its not a dirty word ffs

Unfortunately there seems to be a misconception that athiests are all militent, aggressive and intolerant assholes. I'm an athiest and feel that a lot of people get a lot out of their religion, and if they're not bothering me or mine, leave em be.

Daith

I always remember as a kid loving the Greek and Roman myths. Stories of Zeus and Athena. Then I remember thinking that people used to believe in these gods and now they're just stories. There was no difference for me between a Roman myth and watching He-Man or Transformers as kid. No one believed in those gods anymore.

So I wondered what was the difference between the old Greek gods and GOD/Jesus and my answer was that there was none. So that's when I stopped believing in religion as anything meaningful in my life.

Then years later I knew I was gay and well that didn't help either

RichieC

Doctor DooM wrote: »

I would suspect ol' Nozzy, much like philologos does, showed up because people were posting rubbish about their position, as he said- he gets drawn into it.

pulease.. Philologos just loves to wax academic on the topic of religion, probably as much as I love rubbishing it.

nozzferrahhtoo

d'Oracle wrote: »

Infact what I'm talking about is the propensity of people who attack the character of people for holding religious beliefs.

In that case you will get little argument from me. I am not one who is interested in ad hominem attacks and if they want to attack the character of such people then they are not on "my team" as it were.

It is not the character of such people I wish to resist or attack, it is the ideas they take into our halls of power, education and science based on lies and unsubstantiated claims. That is all. My fight is with nothing other than that. Post #133 above yours should make that clearer too so I won't say more as it would just repeat that.

d'Oracle wrote: »

I don't see it as ever being even close to the right thing to do to try and enforce your own beliefs on others.

Yet what people like me are trying to do is the opposite of that. Here is an analogy I like to use:

Imagine you were an educator, scientist or politician. One day at work someone comes in with a page of statistics and starts to try to dictate to you policy, rules and ideas based on that page of numbers.

Yet the person in question can not in any way tell you where the figures came from or substantiate them in any way. Instead when you ask him to he starts acting offended and using words like "intolerant" and "respect".... or my personal beef... tells you the evidence the figures are true is "out there" if only you would go out and find it yourself... or look into your heart.

Would you accept his ideas or resist the use of a completely unsubstantiated page of numbers? I would hope the latter.

That is all I am trying to do with god. Given the idea there is such an entity is not just slightly, but entirely unsubstantiated, I merely resist and fight the use of that idea in our halls of power, education and science.

As yet no one has been able to tell me why that is the wrong thing to do nor have I met one person who would take the hypothetical page of unsubstantiated numbers and run with them.

So no, I am not falling for the con, and I am going to continue to resist those who have, or who want me to.