Is religion a farce?

homeOwner

I was raised catholic but am an aethiest, have been since early teens. I am a moral person and that didnt come from RE classes or the church, I got my morals from my parents.

It worries me that some people think that believing in god is a requirement for being moral. And for that reason I am very happy that those people believe in a god because if they didnt presumably they would go around doing whatever they pleased. Society needs people to have morals and to be civil. Its for the propagation of the species. So religion has a part to play in that.

However I fundamentally do not understand "faith" and why any reasonably intelligent person believes in the concept of a god. It absolutely does not make any sense to me on any level.

I would love for someone to explain it to me.

nozzferrahhtoo

d'Oracle wrote: »

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

Not really funny at all. I do it for a variety of reasons. One of which is to add my voice to those against religion in places where there are people who speak for it.

I am sure the religious would love for us all to shut up and let them talk and leave their unsubstantiated ideas unchallenged and unhindered but I think one of the many... many.... legitimate ways to battle religion is to add a voice of reason to any forum (online or offline) where people espouse unsubstantiated and baseless ideas.

Nor do I limit myself to this forum here, or to the subject of religion. You will find my user name and my other users names (such as irishmauddib) across the internet on every topic from homeopathy to psychics.

"Atheists" have a number of weapons at their disposal but the most important one is the number and diversity of "voices" they are bringing to the discussion. My posts here are simply to add one more voice to the crowd.

The internet has been great in this regard. In the past people exposed to religious ideas did not have the chance to hear the other site, or to hear the counter arguments to things like the cosmological argument or pascals wager or whatever. Now they do and this is a great thing, so anywhere I find a religion argument I just make sure that the counter argument is available beside it for anyone who happens along to read.

philologos

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.

It's the only reason, that said I'm not going to be too proactive in this one. Sometimes spectating is better

Turtwig

philologos wrote: »

It's the only reason, that said I'm not going to be too proactive in this one. Sometimes spectating is better

Let me guess. Some popcorn with Michael Jackson music playing in the background?:D

HUNK

philologos wrote: »

It's the only reason, that said I'm not going to be too proactive in this one. Sometimes spectating is better

Its cuz Nozz is here isn't it :pac:

philologos

HUNK wrote: »

Its cuz Nozz is here isn't it :pac:

No

krudler

I still find it odd that people choose to have an all powerful being with a penchant for child muder, genocide on a biblical (literally) scale, random destruction of places that piss him off for no good reason and other assorted acts of lunacy as some sort of moral compass. gods an asshole if the bible is to be believed, or at least he was in the old testament days, I suppose everyone does quieten down a bit once the first kid arrives..

nozzferrahhtoo

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.

Close enough. Actually I do not read After Hours at all. Theres a number of users who when they see a certain type of nonsense posted they PM me and ask me to "intervene".

Christ. I guess I sort of have "groupies"

monara

Acting morally, or just being nice to people, has little to do with religion though Christianity and other religions do ask people to love one another. I suspect that very few wars have been fought for religion though many have pretended to be. Our two world wars are a case in point; mostly Christians killing one another.

Wars have always been fought, as men have always fought, regardless of religion. But faith and the need to believe in something is bred into all men. There is no escaping faith and belief. Even the Atheist has to believe he is right and have faith in his judgement.:)

aidan24326

PseudoFamous wrote: »

I know atheists rararant about morality being found in atheism, but I'm afraid that there is no reason for an atheist to act morally.

Please just re-read that sentence back to yourself over and over until maybe eventually you'll realise how completely stupid it is.

PseudoFamous wrote: »

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

You really need to learn just a little about the evolutionary basis of morality and altruism before you post such nonsense.

ddef wrote: »

well said.
when it comes to religion, I ironically find it is atheists who force their beliefs (or lack of) much more so than the churches.

More nonsense. That is a million miles from the truth.

CorkMan

It's funny the people saying here that Religion will be gone in the "next generation". Christianity has been around for 2000 years, yet people expect it to be gone by a click of the fingers. (An apt anology IMO, giving the time some people think it will go away in, and the time it has been around.)

I've a feeling Christianity has experienced similar phases before, but it has not left this world. Just because this one generation think "I don't think it'll stay" despite the fact their parents are Christians, does not mean it will go away. It will come back stronger than ever. There was a man named Jesus Christ on the earth in the period of 2000 years ago, and he did die for our sins.

Turtwig

monara wrote: »

. But faith and the need to believe in something is bred into all men. There is no escaping faith and belief. Even the Atheist has to believe he is right and have faith in his judgement.:)

Well speaking personally here. I take pleasure in the virtue of doubt and being wrong. Anyone who think's they've got to be right is way out of tune with reality imo. There is only one way to be right and an infinite number of ways to be wrong, so what's wrong with being wrong? Nothing, what matters is that you're rational and work towards being less wrong than previously.

Logical Fallacy

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?

Do you really think that without religion we would all be hugging each other and living in a Utopia...or would we just find other reasons to hate and kill each other.

I'm firmly gonna go with the later idea.

paddyandy

We have the internet to trawl through the worlds religions so we have no excuse to say we don't understand .It's out there just go and look for it and you might find it instead of whining about religion being the cause of wars .No Religion at all and the last barrier removed and we'd understand the significance of religion.Big Time .There are plenty of answers out there though many are passive not all.There are the "sleeping under their sombreros" religions and they're enough to make anybody cynical but there's very serious stuff too.Go and look for it.

d'Oracle

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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.

So your a secularist. That's cool, I totally approve.
And I hate Gaye Mitchell as much as the next disapproving atheist.
But then if our halls of power are power over a great deal of people who share the beliefs, then democracy dictates that they take it in.

Bear in mind that Darwin believed in God.
And he gave the modern atheist his strongest ammo.
Belief in God does not, contrary to what some people may suggest, mean that you lack the faculties to support the skills required in delivering educational and scientific excellence.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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.

I'm with you. And science is littered with real world examples.
Just look at that horrible man who insists on claiming proof that MMR causes Autism.

But the respectable scientist knows that method is most important and what to disregard. And that wouldn't happen.
Because it matters a lot more to life than belief in god.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote:

I am sure the religious would love for us all to shut up and let them talk and leave their unsubstantiated ideas unchallenged and unhindered but I think one of the many... many.... legitimate ways to battle religion is to add a voice of reason to any forum (online or offline) where people espouse unsubstantiated and baseless ideas.

I suspect the atheists would love the religious to shut up too.
You have pretty much admitted the same in this thread.

This is my problem.
You think your point of view is in some way superior and are on some crusade to "battle religion".

Me I believe what I believe and I act accordingly.
If someone wants to believe in god and pray to him and live their lives in a manner that impacts on nobody (and I mean impacts on nobody, not annoys someone a bit when they talk about it) then I am cool with that.

Live and let live.

Now when religion affects the actions of people and they behave in an oppressive manner on behalf of religion, then I have a problem. But quite often its just them being shíts more than religion.

Basically either way, someone hammer someone for their beliefs when their beliefs have done you no harm, then they suck.
Call it my first commandment.

monara

Religion is'nt a farce. Men are.:)

optogirl

monara wrote: »

Religion is'nt a farce. Men are.:)

what does that mean?

Turtwig

monara wrote: »

Religion is'nt a farce. Men are.:)

I for one welcome our women overlords.

aidan24326

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

...or would we just find other reasons to hate and kill each other.

Without a doubt we would. In any case religious motivation for past wars is overstated, war has always been fought primarily for power, wealth and control of resources, with maybe a sprinkle of religious hatred thrown in.

But the world could still be a better place without religion. Imagine if the vast amount of time, energy and resources that are wasted on religious activities could be devoted to something more productive?

The Internet Explorer

monara wrote: »

Religion is'nt a farce. Men are.:)

Link

CorkB

I posted on this thread expecting most of my views to be misread and misquoted and rejected by almost all. That's exactly what has happened.

The pro or anti religion both seem to be agreeing on one thing relating to religion and God. They're saying they're both the same and a farce, or they're both the same and true. I'm putting an alternative into the arena, that they're different. In fact, they're miles apart.

Take it or leave it, I have put it on the table.

Knasher, you're helping make my point. The bible in its original form is pure. That was written in the lifetime of the people who witnessed the events, even by the people themselves. All the years of secrecy and corruption that followed are of man. They are, as you say, orgainised. The bible promotes an organism, a living thing, not an organisation. I want to strip off the influence of the church and get back to the natural. When you do that, then you will see something different.

Unfortunately the rigours of church are so deeply ingrained into peoples' (believers or not) consciousnesses that they don't see the God the Church is supposedly promoting.

nozzferrahhtoo

d'Oracle wrote: »

So your a secularist. That's cool, I totally approve.

That would be a label I would use sometimes yes. I realise that people call me atheist a lot but I rarely refer to myself by that term. Not for the same reasons you dislike them, I just find the term to be empty of content. Defining myself by what I am not, rather than by what I am, has never appealed to me.

d'Oracle wrote: »

But then if our halls of power are power over a great deal of people who share the beliefs, then democracy dictates that they take it in.

Yes, alas Democracy does not always work for the individual and I am well aware that people fighting against religion are the minority. But democracy allows us to keep on trying. Just because a vote goes against you does not mean you have to shut up and stop gunning for the next time the same issue is voted on. Being in the minority does not bother me, whether or not my position is right does and as long as I think it does I will keep my eye on whatever the next election is, and keep resisting the use of entirely unsubstantiated ideas such as "god".

The Darwin comment is a bit of a non-sequitur so I will not follow it too far save to point out he lost that faith later in life.

d'Oracle wrote: »

Belief in God does not, contrary to what some people may suggest, mean that you lack the faculties to support the skills required in delivering educational and scientific excellence.

Wholly agree. In fact, for example, if there were two talks on in Dublin on the subject of Creationism V Evolution for example and one was by Dawkins for 10 euro and the other by Catholic Biologist Kenneth Miller for 100 euro.... Id be going to the latter every time despite the price. I have nothing against Dawkins, I just think Miller a better speaker on the subject and my decision has nothing to do with which one has religion or not but on their actual merits around the subject.

d'Oracle wrote: »

Just look at that horrible man who insists on claiming proof that MMR causes Autism.

I know, I am with Ben Goldacre on this one. The ignorance and fantasy that surrounds the world of vaccination is one that could be very easily eradicated with a very simple course given to our youth on how to read, interpret and critique scientific studies and statistical studies correctly. One simple course, maybe of half a year duration at normal study times would probably change the face of Science in the media entirely.

d'Oracle wrote: »

I suspect the atheists would love the religious to shut up too. You have pretty much admitted the same in this thread.

Not entirely. I would not want someone to shut up just for being religious. Imagine three people walking into a room who say the following....

1) I think abortion is wrong and here are my reasons why....
2) I am religious, god does not like abortion, and I agree because here are the reasons why....
3) God is against abortion and so we should be too.

.... I would literally only have issue with person number 3. Obama said it more eloquently than I could in his 2006 keynote speech when he said "Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all."

d'Oracle wrote: »

You think your point of view is in some way superior and are on some crusade to "battle religion".

Again not exactly. I merely want one thing and one thing only and it is not limited to religion but to all things: The rejection of entirely unsubstantiated claims being used in our discourse. That is all. Nothing more. Nor has anyone told me why I am wrong to do that.

So it is nothing to do with my opinion being better or worse than anyone elses. Maybe most of my opinions are tosh! That is irrelevant. I simply do not want unsubstantiated ideas used that is all. Especially when the people with those ideas play the "offence" or "respect" card when asked to substantiate their ideas. That is just a cop out and a canard and I will neither respect it nor pander to it.

Aside from that I am as much live and let live as you are. My aunt in Scotland is profoundly religious. I never once confront her on it, or go pounding on her door, or anything. I simply do not care what people believe.

So it appears we agree on just about everything I am saying, which is nice.

Turtwig

CorkB wrote: »

I posted on this thread expecting most of my views to be misread and misquoted and rejected by almost all. That's exactly what has happened.

The pro or anti religion both seem to be agreeing on one thing relating to religion and God. They're saying they're both the same and a farce, or they're both the same and true. I'm putting an alternative into the arena, that they're different. In fact, they're miles apart.

Take it or leave it, I have put it on the table.

Knasher, you're helping make my point. The bible in its original form is pure. That was written in the lifetime of the people who witnessed the events, even by the people themselves. All the years of secrecy and corruption that followed are of man. They are, as you say, orgainised. The bible promotes an organism, a living thing, not an organisation. I want to strip off the influence of the church and get back to the natural. When you do that, then you will see something different.

Unfortunately the rigours of church are so deeply ingrained into peoples' (believers or not) consciousnesses that they don't see the God the Church is supposedly promoting.

Why don't you rewrite the first passage of the true bible just three paragraphs so we can examine it?

nozzferrahhtoo

CorkB wrote: »

The bible in its original form is pure. That was written in the lifetime of the people who witnessed the events, even by the people themselves.

I quite simply have no idea why we should consider it anything but a piece of bronze aged written moral fiction. That is not to take away from it. I think the King James Bible for example is a linguistically beautiful sample of moral fiction and I love reading it. To treat it as anything but a nice work of fiction amongst a world full of 1000s of examples of nice fiction however is baffling to me.

But then again there are people who try to live the Jedi code, and I myself memorised and live by the mantras of some of the characters in Herberts "Dune" series. I do do without having to think the books are not fiction however.

Atheist Ireland run a "Read the Bible" campaign however and I fully support it. They want more people to read it. I trust you support that too so not all our goals are different.

Knasher

CorkB wrote: »

The bible in its original form is pure. That was written in the lifetime of the people who witnessed the events, even by the people themselves.

It was written several hundreds of years after the events, before which it was passed on by the word of mouth of a group of people who were intent on spreading it. Honestly, I couldn't come up with a better recipe for embellishment.

Craebear

Yes, religion is a farce.

d'Oracle

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I know, I am with Ben Goldacre on this one. The ignorance and fantasy that surrounds the world of vaccination is one that could be very easily eradicated with a very simple course given to our youth on how to read, interpret and critique scientific studies and statistical studies correctly. One simple course, maybe of half a year duration at normal study times would probably change the face of Science in the media entirely.

That and putting Jenny McCarthy to the sword.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So it appears we agree on just about everything I am saying, which is nice.

Not everything.
I can't stand Dawkins.

mikemac

"The meek shall inherit the earth" is not true so

May as well be a cut throat bastard and walk over anyone who gets in my way like the corporate rat race.

positron

CorkB wrote: »

There is only one, and His story is written in the bible. I want to encourage people to separate religion from the bible, because, at the risk of the ire of some people, I believe religion is not biblical.

What do you mean - Bible has the story of Siva? I didn't know that! That's sweet man!

PS: I dislike all sorts of religious zombies, and will never try to reason with them - not giving them my blood, that' all.

cosmicfart

Ive recently started practicing Voodooism and have found it quite handy not to mention has ANYONE ever heard of something called 000 economics ???


ANYONE




ANYONE









something 000 economics



ANYONE



ANYONE













VOODOO economics!!!