Is religion a farce?

Pompey Magnus

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.

There is no such thing as an original, pure Bible. The oldest Christian Bible in which just the 27 Books of the New Testament are included already contained numerous forgeries, corruptions and also false stories such as Jesus and the adulteress or Jesus sweating blood. There has never existed an original, pure Bible.

As for being written in the lifetime of the witnesses, some books such as The Book of Daniel were written much, much later. Daniel was probably written 400 years after the time it refers to. As for the New Testament we don't know who wrote most of the Books, even the Gospels are completely anonymous so there is no reason to assume that they authors even knew any of the witnesses, perhaps the Gospel according to John excluded.

aidan24326

d'Oracle wrote: »

That and putting Jenny McCarthy to the sword.

What did poor oul' Jenny do?


must say 'putting jenny mccarthy to the sword' has evoked some most sinful thoughts in my mind anyway

nozzferrahhtoo

d'Oracle wrote: »

That and putting Jenny McCarthy to the sword.

There are some things in this life it is better to neither agree or disagree with and I think I am getting wise enough to recognise some of them

d'Oracle wrote: »

I can't stand Dawkins.

I found him pleasant enough when I met with him at AAI 2011 in Dublin. I have nothing against him. He would just be low down on the list of people who personally "do it" for me on the subject of religion. I recognise his worth though and his voice is one that I am glad to have in the variety of voices Atheism has to offer today. It is just not a voice that is personally useful to me. His books on evolution are indispensable and have changed entirely the way I read, understand and study the subject.

I note however that even one journalist who hates atheism and Dawkins met with him in Dublin and came away writing an article essentially saying "Actually he is not all that bad" which did give me some level of amusement at the time.

d'Oracle

aidan24326 wrote: »

What did poor oul' Jenny do?


must say 'putting jenny mccarthy to the sword' has evoked some most sinful thoughts in my mind anyway

Only launched a campaign against vaccination cos she had an autistic kid.

Didn't need expertise, she just used the "university of Google".

CorkB

Some of what's written hear reminds me of a classic Monty Python sketch:


I'm looking for an argument?

No you're not.

Yes I am.

No you're not.

Look, that's not really arguing.

Yes it is.

No it's not.

etc.

Logical Fallacy

aidan24326 wrote: »

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?

Indeed, but therein lies the rub.

Some pretty good stuff has probably been done in the name of religion and some pretty sick **** has probably been done in the name of science.

Both have things to offer, both have a lot to answer for.

In general though, what unites the two is the fact that they are the tools of people who seek to either help others, or further their own place in the world.

ScumLord

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.

But don't discuss it?

Religion is the study and worship of god I just can't fathom how you can expect anybody from theist to atheist to accept the two are unrelated.

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.

If the church didn't encourage faith in god you wouldn't have your faith today, Jesus would simply have been forgotten about. You are a by-product of that church and it's teachings.

RichieC

CorkMan wrote: »

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.

Education and access to information hasn't seen any phases like this, on this planet anyway before.

CorkB

I'm with Corkman on this. Christianity has lasted independently of what people may have thought of it.

I do think though, to answer ScumLord, that I believe in spite of the man made trappings of Church, not because of them.

CorkB

Oh yes, and Jesus would not have been forgotten about. The word of God would have been more respected if man didn't try to interfere with it

philologos

A thought on looking to the title would be that lumping religion together isn't a very systematic reason to deal with the argument. Just because one may have a gripe with many religions, or even some in particular doesn't necessarily mean that they have a gripe with all religions. It also makes the gaping assumption that all forms of religion are the same, or even similar.

The topic means that if one can criticise any religion in any way it becomes a way to criticise all religions even if it only pertains to that given religion as opposed to all. Conflation is a poor thing when dealing with as broad a topic?

aidan24326

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Indeed, but therein lies the rub.

Some pretty good stuff has probably been done in the name of religion and some pretty sick **** has probably been done in the name of science.

Both have things to offer, both have a lot to answer for.

In general though, what unites the two is the fact that they are the tools of people who seek to either help others, or further their own place in the world.

I agree with you entirely that some good things have been done by religiously inspired people, and that some sh1tty stuff happened in the name of science.

BUT, if you compare the two overall, one has given us consistent successes and advancement, which has made all our lives far better, while the other has been consistently wrong about almost everything.

Religion may have provided some caring and support in times of need (which might have heppened without it), but without the scientific method we'd still be living in hovels and dieing at the of 30. So you can't put them on any kind of equal footing in terms of their importance. One we can probably do without, the other we most certainly can't.

nozzferrahhtoo

philologos wrote: »

A thought on looking to the title would be that lumping religion together isn't a very systematic reason to deal with the argument. Just because one may have a gripe with many religions, or even some in particular doesn't necessarily mean that they have a gripe with all religions. It also makes the gaping assumption that all forms of religion are the same, or even similar.

Your spectating did not last long.

Well there are SOME massive similarities. For example the vast majority of religions assume the existence of a non human intelligence responsible for the creation and subsequent maintenance of our universe. That is an entirely (not just slightly) unsubstantiated claim and so that is one beef I would have with the majority of religions.

The attempts by some to try and create evidence where none exists can be comical however, your own posts being a case in post, which usually result in a hasty retreat by you when confronted on the nonpoints you use to try and suggest there is a god.

It is true however that the difference in religions is worth noting. You will get no argument from me there. For example while extreme Muslims may like hitting buildings with airborne vehicles and extremist Christians feel justified in murdering doctors.... extremists in the Jain religion are so non violent they wear face masks in case they swallow and kill an insect and sweep the street before them as they walk in case they step on one.

So clearly WHAT people believe is important and lumping all religions together in that sense is not helpful.

I think what you will find is that most atheists are against "dogma" more so than "religion" if you wanted one catch all word but even then there are exceptions to that too.

You are on the button essentially though. We have one word "religion" to describe all these different things which is about as useful as trying to compare lawn bowling with thai bare knuckle blood kick boxing by using the word "sport". Aside from breathing they are nothing alike.

So I am all for taking each religion on a case by case basis as you seem to suggest. Most of them as I said however suffer from the core issue of being based entirely on one main claim which is to date entirely unsubstantiated and there is no evidence, argument, data or reasons on offer to lend it even a modicum of credence. Much less from yourself.

aaronjumper

Another religious debate on after hours.

What could possibly go wrong. . .

RichieC

aidan24326 wrote: »

I agree with you entirely that some good things have been done by religiously inspired people, and that some sh1tty stuff happened in the name of science.

BUT, if you compare the two overall, one has given us consistent successes and advancement, which has made all our lives far better, while the other has been consistently wrong about almost everything.

Religion may have provided some caring and support in times of need (which might have heppened without it), but without the scientific method we'd still be living in hovels and dieing at the of 30. So you can't put them on any kind of equal footing in terms of their importance. One we can probably do without, the other we most certainly can't.

This little graphic explains it best:

http://imgur.com/DaNxH

dvpower

krudler wrote: »

As for the no religion=no morality argument, bullsh1t, utter, utter bullsh1t of the highest order. does anyone seriously believe as a species we wouldnt have realised it was wrong to kill each other and take each others stuff until Moses arrived down with his stoney rulebook?

Before Moses arrived with his rulebook there were lots of other religions, all with their own rules and morals. Of course, some of their morality allowed stuff like human sacrifice.

Religions do tend to come with some kind of moral framework, but we don't have to look too far to see that they aren't necessarity good moral frameworks.

monara

optogirl wrote: »

what does that mean?

It means that religion is a belief system and can hardly, as such, be described as a farce. Men, on the other hand, seem to have a capacity to turn the most exalted belief systems to their own liking, to serve their own selfish needs. History clearly demonstrates man's ability to repeat his mistakes ad infinitum, first as tragedy, and then, for many subsequent occasions as farce. Man is the farce-maker; he is indeed the ultimate farce.

Ghost Buster

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

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

Bingo. You find it on boards. An anonymous sounding board for cranks all over (Myself included).
Where in the real world though to any significant degree?

Mickeroo

monara wrote: »

It means that religion is a belief system and can hardly, as such, be described as a farce. Men, on the other hand, seem to have a capacity to turn the most exalted belief systems to their own liking, to serve their own selfish needs. History clearly demonstrates man's ability to repeat his mistakes ad infinitum, first as tragedy, and then, for many subsequent occasions as farce. Man is the farce-maker; he is indeed the ultimate farce.

Au contraire :pac:

Of course it can be described as a farce, depending on your own personal opinion of it obviously.

farce (färs)
n.
1.
a. A light dramatic work in which highly improbable plot situations, exaggerated characters, and often slapstick elements are used for humorous effect.
b. The branch of literature constituting such works.
c. The broad or spirited humor characteristic of such works.
2. A ludicrous, empty show; a mockery
3. A seasoned stuffing, as for roasted turkey.

ScumLord

CorkB wrote: »

I do think though, to answer ScumLord, that I believe in spite of the man made trappings of Church, not because of them.

The only reason you know Jesus exists is because a group of people decided to set up a church to spread what they thought was his message, there's no way around that fact. You hardly think you'd believe in Jesus even if you'd never heard anything about him.

Keith186

Late to thread.

My two cents...

Religion is a farce.

Overheal

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.

And the only reason for a Religious person to act morally is to get something out of it? Either avoid eternal damnation or do it up with 78 virgins?

Farcical logic, indeed.

Parsley

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7E7fhgO0LI

If there's a hell below, we're all gonna go.

housetypeb

How could virgin births, talking snakes and donkeys, a man rising from the dead,unicorns,
angels fighting with their creator, men living to 900+ years, every species of animal fitting onto a wooden boat for 40 days, a talking bush...
be considered a farce?

Agricola

Its an unmitigated farce.
But sure what would the elderly and the feeble minded do with their time, if it wasnt for religion.

Its funny to think that in 1000 or 2000 years time, (if we havent wiped ourselves out with nuclear war or whatever) it is highly lightly that people will view the gods of the 3 monotheistic religions as nothing more than mythology, in the same we that we today view the Roman and Greek gods.

Hopefully, people will have moved on by then and won't have just replaced them with another supernatural delusion.

Calibos

The religious wisdom of a bronze age people from an arid land on the south eastern coast of the Mediterranean is as valid today in 2011 as it was 3000 years ago. Its as relevant to my daily life today as it was to those people back then. Surely that alone is proof of its veracity. We have corroborating accounts of the events from those writings. The cities mentioned really existed. There is no doubt in my mind that the holy writings were divinely inspired. I implore everyone to discover the same peace and contentment I have derived from my faith. Praise be to RA.

dvpower

Overheal wrote: »

And the only reason for a Religious person to act morally is to get something out of it? Either avoid eternal damnation or do it up with 78 virgins?

Farcical logic, indeed.

Well, the promise of all those virgins would be enough to keep me from behaving in a way that displeases God, like being promiscuous for example.

CorkMan

Keith186 wrote: »

Late to thread.

My two cents...

Religion is a farce.

You forgot your total motto.

"Life is a farce, we are born to be maggot food, humanity is a farce, the planet is a farce and me going on in life is a farce.

Dave!

CorkMan wrote: »

You forgot your total motto.

"Life is a farce, we are born to be maggot food, humanity is a farce, the planet is a farce and me going on in life is a farce.

There may be some harsh facts that you have to face in there, but I don't know anyone who lives their life like that. More like... "Life is fleeting and fickle, rare and unlikely... I won't get a second one, so I should make the most of this one."

dvpower

Calibos wrote: »

The religious wisdom of a bronze age people from an arid land on the south eastern coast of the Mediterranean is as valid today in 2011 as it was 3000 years ago. Its as relevant to my daily life today as it was to those people back then. Surely that alone is proof of its veracity. We have corroborating accounts of the events from those writings. The cities mentioned really existed. There is no doubt in my mind that the holy writings were divinely inspired. I implore everyone to discover the same peace and contentment I have derived from my faith. Praise be to RA.

No. How?