Religulous

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Bicnarok
Just watched this DVD where this chap Bill Maher takes the micky out of Religion. Its not very factual and there are a lot of gaping holes in the arguments, but neverthless he makes some good points, anyone else seen this and if so what are your opinions.

Heres a link for more info and a clip from youtube.


Link

PHH2JItePlc

Grand-Moff-Gav
meh

Digi
Haven't seen the movie. From the pitch, and the interview there, it seems almost solely intended for humor's sake, and to stir controversy. If Maher wanted to actually posit a credible treatise against religion, he'd do so in a different format. So I'm interested at the reaction from the media, the public, this forum, etc. and intend to watch the movie. But only to be entertained.

Bicnarok
It is quite entertaining apart from some boring things about his past he goes on about. He does annoy some people though.

You can get the vid on torrent servers by the way.

Wild Shadow
here is a counter argument for bill muhers video

Sk0el9nH6Q4&feature=related



really intellegent religious guy he actually makes alot of sense.

Symmetric Chaos
Any good atheist would tear him apart on the idea of knowing when to wear the "right lenses". They would be blind to their own hubris and totally incapable of seeing the point, but they would still wreck him in a straight up debate.

Bicnarok
Any logical arguments will always obliterate any religion. Because religion is 90% blind belief 10 % ideas from some book.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Any good atheist would tear him apart on the idea of knowing when to wear the "right lenses". They would be blind to their own hubris and totally incapable of seeing the point, but they would still wreck him in a straight up debate.

You are a bit of an atheist hater, aren't you?

What happened? Your family got raped by wild atheists?

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Bicnarok
Any logical arguments will always obliterate any religion. Because religion is 90% blind belief 10 % ideas from some book.

It sounds like you are not talking about all religions. Buddhism is more like 10% blind belief and 90% practical philosophy.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Bardock42
You are a bit of an atheist hater, aren't you?

What happened? Your family got raped by wild atheists?

I have nothing against atheists. Just against their dogma.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I have nothing against atheists. Just against their dogma.


Atheist dogma? laughing

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Atheist dogma? laughing

Yeah confused

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Yeah confused

There is no such thing.

Digi
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Any good atheist would tear him apart on the idea of knowing when to wear the "right lenses". They would be blind to their own hubris and totally incapable of seeing the point, but they would still wreck him in a straight up debate.

Generalization, and some honestly insulting assumptions about an entire group of people. I think Maher makes the assumption that too many others do about atheism: that being one automatically makes you one of the sterotypical "angry" atheists that command so much attention but actually make up the minority of the group. Just like extremist evangelicals grab Christian headlines but don't represent the majority.

I'm also routinely surprised by the number of people who think atheism means "I know there isn't a God" rather than "I believe there is no God." Few, if any, atheists are the former. It's a position of faith and belief, not of certainty.

And while I can't speak for an entire group of people, all the atheists I know would be in rough agreement with Maher. They, and I, just don't see the need to drop the label, because it doesn't have to automatically mean the dogmatic extremism that Maher and other seem to think it does.

I've seen atheists drop the label for similar reasons though. Some simply don't want to fight the stereotype, so they become agnostic, or non-theist, or some similarly less controversial word.

I'm also not sure how a "good atheist" would wreck Maher in a debate. They'd be essentially in agreement, so there wouldn't be much to argue over.

Symmetric Chaos
I was responding to WS's post that presented a counter argument.

Digi
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I was responding to WS's post that presented a counter argument.

Ah. Well sh*t. There's 3 minutes of my life I'll never have back.

embarrasment

Digi
Though the lenses metaphor that the priest uses is a good one if it's in response to an attack on religious literalism. It's actually a fine response to Maher's methodology and message, though I don't think Maher was trying to cover all of his philosophical bases with the film. It's meant for entertainment. You're right that the priest's argument isn't without further flaws, but the distinction between literal and metaphoric parts of the Bible is the first necessary step to making it resistant to any type of scrutiny. It also makes it easier to swallow.

Wild Shadow
Originally posted by Digi
Ah. Well sh*t. There's 3 minutes of my life I'll never have back.

embarrasment


its ok, you can respond on my behalf with an intelligent answer that expresses my view point.


stick out tongue

Bardock42
Watching it atm. Annoys me so far.

ushomefree
Flat on its face, I have no problem with it; that is my opinion. Bill Maher, himself, stated that his film is not a documentary, but merely a comedic film. (Not in those exact words, but you know what I mean.) Regardless, with all the nonsense in the world today, I really don't see the need for such a film. That is my opinion, also. It seems to me, that the funds provided for the production of this film, could have gone towards something productive/meaningful. Heck, if the guy had a political statement or something of that caliber to make, more power to him! That would be money well spent!! But, this was merely a comedic film. Still, with all in mind, I can't knock the guy. Once it's available for purchase, consider it mine. Cool post Bicnarok!

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
There is no such thing.

You're confusing theory and practice.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You're confusing theory and practice.

There is no theory or practice of atheism. confused

Symmetric Chaos
Think of it as a koan and meditate on it. I'm too tired to explain the idea of metaphors to you.

Grand-Moff-Gav
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
There is no theory or practice of atheism. confused

You've been keeping quiet that the final stage of Buddhahood (the penultimate life) is divine, not humanistic at all!

Surely that means then, that if you think Jesus was a buddha or "woke up" or was "one who knows" however you prefer to phrase it hten you would accept he was also divine?

Bicnarok
The Theory is = no god.
The Practice is = Not believing

Grand-Moff-Gav
Originally posted by Bicnarok
The Theory is = no god.
The Practice is = Not believing

No the theory is
Atheism: there is no proof for the idea of God ergo I do not believe, however I am against dogmatism and controlling peoples ideas so they are free to believe what they like.

The practice of some Atheism is:
The is no proof that there is a God, therefore he DOES NOT exist. Therefore you MUST NOT believe.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
You've been keeping quiet that the final stage of Buddhahood (the penultimate life) is divine, not humanistic at all!

Surely that means then, that if you think Jesus was a buddha or "woke up" or was "one who knows" however you prefer to phrase it hten you would accept he was also divine?

As divine as the potential that we all have. The problem is the word divine has been used to kill a lot of people in the past.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
No the theory is
Atheism: there is no proof for the idea of God ergo I do not believe, however I am against dogmatism and controlling peoples ideas so they are free to believe what they like.

The practice of some Atheism is:
The is no proof that there is a God, therefore he DOES NOT exist. Therefore you MUST NOT believe.

Exactly.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Bicnarok
The Theory is = no god.
The Practice is = Not believing

There is nothing that organizes atheism, therefore, there are as many "atheist theory" as there are people.

You have, on one side, the people who are activist atheist, and on the other side, you have people who simple never give the idea of a god any thought.

A practice also suggest an organization, and there is no organization among atheists.

Then there are people like myself: I believe that the Christian god is man made. However, I believe that the universe is a living being, that I jokingly call God. It is a silly idea to worship God, because God does not need, at all. There are people who consider me to be an atheist. Am I?

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
There is nothing that organizes atheism

In theory. Sadly in reality there are plenty of atheists who are quite organized about what they think and just as dogmatic as the people they complain about.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
In theory. Sadly in reality there are plenty of atheists who are quite organized about what they think and just as dogmatic as the people they complain about.

They are a minority, however, given time, you maybe right.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
There is nothing that organizes atheism, therefore, there are as many "atheist theory" as there are people.

There are atheist organizations.

And quite rightly so, really.

Grand-Moff-Gav
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
As divine as the potential that we all have. The problem is the word divine has been used to kill a lot of people in the past.

Buddhahood transcends the very nature of divinity though...its super-godness... I suspect it would mean gods as understood in the Hindu traditions)

So really, you are a theist and you believe in the divine!

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Buddhahood transcends the very nature of divinity though...its super-godness... I suspect it would mean gods as understood in the Hindu traditions)

So really, you are a theist and you believe in the divine!

I am a theist. I have never claimed to be an atheist. BTW I have always said that being an active atheist is just as silly as worshiping a god.

I simply don't believe in the bible, or the Christian god.

Grand-Moff-Gav
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I am a theist. I have never claimed to be an atheist. BTW I have always said that being an active atheist is just as silly as worshiping a god.

I simply don't believe in the bible, or the Christian god.

I thought you said Jesus was a Buddha? ergo you recognise he was divine?

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
I thought you said Jesus was a Buddha? ergo you recognise he was divine?

Actually, I said Jesus was a Bodhisattva. We all have a Buddha nature, and if you consider Buddhahood to be divine, then we are all divine at some point.

Grand-Moff-Gav
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Actually, I said Jesus was a Bodhisattva. We all have a Buddha nature, and if you consider Buddhahood to be divine, then we are all divine at some point.

Buddhahood is beyond divine, the penultimate life prior to buddhahood is the divine one...right?

inimalist
ummm, so, much like christians, can we stop making sweeping generalizations about what "atheists" believe or do not believe?

I know many atheists who love dogma, maybe just not the religious kind.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Buddhahood is beyond divine, the penultimate life prior to buddhahood is the divine one...right?

I don't think that divine is the correct word to us. Divine has the connotation of separation, and Buddhahood is not separate.

http://buddhistlinks.org/Buddhahood.htm

Digi
Originally posted by inimalist
ummm, so, much like christians, can we stop making sweeping generalizations about what "atheists" believe or do not believe?

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I don't think that divine is the correct word to us. Divine has the connotation of separation, and Buddhahood is not separate.

http://buddhistlinks.org/Buddhahood.htm

"Perfect Enlightenment" that's at least as separate as "divine".

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
"Perfect Enlightenment" that's at least as separate as "divine".

I don't know where you get your information, but it is wrong. The main different is that we are all enlightened, and simply need to awaken to that enlightenment, while divine is unachievable. Are we all divine and not know it?

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I don't know where you get your information, but it is wrong. The main different is that we are all enlightened, and simply need to awaken to that enlightenment, while divine is unachievable. Are we all divine and not know it?

You're splitting hairs. We are not all awakened to enlightenment, let alone "perfect" enlightenment.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You're splitting hairs. We are not all awakened to enlightenment, let alone "perfect" enlightenment.

Correct, we are not all awakened to enlightenment, but we are all enlightened. Can you say the same thing about divinity?

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Correct, we are not all awakened to enlightenment, but we are all enlightened. Can you say the same thing about divinity?

Sure. Why not?

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Sure. Why not?

Then you are talking about a different kind of divinity then I was taught. I was taught, as a Christian, that only god or Jesus could be divine.

Grand-Moff-Gav
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Then you are talking about a different kind of divinity then I was taught. I was taught, as a Christian, that only god or Jesus could be divine.
That doesn't mean that Buddhists can't believe they reach divinity on par with Jesus.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
That doesn't mean that Buddhists can't believe they reach divinity on par with Jesus.

Well that all depends on if you consider Jesus divine. If he was human, just like the rest of us, then there have been many people with divinity on par with Jesus. However, that is only true if you miss use the word divine.

Also, there are as many different types of Buddhist as there are Christians. I only know about one type.

Forum Ninja
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
They are a minority, however, given time, you maybe right.

I don't agree with this. Most of the atheists I know practice, advertise and gloat about their beliefs just as strongly as some religious folk I know. However, this is only my experience. You may have experienced something different.

Extremism is dangerous on all fronts, though.

Regarding the film, I don't think Maher intended to have this film taken seriously. Not completely, at least.

Digi
Originally posted by Forum Ninja
I don't agree with this. Most of the atheists I know practice, advertise and gloat about their beliefs just as strongly as some religious folk I know. However, this is only my experience. You may have experienced something different.

Then you probably don't know many atheists, or your experience with them is simply slanted by an unfortunate few people.

While I realize that I'm also just a case study, I often wonder where people find these supposed "angry" atheists in everyday life, unless they are just grouping atheists in with the "youtube atheists" that dominate the stereotype. Because most of my friends are atheists or agnostic, and not a one of them fits this particular mold, and most of them openly hate the cliche angry atheists for being such a polarizing negative influence.

Originally posted by Forum Ninja
Extremism is dangerous on all fronts, though.

Agreed.

Originally posted by Forum Ninja
Regarding the film, I don't think Maher intended to have this film taken seriously. Not completely, at least.

Clearly not. Religious adherents will always be up in arms about such films, but if he were treating the subject more fairly he would remove much of the satire and deal with it in a much more professional manner. He openly admits he wants to challenge peoples' beliefs, but no one who sees the film with any clarity should see it for more than it is: comedy. Comedy with an agenda, granted. But still comedy.

BackFire
Movie was kinda funny.

inimalist
Originally posted by Digi
While I realize that I'm also just a case study, I often wonder where people find these supposed "angry" atheists in everyday life, unless they are just grouping atheists in with the "youtube atheists" that dominate the stereotype. Because most of my friends are atheists or agnostic, and not a one of them fits this particular mold, and most of them openly hate the cliche angry atheists for being such a polarizing negative influence.


unfortunately, people are most likely to be friends with and associate with those who believe similar things as they do (behavioural/contextual patterns may be more important in some cases, such as gangs or drug cultures, but largely this holds).

Because of this, the only experience most people get is with those who are most vocal with their beliefs. A calm atheist is not going to cross social groups to criticize believers, much the same as a calm and rational believer is not going to harass atheists.

The only exposure each group gets to the other are from the idiots who aren't ok with letting others believe as they wish. Like, outside of this forum, my only real exposure to christians are from the crazies who tell me I'm going to Hell on street corners and who follow me down the block (obvious exceptions, there is a Jehovah's Witness who comes to my school who I have awesome discussions with).

Its really hard to understand that most people, regardless of beliefs, are pretty much the same, when your only exposure to other groups come from such experiences. lol, I'm sure this isn't news to anyone, just some thoughts.

Forum Ninja
Originally posted by Digi
Then you probably don't know many atheists, or your experience with them is simply slanted by an unfortunate few people.

While I realize that I'm also just a case study, I often wonder where people find these supposed "angry" atheists in everyday life, unless they are just grouping atheists in with the "youtube atheists" that dominate the stereotype. Because most of my friends are atheists or agnostic, and not a one of them fits this particular mold, and most of them openly hate the cliche angry atheists for being such a polarizing negative influence.



Agreed.



Clearly not. Religious adherents will always be up in arms about such films, but if he were treating the subject more fairly he would remove much of the satire and deal with it in a much more professional manner. He openly admits he wants to challenge peoples' beliefs, but no one who sees the film with any clarity should see it for more than it is: comedy. Comedy with an agenda, granted. But still comedy.

Well put. I surprisingly know quite a few atheists (Being that I am one myself) and they often promote and even persuade others to believe in their philosophy of godlessness. Some of them rant often and don't let up on someone who is religious. These are friends, though. Within my family, everyone is catholic. I am definitely the black sheep.

Sometimes I feel atheists think they can get away with bashing religion because they don't necessarily practice anything or because they don't have dogmatic structure.

inimalist
I think criticizing dogma in any sense is important

If atheists stuck to that rather than criticizing people's beliefs, they would be way more effective imho.

but then, how would they continue to ride on Dawkins' dick?

chithappens
Sometimes I wonder is it pointless to have these discussions. Religion is not motivated by anything that can be "debunked" by anyone who really believes it (by debunk I mean it terms of misunderstandings of a particular sect/church/"(insert whatever)"wink. It is hard to say exactly what I mean to say without writing an essay but I avoid conversations of religion as much as possible because now it just doesn't get anywhere.

People believe what they believe when it comes to the metaphysical and so there's not much incentive to have these discussions, in my experience.

Digi
Originally posted by chithappens
Sometimes I wonder is it pointless to have these discussions. Religion is not motivated by anything that can be "debunked" by anyone who really believes it (by debunk I mean it terms of misunderstandings of a particular sect/church/"(insert whatever)"wink. It is hard to say exactly what I mean to say without writing an essay but I avoid conversations of religion as much as possible because now it just doesn't get anywhere.

People believe what they believe when it comes to the metaphysical and so there's not much incentive to have these discussions, in my experience.

...yet you're posting here. A quandry.

Plenty of religious claims can be verified and/or debunked, btw.

chithappens
Originally posted by Digi
...yet you're posting here. A quandry.

Plenty of religious claims can be verified and/or debunked, btw.

I was just wondering aloud. My point was that nothing can be changed when it comes to someone who really believes, or at least they will be very unlikely to be swayed by someone who does not have the same faith as them.

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
meh

I feel the same.

I wish someone would make or say something interesting and original in regards to religion - everything has been said/done before.

It's all the same ''I am rationalist, smart, enlightened and you're stupid and backward for having a religion''.
Blergh. Same, same, same.

leonheartmm
1. can one not be perfectly "enlightened" to the NATURAL state of the world and the ability of the human conciousness to change and experience things in a variety of amazing ways as well as understanding the reasons behind our suffering and who we are{helping us change them and reach a higher state of psychological} without having to introduce any supernatural affects on the physical world????

2. buddha's divinity on PAR with christ makes no sense to me because divinity is defined very differently between christianity and buddhism. you cant compare the two just for the sake of trying to make buddhists seem like hypocrites for avoiding the the christian ideas of divine.

3. what people are referring to active atheists are more properly described as ANTI- theists{as christopher hitchens put it}. those who actively pursue to defame and point out relegion for a lie and a fraud. no1 does ANYTHING based on atheism, it is the nuetral state of non beleif that we are all born with, any backlash against relegion is due to anti theism, and btw, not all atheists are anti theists either. as such there is no such thing as ATHIEST dogma since atheists dont HAVE any beleifs or commandments to be dogmatic about.

the word atheism is being tossed around without its meaning. it simply means not beleiving in any THIESTIC/DIESTIC relegion/philsophy {philosophies with DIETIES which fall under the general definition of monothiestic or polythistic god being responsible for creating the existance/humanity/this world and having power over it in the former case}. as such, technically, non theistic beleifs like busshim are atheistic, although usually people associate atheism with non beleif in any supernatural and that according to many doesnt agree with buddhism. athiesm is a prequisite, but not the same as ANTI theism.

leonheartmm
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I feel the same.

I wish someone would make or say something interesting and original in regards to religion - everything has been said/done before.

It's all the same ''I am rationalist, smart, enlightened and you're stupid and backward for having a religion''.
Blergh. Same, same, same.

maybe there isnt much more to say unless relegions themselves first try to prove those ancient accusations untrue. also, this film was made with an american audience in mind, and much of america is not nearly as tired or educated on the subject of atheism/anti theism as the wrest of the western world, barring the minority of non relegious americans. the evidence for this, "such a tired old movie wudnt even cause a few heads to turn in places like europe. people are too used to such stuff in the past, but sumhow in america, it ends up being CONTREVERSIAL, only pointing towards the unfamiliarity of the majority of american christians to such a thing- meaning it isnt uninteresting or unoriginal or the same to them". much of the bible belt, in many ways isnt that different from much of the pakistani frontier or parts of iran or saudi arabia.

Quiero Mota
Originally posted by leonheartmm
much of the bible belt, in many ways isnt that different from much of the pakistani frontier or parts of iran or saudi arabia.

Lots of whiskey is from the Bible Belt; Jack Daniels and Jim Bean etc. There's not too many breweries in the Middle East. Southerners also like their pork.

One correlation: NASCAR in the South and drifting in Saudi Arabia.

Da Pittman
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
One correlation: NASCAR in the South and drifting in Saudi Arabia. laughing

leonheartmm
i was referring more to the extremism, lack of critical thinking, intolerance, stupidity, relegion in politics etc.

Digi
Originally posted by chithappens
I was just wondering aloud. My point was that nothing can be changed when it comes to someone who really believes, or at least they will be very unlikely to be swayed by someone who does not have the same faith as them.

Plenty of people "really" believe something and eventually have their minds changed. The diversification in religious practices in the world is a general testament to this, while anyone could likely cite numerous anecdotal examples of this as well.

To throw you a bone, however, you have a point. Faith, by its very nature, is utterly blind and requires no outside reasoning or proof. For many whose devotion to such faith is nigh-absolute, no amount of argument for a differing view will sway them.

It's just going to far to say that "most" won't be swayed, even among ardent believers. Religious discussion isn't simply banging one's head against a wall. To someone willing to critically analyze differing viewpoints and weigh them against their own, the potential for change is indeed great.

LDHZenkai
Originally posted by Bicnarok
Just watched this DVD where this chap Bill Maher takes the micky out of Religion. Its not very factual and there are a lot of gaping holes in the arguments, but neverthless he makes some good points, anyone else seen this and if so what are your opinions.

Heres a link for more info and a clip from youtube.


Link

PHH2JItePlc

Lol actually everything in that film is a proven fact. Even the part about the gay gene. The only thing that's not a proven fact is the part that God is not real. But by that reasoning you can't prove the easter bunny, tooth fairy, or any other random magical being someone decides to create aren't real.

Beliver
So just checking how many who have commented here have actually watched the film the entire way through?

The main message of the film is the Religion is irrational and should be seperate from the state which should be a rational thing.

How many times has a leader (read a leader who is religious) said "(Insert Deity name) told me to do (Insert Act)" or said "It is (Insert Deity name) will"?

Will the leader of a nation make decisions based on facts and rationality or will they make a decision based on religious dogma and "God told me to do it"?

Scary stuff.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Beliver
So just checking how many who have commented here have actually watched the film the entire way through?

The main message of the film is the Religion is irrational and should be seperate from the state which should be a rational thing.

How many times has a leader (read a leader who is religious) said "(Insert Deity name) told me to do (Insert Act)" or said "It is (Insert Deity name) will"?

Will the leader of a nation make decisions based on facts and rationality or will they make a decision based on religious dogma and "God told me to do it"?

Scary stuff.

Most of the time they use that kind of language to muster support from the public.

Beliver
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Most of the time they use that kind of language to muster support from the public.

But shouldn't the people be concered that decisions that could effect them are being made by a person that hears voices?

"I want to kill all the monkeys in the world because God told me..."

or

"I want to kill all the monkeys in the world because it has been proven monkeys carry the ebola virus that is harmful to humans"

I know which leader I would rather follow.

(I would like to point out that I have nothing against monkeys...those cute little guys)

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Beliver
But shouldn't the people be concered that decisions that could effect them are being made by a person that hears voices?

"I want to kill all the monkeys in the world because God told me..."

or

"I want to kill all the monkeys in the world because it has been proven monkeys carry the ebola virus that is harmful to humans"

I know which leader I would rather follow.

(I would like to point out that I have nothing against monkeys...those cute little guys)

I don't know; I have a headache right now and can't hear the voices in my head. I will let you know what they think when I feel better. wink

Beliver
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I don't know; I have a headache right now and can't hear the voices in my head. I will let you know what they think when I feel better. wink

You ever wonder why you don't get collective voices talking to multiple people at once?

"We heard a voice and it said....make a cake!!"

No its always one person spouting rubbish.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Beliver
You ever wonder why you don't get collective voices talking to multiple people at once?

"We heard a voice and it said....make a cake!!"

No its always one person spouting rubbish.

We all have voices in our heads. However, delusion can lead some people to believe these voices come form outside of their head.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Beliver
So just checking how many who have commented here have actually watched the film the entire way through?

The main message of the film is the Religion is irrational and should be seperate from the state which should be a rational thing.

How many times has a leader (read a leader who is religious) said "(Insert Deity name) told me to do (Insert Act)" or said "It is (Insert Deity name) will"?

Will the leader of a nation make decisions based on facts and rationality or will they make a decision based on religious dogma and "God told me to do it"?

Scary stuff.

You act as though without theism people would follow rationalism.

Beliver
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
We all have voices in our heads. However, delusion can lead some people to believe these voices come form outside of their head.

But the difference is some of us are Joe Public and then some of us are in positions of power and control.

If I see a loony on a street corner ranting about the end of days...he's a loony.

If I see a leader of a nation ranting about the end of days (Sarah Palin is a good example)...then I am reinforceing the walls of my bombshelter.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Beliver
But the difference is some of us are Joe Public and then some of us are in positions of power and control.

If I see a loony on a street corner ranting about the end of days...he's a loony.

If I see a leader of a nation ranting about the end of days (Sarah Palin is a good example)...then I am reinforceing the walls of my bombshelter.

You are not the audience that a person like Sarah Palin is talking too.

Beliver
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You are not the audience that a person like Sarah Palin is talking too.

You mean the rational?

Beliver
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You act as though without theism people would follow rationalism.

Don't need a magic beardy man in the clouds to know that killing and stealing are wrong.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Beliver
Don't need a magic beardy man in the clouds to know that killing and stealing are wrong.

That's a single rational thought, not rationalism.

Beliver
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That's a single rational thought, not rationalism.

Better a single rational thought than millions of the same irrational one.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Beliver
Better a single rational thought than millions of the same irrational one.

No, you'd still have millions of irrational thoughts, billions even. All the time.

Beliver
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No, you'd still have millions of irrational thoughts, billions even. All the time.

Sigh....

I wonder what path of destruction you'd lead a nation down with your irrational thoughts.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Beliver
Sigh....

I wonder what path of destruction you'd lead a nation down with your irrational thoughts.

Or you with yours.

Beliver
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Or you with yours.

I wont be telling people that the Magic Beady man in the clouds told me to do stuff.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Beliver
I wont be telling people that the Magic Beady man in the clouds told me to do stuff.

Buddha had the same problem. However, he developed expedient means to bring people out of the darkness of delusion. Only then could he teach his higher teachings.

Beliver
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Buddha had the same problem. However, he developed expedient means to bring people out of the darkness of delusion. Only then could he teach his higher teachings.

But at its simplist core, wasnt Buddha just a man teaching people how to act to each other?

Please forgive my lack of knowledge of Buddhism but I take it unlike most religions there is no "ours is the right one and if you believe otherwise bad things will happen to you" clause?

I'd much rather hear:

"Be nice to each other"

than...

"Be nice to each other or my dad will kick the crap out of you"

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Beliver
But at its simplist core, wasnt Buddha just a man teaching people how to act to each other?

Please forgive my lack of knowledge of Buddhism but I take it unlike most religions there is no "ours is the right one and if you believe otherwise bad things will happen to you" clause?

I'd much rather hear:

"Be nice to each other"

than...

"Be nice to each other or my dad will kick the crap out of you"

And "Be nice to each other" is the higher teachings of Buddha. However, no one around him could understand that. They were too delusional. Consider Jesus; his teachings were "Be nice to each other" and all he got for it was a cross.

Beliver
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
And "Be nice to each other" is the higher teachings of Buddha. However, no one around him could understand that. They were too delusional. Consider Jesus; his teachings were "Be nice to each other" and all he got for it was a cross.

So would Jesus of been okay if he just stuck to walking around saying "be nice to each other" instead of spouting off that he was the son of a deity?

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Beliver
So would Jesus of been okay if he just stuck to walking around saying "be nice to each other" instead of spouting off that he was the son of a deity?

They would have stoned him right away.

Beliver
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
They would have stoned him right away.

Really?

I would of thought a kicking at most. I guessed telling everyone that unless they did what he said his magic daddy is the clouds will get them would of pissed off more people.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Beliver
Really?

I would of thought a kicking at most. I guessed telling everyone that unless they did what he said his magic daddy is the clouds will get them would of pissed off more people.

Try it yourself. At best everyone will laugh at you; at worse, they will bust your head open.

Beliver
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Try it yourself. At best everyone will laugh at you; at worse, they will bust your head open.

But the differnce is that these are enlightened times compared to those in the bible.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Beliver
But the differnce is that these are enlightened times compared to those in the bible.

"The more things change, the more they stay the same"

Beliver
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
"The more things change, the more they stay the same"

Yet no-one claims that they have caused a mass of water to part on command (successfully and without the aid of pharmacuticals).

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Beliver
Yet no-one claims that they have caused a mass of water to part on command (successfully and without the aid of pharmacuticals).

However, a few years back, a Hindu god was drinking milk.

Beliver
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
However, a few years back, a Hindu god was drinking milk.

Eh?

A Hindu deity (in physical form) pitched up and ordered a glass of milk?

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Beliver
Eh?

A Hindu deity (in physical form) pitched up and ordered a glass of milk?

Google it. wink

Beliver
The 1995 incident:

"Seeking to explain the phenomenon, scientists from India's Ministry of Science and Technology travelled to a temple in New Delhi and made an offering of milk containing a food colouring. As the level of liquid in the spoon dropped, it became obvious that after the milk disappeared from the spoon, it coated the statue beneath where the spoon was placed. With this result, the scientists offered capillary action as an explanation; the surface tension of the milk was pulling the liquid up and out of the spoon, before gravity caused it to run down the front of the statue."

Or the 2006 one?

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Beliver
The 1995 incident:

"Seeking to explain the phenomenon, scientists from India's Ministry of Science and Technology travelled to a temple in New Delhi and made an offering of milk containing a food colouring. As the level of liquid in the spoon dropped, it became obvious that after the milk disappeared from the spoon, it coated the statue beneath where the spoon was placed. With this result, the scientists offered capillary action as an explanation; the surface tension of the milk was pulling the liquid up and out of the spoon, before gravity caused it to run down the front of the statue."

Or the 2006 one?

I never said Miracles are real outside of the mind.

Beliver
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I never said Miracles are real outside of the mind.

But aren't these miracles/delusions just another symptom of the irrational.

If anything Religion should be the guide not the answer.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Beliver
But aren't these miracles/delusions just another symptom of the irrational.

If anything Religion should be the guide not the answer.

The rational is not free from the possibility of delusion.

Beliver
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The rational is not free from the possibility of delusion.

But with the rational the delusional can be isolated and ignored.

Its the irrational that act upon the delusion.

Havent heard of many MIT scholars shaving all their hair off and claiming to be the next coming of the Messiah. Although it always seems to be the leaders of nations that seem to have the ear of God.

Ordo
Originally posted by Beliver
Havent heard of many MIT scholars shaving all their hair off and claiming to be the next coming of the Messiah.

No, but they're likely to commit suicide.

speaking of irrationality, you have irrational thought process concerning rationality.

Beliver
Originally posted by Ordo
No, but they're likely to commit suicide.

speaking of irrationality, you have irrational thought process concerning rationality.

Where is your statistical proof for the suicide rates in MIT professors?

Talking about irrational though processes.

Ordo
Talking about dodging the point.

Where is your statistical proof about MIT scholars shaving all their hair off and claiming to be the next coming of the Messiah. Seems to be based on conjuncture and rumor.

inimalist
rationality: a culturally constructed set of beliefs which are no more objective than theology or anything else.

lol, or, mr Believer, would you care to objectively prove "rationalism" over, well, anything?

Beliver
Originally posted by Ordo
Talking about dodging the point.

Where is your statistical proof about MIT scholars shaving all their hair off and claiming to be the next coming of the Messiah. Seems to be based on conjuncture and rumor.

I think you are missing the point here.

MIT scholars deal in the provable and measrureable. The present their findings in facts. I think you would find the statistics for claims to Messiahhood in scholars significantly lower than in the mentally challenged or the already religiously indoctrinated.

Bible...based on conjecture and rumour.

Beliver
Originally posted by inimalist
rationality: a culturally constructed set of beliefs which are no more objective than theology or anything else.

lol, or, mr Believer, would you care to objectively prove "rationalism" over, well, anything?

Rational =

1. Having or exercising the ability to reason.
2. Of sound mind; sane.
3. Consistent with or based on reason; logical: rational behavior. See Synonyms at logical.
4. Mathematics Capable of being expressed as a quotient of integers.

"I will not murder someone because taking a life is wrong."

Irrational =

1.
a. Not endowed with reason.
b. Affected by loss of usual or normal mental clarity; incoherent, as from shock.
c. Marked by a lack of accord with reason or sound judgment: an irrational dislike.
2.
a. Being a syllable in Greek and Latin prosody whose length does not fit the metric pattern.
b. Being a metric foot containing such a syllable.

"I'm going to kill someone because God told me its his will!!!!!"

Does that need to be explained any clearer?

Symmetric Chaos
He said prove, P-R-O-V-E, not prove, P-O-N-T-I-F-I-C-A-T-E.

inimalist
Originally posted by Beliver
Does that need to be explained any clearer?

no, I was well capable of typing those two words into dictionary.com, though you saved me the trouble if it ever comes up.

I was making a snide joke about your constant claim to being "rational" or having "rational" thought processes.

On a completely related note, it is strange, be they theist or atheist, anyone who claims that science "proves" things as absolutely as you do really has no comprehension of the process at all. The only people who think that scientists ever "prove" or "disprove" things are creationists and idiot atheists who want to sound edgy when they say naughty things about God.

Scientists, they don't think they do.

Beliver
Originally posted by inimalist
no, I was well capable of typing those two words into dictionary.com, though you saved me the trouble if it ever comes up.

I was making a snide joke about your constant claim to being "rational" or having "rational" thought processes.

On a completely related note, it is strange, be they theist or atheist, anyone who claims that science "proves" things as absolutely as you do really has no comprehension of the process at all. The only people who think that scientists ever "prove" or "disprove" things are creationists and idiot atheists who want to sound edgy when they say naughty things about God.

Scientists, they don't think they do.

So scientist have never proven or disproven anything? Ever?

How about this...A man claims if submerged in water for an hour he wont drown.

Man dies from drowning. His claim has been disproven and the fact that humans drown from being unabkle to breath underwater has been proven.

Mindset
Originally posted by Beliver
So scientist have never proven or disproven anything? Ever?

How about this...A man claims if submerged in water for an hour he wont drown.

Man dies from drowning. His claim has been disproven and the fact that humans drown from being unabkle to breath underwater has been proven. He could have died from cancer.

Beliver
Originally posted by Mindset
He could have died from cancer.

Sorry but the autopsy showed he died of drowning.

Mindset
The person who performed the autopsy never graduated highschool and forged his degrees.

inimalist
Originally posted by Beliver
So scientist have never proven or disproven anything? Ever?

How about this...A man claims if submerged in water for an hour he wont drown.

Man dies from drowning. His claim has been disproven and the fact that humans drown from being unabkle to breath underwater has been proven.

his claim has not been disproven

I used to swim competitively and could do the 50m freestyle in under 33 seconds. I cannot any longer. My inability to recreate this feat does not mean it never happened.

Ordo
Originally posted by Beliver
I think you are missing the point here.

MIT scholars deal in the provable and measrureable. The present their findings in facts. I think you would find the statistics for claims to Messiahhood in scholars significantly lower than in the mentally challenged or the already religiously indoctrinated.

Bible...based on conjecture and rumour.

You haven't presented your arguments in facts. "I think you would find..." thats conjecture not fact. Why should I listen to you conjecture against conjecture...?

Frankly, having been to MIT (not as a student) and have friends who go there (as students)...I think you'll find that actual experiences are not your simplestic exxagurations. I also think you'll find that MIT is 1. wholly irrelevant to thsi conversation and 2. makes you look ridiculous.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.