Religulous - The Hour - Tuesday

[GGG]

The problem with the above statement is that is assmumes that religeon is the root cause of the world problem which is not true. The problem is people use religion as a method of excercising power. Nationalism has worked just as well as an opiate as religion has. So if you didn't have religion leaders would use another method to subjugate people.

[HotHotHeat]

Originally Posted by GGG

The problem with the above statement is that is assmumes that religeon is the root cause of the world problem which is not true. The problem is people use religion as a method of excercising power. Nationalism has worked just as well as an opiate as religion has. So if you didn't have religion leaders would use another method to subjugate people.

So if it causes (lets) people to do something, how is it not a cause? If it didn't exist the problem couldn't exist. No? In this case it seems to me that whether the outcome is direct or indirect is irrelevant.

[photon]

Originally Posted by GGG

But the origing universe will always suffer from Chinease Dolls problem everytime you have an answer you can always ask well how did it get there.

So you say, but that's not necessarily true. We used to think matter could be divided infinitely but eventually discovered it could not.

So if we accept multiverses we can always ask how did they start and if we find and answer to that we can always ask well how did that start. So the Universe will always suffer from 747 syndrom no amount of theory or research is going to solve that.

Again so you say.. but as has been pointed out, with science there at least is the potential for an actual resolution, whereas if you invoke God then that stops all inquiry, but still leaves you with the infinite regress. God created the universe, who created God.

Religeon always uses the excuse that if you can't explain it it must have been God. Science always says we just can't explain it yet. Niether are satisfying answers and niether will ever be.

I don't know is a perfectly satisfying answer, in fact it's an exciting answer. It means there's an opportunity to discover something!

To me looking at places where science doesn't have an answer yet (or may never be capable of an answer, some questions don't have answers because the questions are meaningless) and saying "this is where God is" is very weak, it limits God to the gaps in understanding.. and as the gaps close the goalposts move and God fills a different gap.

That's not reason, that's an escape hatch.

Originally Posted by GGG

I agree that science is a better model for predicting and developing technologies but the belief that science can give us 1 ultimate and satisfying solution answering all of our questions is false.

Once again so you say, but you don't have anything to support it.

I would say that while science (and in more general terms a rational approach to things) has produced many many solutions to many questions; and science really has only been around a short time in the history of humanity, so it's just getting started.

Whereas religion hasn't produced ultimate and satisfying solutions to many many problems despite trying for ten or 100 times as long as science has.

Some questions will probably never be answered; a lot of those probably don't really mean anything anyway. Just because a question can be asked doesn't mean it's worthy of an answer. What's the sound of green? What happened before time? There's no answer because they're the wrong questions to be asking.

In the end there will always be room for God.

Doesn't that seem weak to you? Always room for God implies that most of the other room is taken up by not God. The kind of God that would create a universe and continually interact with it seems to imply that God IS the room; there's room for nothing else, God would be self-evident.

Interestingly enough Quantum Physics allows for miricles. Since it is entirely probability based God has allowed himself a way to intervene in the world without violating his own laws of physics.

Sure but he has to violate his own laws of probability then.. I don't see how God being able to intervene in the world without having to violate physics lends any more credibility to God's existence, rather it makes him seem weaker, or at least not totally omnipotent.

[Thor]

Bill Maher on Palin, funny stuff:

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=CIcnAt4fYTw

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Thor

Bill Maher on Palin, funny stuff:

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=CIcnAt4fYTw

That Pope jab was pretty good.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by peter12

That Pope jab was pretty good.

Wait till you see the guy from the Vatican mocking the Vatican as not being what Jesus would have wanted

[HotHotHeat]

Have people seen this movie? I saw it Friday and thought it was incredibly well done. So much ammo against religious fanatics.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by fotze

I didn't know Palin was one of those faith healing type Christians. Fata me in the goat arse, thats scary.

Faith healing, shaking on the floor, speaking in tongues, protected from witches, expecting the end of the world... what's scary about that?

Next you'll tell us that you think it's "scary" if a politician believes that Elvis is alive, that aliens control the radio or Princess Diana was killed by Leonardo Da Vinci.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Faith healing, shaking on the floor, speaking in tongues, protected from witches, expecting the end of the world... what's scary about that?

Next you'll tell us that you think it's "scary" if a politician believes that Elvis is alive, that aliens control the radio or Princess Diana was killed by Leonardo Da Vinci.

Haha well played.

Just to add, not 'expecting the end of the world' but more and very importantly like many evangelicals, muslims, "eagerly waiting the end of days"

[GGG]

Originally Posted by photon

So you say, but that's not necessarily true. We used to think matter could be divided infinitely but eventually discovered it could not.

Again so you say.. but as has been pointed out, with science there at least is the potential for an actual resolution, whereas if you invoke God then that stops all inquiry, but still leaves you with the infinite regress. God created the universe, who created God.

I don't know is a perfectly satisfying answer, in fact it's an exciting answer. It means there's an opportunity to discover something!

To me looking at places where science doesn't have an answer yet (or may never be capable of an answer, some questions don't have answers because the questions are meaningless) and saying "this is where God is" is very weak, it limits God to the gaps in understanding.. and as the gaps close the goalposts move and God fills a different gap.

That's not reason, that's an escape hatch.



Once again so you say, but you don't have anything to support it.

I would say that while science (and in more general terms a rational approach to things) has produced many many solutions to many questions; and science really has only been around a short time in the history of humanity, so it's just getting started.

Whereas religion hasn't produced ultimate and satisfying solutions to many many problems despite trying for ten or 100 times as long as science has.

Some questions will probably never be answered; a lot of those probably don't really mean anything anyway. Just because a question can be asked doesn't mean it's worthy of an answer. What's the sound of green? What happened before time? There's no answer because they're the wrong questions to be asking.

Doesn't that seem weak to you? Always room for God implies that most of the other room is taken up by not God. The kind of God that would create a universe and continually interact with it seems to imply that God IS the room; there's room for nothing else, God would be self-evident.

Sure but he has to violate his own laws of probability then.. I don't see how God being able to intervene in the world without having to violate physics lends any more credibility to God's existence, rather it makes him seem weaker, or at least not totally omnipotent.

You seem to believe that we either have choice between science and God. I do not believe that you need to make that choice and both can live together. In this discussion you keep arguing that science is better at explaining the universe and this is a point that I willingly conceed.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by GGG

You seem to believe that we either have choice between science and God. I do not believe that you need to make that choice and both can live together. In this discussion you keep arguing that science is better at explaining the universe and this is a point that I willingly conceed.

I don't think its exactly that simple, its not that we chose science over god. God isn't in the equation for most logical and rational people. God evokes an end point of discussion, religious texts have the final answer to most of life/existance.

I would prefer to say, Rationalists are better at explaining the universe over people who believe in fairy tales.

I could start a real discussion with people who throw away religious texts of the ancient world, while wondering what could be 'god' instead of holding onto outdated, dangerous and illogical dogma that hurts our world, our future and most importantly our mind.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Thor

I don't think its exactly that simple, its not that we chose science over god.

I didn't mean to imply that atheiests have chosen science over God. What i meant to say is that non-fundamentalist Religious people don't choose God over Science. They believe in God and Science.

Originally Posted by Thor

God isn't in the equation for most logical and rational people. God evokes an end point of discussion, religious texts have the final answer to most of life/existance.

This would imply that the majority of Canadians are irrational. I would say that those who are not fundementalists and believe in the contextual interpatation of religious texts are rational.

Originally Posted by Thor

I would prefer to say, Rationalists are better at explaining the universe over people who believe in fairy tales..

Again you are implying that a person cannot believe in the fundamentals of science and believe in God. This is a very mis-informed opinion of main stream religion.

Originally Posted by Thor

I could start a real discussion with people who throw away religious texts of the ancient world, while wondering what could be 'god' instead of holding onto outdated, dangerous and illogical dogma that hurts our world, our future and most importantly our mind.

I think if you had a real discussion with anyone who is willing to accept contextual interpetation as opposed to literal interpatation of religious texts you would fins a reasonalbe discussion of the modern world.

The assumption that wars would not exist or that the world would be a better place without religion seems a little bit premature. Religion when mis-used is used to get people to do things without sufficient compensation. ie: suicide bombers kill themselves for free. If Religion didn't exist other methods of subsidizing these transactions would exist. Nationalism comes to mind as a substitute as well as the standard fear based economy used in many dictatorships.

[HotHotHeat]

Originally Posted by GGG

This would imply that the majority of Canadians are irrational. I would say that those who are not fundementalists and believe in the contextual interpatation of religious texts are rational.

.

If you're able to, could you expand on this idea? I used to hear people say this and go 'ya, that makes sense, the bible carries good moral principles, fair enough'. But when you really think about it, how does a set of moral principles make you religious? That makes you moral. So while you can argue 'contextual interpretation' is rational, I don't believe it's in the slightest a religious perspective. What makes the literal believers of the bible irrational is that they believe in the magical part of religion....Angels watching over them, god listening when they talk to him/her/it. It boils down to the fact that you can't pick and choose. Either you believe that the bible tells stories of truth, or they are made up but nevertheless valuable moral teachings. One side is irrational and religious, the other is neither.

And if it is the case that they are in fact valuable from a moral standpoint, why do you need the bible to carry on the teachings? Why not make a set of principles/teachings that CAN be taken literally.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by GGG

I didn't mean to imply that atheiests have chosen science over God. What i meant to say is that non-fundamentalist Religious people don't choose God over Science. They believe in God and Science.

Its a slippery slope, what Religous people believed 50 yrs ago, 100 years ago, 500 years ago; would be utterly blasphemous today to those people. The biblical texts, written clearly after the claimed existance of Jesus, are at best stories, written about someone that wasn't clear even existed.

So yeah definitely in 'some' religions people believe in god and science, but at a disconnect in many situations, as Science has thrown for a loop the stories of the biblical texts and its understandings of the world around us.

This would imply that the majority of Canadians are irrational. I would say that those who are not fundementalists and believe in the contextual interpatation of religious texts are rational.

They are irrational, when it comes to religion. This is exactly how I feel, and any study of biblical texts shows us why. Then there are as you state people who want to 'interpret' differently the biblical texts to suit their modern day needs, when IF they were the word of god it is simply blasphemy to suggest this. If its acceptable to 'modernize' these texts, why not then simply agree they are the creations of men, and therefore should hold no more sway than any other cute mythological stories of our recorded history?

Instead of being cornerstones of excuses to hate, conflict, seperation, violence, irrational thought, etc...

Again you are implying that a person cannot believe in the fundamentals of science and believe in God. This is a very mis-informed opinion of main stream religion.

They can. I just don't believe they are looking at all the facts of biblical texts or any religious text. They are nonsensical, contradictory, and deservere only a novelistic respect than any worship or obedience.

Up until the last 50 years, it was incredibly dangerous to dissent against those texts, in fact some parts of the world this is still very much the case. So yes, these might be some statements people of religious conviction are not used to, rest assured it will only increase as the sillyness of these 'faiths' are debated and argued against.

I think if you had a real discussion with anyone who is willing to accept contextual interpetation as opposed to literal interpatation of religious texts you would fins a reasonalbe discussion of the modern world.

Its a typical excuse by moderates. However without moderates, extremists wouldn't get away with what they get away with. Simply stated, moderates are enablers of radicalism.

You cannot have a reasonable discussion of the modern world with 2000 yr old fairy tales that incite us to end days, and in fact end days are something even moderates look forward to. Why then care about enviornment, your children's future, wars, etc..

The assumption that wars would not exist or that the world would be a better place without religion seems a little bit premature.

Oh they would quite definately exist without religion. Human kind is quite violent, you need only research evolutionary psychology to understand kin realtionships, in/out groups and the affect it has on male violence, especially in group settings.

Its just that our tendancy towards violence will exist, but with the religion you take a small fire and put jet fuel on its intensity. People will not bomb others on sake of virgins and a special place on the afterlife without religion. Non belief does not encourage war on such grounds, there are plenty of other reasons to hate and involve ourselves in war; this will probably persist for thousands of generations to come; even if we rid ourselves of old superstitions and false idols.

Religion when mis-used is used to get people to do things without sufficient compensation. ie: suicide bombers kill themselves for free. If Religion didn't exist other methods of subsidizing these transactions would exist.

Suicide bombers do not kill themselves for free, they get in their eyes a very special place in the afterlife with a great reward of virgins! Violence without religion would exist, but to a much lesser degree than it does with Religion.

How many Atheist suicide bombers would you find, yet you have no problems finding religious ones killing people daily.

Nationalism comes to mind as a substitute as well as the standard fear based economy used in many dictatorships.

War based on nationalism occurs all the time, how often however is religion and underlying reason? Kosovo? Israel? Afghanistan? India/Pakistan?

Nationalism is another debate, I'm always weary of in group pride, because it leads to decisions made by groups that are inspired by bad reasoning.

The only hope of existing past this next 100 years is to stop apologizing for irrationality, being afraid of 'hurting feelings of belief', and dealing with the extremism that Islam and stomping out the Evangelicals of our part of this planet.

[Vulcan]

I believe in god and I like Maher. I think he's great and most of what he says is the honest truth. But than again I have little sympathy for religion, although I respect anyones search for god.

My god isn't some old man with a beard up in the sky who can rain fire and lightening down on us. He's more a great feeling that I can experience. Something like the shivers that can run up my spine at a Flames game, the single mindedness as I build something, the thrill as I do something stupidly dangerous, the peace after a hard days work, the glow I feel when in love or the awe as I've seen my baby born.

The thing is people think this feeling comes from what you are doing, who you are with or where you are but in my experience this feeling is coming from within. I am the one who appreciates. These outside experiences are just triggers and you can learn how you can trigger these feelings for yourself without having to go anywhere or do much of anything.

To me Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, and Krishna were a few of the teachers who taught their people how to do this. The Bible and religion have lost sight of this teaching though.

The more I get into it the better it can get. This experience is much more than what I've felt doing any of the above mentioned things, so I like to share that their is a possibility within you, and for me, it doesn't involve a conflict with science or rationality.

rant over although I hope it's not taken that way.

[photon]

Originally Posted by GGG

You seem to believe that we either have choice between science and God. I do not believe that you need to make that choice and both can live together. In this discussion you keep arguing that science is better at explaining the universe and this is a point that I willingly conceed.

Sorry if I came across that way, I wouldn't want to argue that at all. In fact that's one of my pet peeves about young earth creationists; may seem to think that an old earth and rise of life through evolution means being an atheist or agnostic, when it's not necessarily so.

I just was trying to say that invoking God only at specific places doesn't work for a good description of God since it puts God it a box, and the box keeps getting smaller the more we discover.

I agree both can live together, though scientists typically are less devout there are still many scientists who are religious.

The question then becomes SHOULD they live together. That's the point that Maher and others are putting forward; that religion is more harmful than any good it does.

[photon]

Originally Posted by GGG

This would imply that the majority of Canadians humans are irrational.

Fixed that. I think everyone is irrational, myself included. Humans are very easily tricked, see things that aren't there, miss things that are there, and generally aren't nearly in touch with reality as we thing we are.

That's not a good thing or a bad thing, it just is.

[driveway]

Originally Posted by GGG

I think if you had a real discussion with anyone who is willing to accept contextual interpetation as opposed to literal interpatation of religious texts you would fins a reasonalbe discussion of the modern world.

Contextual interpretation is an extremely problematic concept for religion, and should be for the religious. Considering that the raison d'etre for religion is to provide answers and direction for those who adhere to it, the idea of contextual interpretation kind of throws that out the window.

If you, or anyone, is free to interpret religious texts or teachings, then they loose their possible connection with things like absolute Truth or Morality. They become as relative as humanist and atheist teachings and, ultimately are virtually identical, with the exception of some dietary provisions.

The assumption that wars would not exist or that the world would be a better place without religion seems a little bit premature.

Wars would absolutely exist. All wars are always based in economics. Always have been, always will be. There has never been a war that wasn't fundamentally about economics. They are draped in things like religion and nationalism, but ultimately, it's always about money.

Another issue with the moderately religious, is that religions have absolute requirements of belief.

For example, to be a Christian you have to believe that Jesus was an actual person who died in payment for the sins of humanity. Everything else is window dressing.

To be a Jew, (religious as opposed to ethnic) you have to believe that your people are God's chosen people.

Other religions have similar absolute requirements of belief. It's all well and good to call oneself a Christian, but if you don't believe that Jesus died for your sins, you simply aren't one, no matter what other parts of the religious teachings you accept.

[MarchHare]

Wars would absolutely exist. All wars are always based in economics. Always have been, always will be. There has never been a war that wasn't fundamentally about economics. They are draped in things like religion and nationalism, but ultimately, it's always about money.

That's not true.

I'll agree that many wars, maybe even most wars are based on economics, but it's not a 100% certainty as you state.

Take the Crusades, for example, which were entirely about religion. The (Christian) rulers of Europe wanted to retake the Holy Land from the "infidels" and stop the spread of Islam. Their goal wasn't to exploit the area for its natural resources or anything of the sort. For a more recent example, consider the current Afghanistan conflict which is about protecting the West from religious fanatics.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

That's not true.

I'll agree that many wars, maybe even most wars are based on economics, but it's not a 100% certainty as you state.

Take the Crusades, for example, which were entirely about religion. The (Christian) rulers of Europe wanted to retake the Holy Land from the "infidels" and stop the spread of Islam. Their goal wasn't to exploit the area for its natural resources or anything of the sort. For a more recent example, consider the current Afghanistan conflict which is about protecting the West from religious fanatics.

The Crusades were more about recovering relics and riches that the Christian kingdoms saw as their own. It also had a lot of politics involved where leaders of different areas were trying to increase their clout in Europe.

Religion was probably a secondary cause of the Crusades, but probably the first "reason" that the leaders at the time would use to get the people to volunteer to go. It wasn't that much different then than it is now where leaders use altruistic reasons to promote wars for economic gain.