Religulous - The Documentary

[MaximilianMayrhofer]

This documentary is really interesting. Look it up yourself because I don't want to get banned for posting the links.

I am an unabashedly vocal anti-religionist. I don't just not believe in god, I think that organised religion is the most vile, corruptive and destructive influence on the planet.

Seeing these documentaries just reaffirms my opinion that the only armaggedon the earth might experience will be the one brought on by the idiots who'll kill us all 'defending' their right to believe in its coming.

Feel free to start flaming me :afrog:

[dee-u]

I flame you, now, are you burning?

[Shaggy Hiker]

I have always felt free to flame you. Do you think your current statements are somehow more inflammatory? I tend to agree with the general view, though I think that some of the eastern belief systems are not quite as divisive.

[MaximilianMayrhofer]

The eastern belief systems of which you likely speak are not religions, they are philosophies. I can respect philosophies because they are values and morals based on real observations and experiences. Philosophies, historically, do not ask their followers to kill non-followers. Noone has ever strapped explosives on themselves and killed children in the name of Nietzsche, or mowed down civilians while shouting "All the gold which is under or upon the earth is not enough to give in exchange for virtue!".

[kleinma]

You would never do something like post links to a copyrighted movie that is up on some share sight would you? I know you would never do something like that here on VBForums, so I must be mistaken...

[FunkyDexter]

I can respect philosophies because they are values and morals based on real observations and experiences. Ah yes, I've observed reincarnation many a time. Happens every week down our way. Ther fellow down the road from me astrally projected into my kitchen last night and helped himself to my astral cornflakes. I also try to talk to my dead ancestors at least once a week. Sarcasm aside, I really dont see anything more credible about Eastern philosophies than Western religions. Both offer a moral code, both tend to describe some kind of genesis story, both tend to describe some kind of after life... about the only substantial difference is the lack of a God figure.

I never understand why people get a bee in their bonnet over religion. It's naturally unmeasurable but I really believe that religions have been responsible for more good throughout history than bad - they've been responsible for (or at least blamed for) plenty of both though. Certainly wars have been fought in the name of religion, but charities have been formed, societies coallesced, homeless fed, orphans housed... all in the name of religion.

Also, religions generally don't advocate killing non-believers. In fact most are pretty clear about not harming others and advocate their followers to bring truth (as they percieve it) to non-believers rather than kill them. This is certainly true of Judaism, Islam and Christianity. It's lunatics that get hold of a religion and twist their teachings to their own ends that generally end up sending that message out.

[MaximilianMayrhofer]

You're right, it is the lunatics that catch on. And organised religion breeds them, with its dogma and its offers of immortality and power.

[si_the_geek]

The lunatics would be lunatics anyway - the biggest difference would be the excuses they use for their actions, which may be political or xenophobic.

At least within an organisation like a religious group there is a chance that they can be persuaded that they are going too far, unless of course the people in charge of the group are of the same nature (but without religion, those people in charge would find another "cause" to lead).

[System_Error]

I can understand someone questioning religion, but when it comes from a place of superiority and hate, then it's nothing less than bigotry. So Bill Maher and his infinite credibility will gain as much support for atheists as Michael Moore did for the left.


I never understand why people get a bee in their bonnet over religion. It's naturally unmeasurable but I really believe that religions have been responsible for more good throughout history than bad - they've been responsible for (or at least blamed for) plenty of both though. Certainly wars have been fought in the name of religion, but charities have been formed, societies coallesced, homeless fed, orphans housed... all in the name of religion.

:thumb:

[demotivater]

I don't understand why people who purportedly don't believe in something feel the need to battle against it. Surely, there are more worthy causes towards which to direct their anger and hate. Racism, corruption in government, hunger, poverty, you know "real" things.

Not sure who said it, something along the lines of - sure proof of the existence of God is atheism.

And Bill Maher? Give me a break, what a scumbag.

[FunkyDexter]

What I reqally don't understand are people (and I can't think of any specific examples on the board) who find the idea of believing in a God so abhorrent are often so ready to believe in the healing power of crystals or some other new age dross. I remember a conversation I had with a particularly hippyish freind of mine in which he both proposed that belief in a God was credulous nonsense but water would somehow stay fresher in a rounded container because it bore a closer resemblance to a riverbank than a square container:ehh:. (obviously, the conversation meandered a bit between the two utterances but even so...)

[kleinma]

Belief in god or not believing in god is the same thing as any other 2 sided argument. People want other people to think the same way as them because

1) They don't understand why someone would not believe the same thing as them, why else would they believe it then?

2) to further point #1, the more people you have on your side with your opinion, the more credible it seems to become.

None of it really matters, if you believe in a god or not. What matters is how your belief shapes you.

Someone could argue an atheist may look at life as though since there is no god, they have no one to answer to after this life, and no rules of god apply to them, and they can rob, and murder and whatever because they do not believe in repercussions after death.

However it would be just as easy to argue that an atheist, not believing in anything beyond this physical world for humans, may hold life even more sacred than the most religious of people, because they view it as very much a one time thing, and if there is no after life, each second on this earth is very precious.

Same arguments can be made for religious people...

So again, it is all how you as an individual harness your belief, whatever it may be.

[capsulecorpjx]

I'm more against radicals, fundamentalists and any idealogues.

Remember, Religion has done some bad things, but radical communists have killed more people than anyone else, and they are very hardcore atheist (at least 100 million died from Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim).

For my personal belief system, I'm agnostic, with a possibilty of God(s).

But I know that none of the current religions are true, because I see so many holes in each of them.

[MaximilianMayrhofer]

Technically, you don't 'know' anything about the veracity of these religions. They could hold water like a colander and still be true, just god's private little joke.

Not my point. I'll be honest, I was deliberately inflammatory because sometimes I get tired of the nonsense in the main CC forum and I wanted to draw out the people who would be willing to use their intellectual arguments to call me on my own reverse bigotry (thanks to those who did :afrog:).

Honestly though, I don't think that the benefits of faith outweigh the atrocities associated with organised religion. You'll notice I separate them. For someone to have faith in a higher power is as legitimate to me as my own belief in the incredible succession of cosmic coincidences that made this planet able to harbor our own intelligent life.

However, for all my respect of the beliefs of those with faith, I do maintain my own personal theory about the link between faith and organised religion, and i'll try to explain why I think that the former ultimately leads to the latter and its assorted destructive tendencies.

The first question everyone has to decide for themselves is their own personal ideas regarding faith. What is faith? I can only offer my own opinion:

Faith, in my opinion, is nothing more than the anthropomorphization of the fundamental questions we have regarding our origins. Essentially, it is the equivalent to taking a set of unsolved mathematical equations and assigning them a face. An identity. A personality. There are several possible reasons why, but I suspect that the most important one is that when something is given an identity and a personality, when it is given intelligence, it is also given, implicitly, a purpose for existing. When we give the origins of the universe, of ourselves, a purpose, we implicitly give ourselves one too. When a being with a purpose creates something, then that something which is created must also have a purpose, if only to facilitate the larger purpose of its creator.

The reason that this is so important is that, for a creature that is self-aware and intelligent, a purpose for existing is necessary for survival. The self-aware brain cannot comprehend or accept its own ultimate irrelevance. The result is a schism so great that it can drive people into deep, or even catatonic depression.

To sum it up, faith provides us with a reason for existing. A fun analogy would be lifting yourself up by grabbing the back of your pants and yanking hard.

So i've explained my idea surrounding faith, its origins and its purpose. But where is the real link between the esoteric and abstract concepts of faith, and the stifling, micro-managing dogma of organised religion? I think the answer to that is once again explained by one thing; Anthropomorphization.

Perhaps the best example of anthropomorphization in religion, done in reverse, is the statement that "Man was made in the image of god.". There is no way, at all, what-so-ever that anyone could possibly know this to be the case. So what is this statement really? As a matter of fact, it should be read in reverse. God was made in the image of man. Now, if we just accept for a moment my explanation for faith, then this statement is simply a truism. Nothing special.

The problem occurs when we create god in our own image while simultaneously believing that we are created in his. This endless merry-go-round leads to equally circular arguments regarding such things as morality. Take this possible example:

"I am a good man, I know that I am a good man because I do good things"
"I am created in god's image. That is why I am good. Because his goodness is in me."
"I think that sex before marriage is wrong."
"If I am created in god's image, and I am good, and I think that sex before marriage is bad, then god must think so too!"

Now, logically, this is not a well structured thought process. But it lends itself to that same circularity that defines the earlier statement about images.

Anthropomorphization also leads to the association of other human emotions, like jealousy. The old testament clearly states that 'he is a jealous god.' Ask yourself for a moment, how would the creator of everything in the entire universe even have an understanding of an emotion like jealousy? He has nothing and noone by which to compare himself and feel inferior. It's a moot point.

As soon as we accept that organised religion is based on an anthropomorphization, then what are we really worshipping but a big jealous man with lots of cool powers and a tendency towards genocide. And this feedback is something that is happening constantly. When a culture of people is oppressed and angry, they have a violent god who wants them to kill infidels. When a culture of people is rich and spoiled, they have a god who regularly finds time to takes sides in university football games and award people Oscars. Coincidence?

[kleinma]

A set of physics equations can make just as much sense (or more) to someone who understands it, as reading the bible or other religious doctrine.

They both explain stuff, in a man made way, since we have to apply man made labels to actual things so we can understand them at all.

[MaximilianMayrhofer]

Absolutely. But while a set of physics equations can make sense, they can never hold or bestow a greater sense of purpose. And therefore nothing that is derived from them can have purpose. To accept that we are derived from a basic set of mathematical equations is to accept that we simply are. Just as a rock simply is. Not many people can accept that their existence has exactly the same amount of philosophical weight as the existence of that rock.

[Shaggy Hiker]

who find the idea of believing in a God so abhorrent are often so ready to believe in the healing power of crystals or some other new age dross.

You're nuts. Of course crystals have great power to make you feel better.....


Just depends on how hard you throw them, and at whom.



The dangers aren't really in religion or anti-religion, they are in the number of hats a person wears. Most of us wear many hats each day. We see ourselves as being a member of many organizations (including VBF). We see ourselves as a worker with whatever company we are with, a member of any social group we have, a member of a church (for those of you who attend), a member of a community, etc. The zealots you have to watch out for are those who see themselves as wearing only one hat. Anybody who is committed to one, and only one, cause, regardless of what that cause is, is the person who will begin shooting up the neighborhood.

Therefore, to reduce radicalism, we need to broaden peoples experiences and broaden their minds. If we can't do that, then we should broaden their butts until they are too fat to be a threat to anybody else.

[DeanMc]

I'm not a religious believer but I also don't believe that other people who do believe in a higher power are wrong. Anything that helps you get through life is fine with me as the fact that I don't believe helps me through mine. I don't think that religion will ever leave us though for the simple fact that as a race we seek to know everything about anything and when we can explain something that's usually where faith comes in.

I'm sure many of you have experienced a great loss and when you have its hard not to question why. Rationality is ***** that way it works fine when everything is rosy but it gets harder and harder to view events in a rational way when they become emotionally personal.

On the subject of extremism, my view is if the people who are extremists did not have religion they would be extremists to another cause. I believe that is their nature for the most part and religion just happens to fit with this for them.

[MaximilianMayrhofer]

True, these people are likely to be extremists for other causes, but nothing excuses and glorifies extremism quite like religion.

[szlamany]

Seems to be some terminology problems in most of these posts...

Understanding and considering ones spirtuality has nothing to do with religion.

"Religion is not identical with spirituality; rather religion is the form spirituality takes in civilization."

I've always felt that religions forcing you to follow their dogma's is a problem.

Do any of you think it's even remotely possible that Padre Pio bi-located and saved an entire village from being improperly targetted by a US pilot in World War II?

Is your spiritual mind open enough to concepts such as these?

In a national study conducted by HCD Research with 1,134 physicians, a majority (72 percent) believe that miracles have occurred in the past, and 70 percent believe they can occur today.

[capsulecorpjx]

I'm not a religious believer but I also don't believe that other people who do believe in a higher power are wrong. Anything that helps you get through life is fine with me as the fact that I don't believe helps me through mine. I don't think that religion will ever leave us though for the simple fact that as a race we seek to know everything about anything and when we can explain something that's usually where faith comes in.

I'm sure many of you have experienced a great loss and when you have its hard not to question why. Rationality is ***** that way it works fine when everything is rosy but it gets harder and harder to view events in a rational way when they become emotionally personal.

On the subject of extremism, my view is if the people who are extremists did not have religion they would be extremists to another cause. I believe that is their nature for the most part and religion just happens to fit with this for them.

People who believe in religious faiths are not legally wrong. But ... it's still dangerous to have them making the world's decisiosn.

Look at the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. For just a few million people, in a tiny area of land, where there isn't even much resources, there is so much focus, attention and possibility of a world war perched on it.

It's just ridiculous.

[capsulecorpjx]

Seems to be some terminology problems in most of these posts...

Understanding and considering ones spirtuality has nothing to do with religion.

"Religion is not identical with spirituality; rather religion is the form spirituality takes in civilization."

I've always felt that religions forcing you to follow their dogma's is a problem.

Do any of you think it's even remotely possible that Padre Pio bi-located and saved an entire village from being improperly targetted by a US pilot in World War II?

Is your spiritual mind open enough to concepts such as these?

What does spiritual mean?

[MaximilianMayrhofer]

What does spiritual mean?
"Can't be bothered to find the answers."