Religion is nuts

[The Good Michael]

Bill Maher is totally right on everything he says here. Irrefutable stuff.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAvDtPz33w0

Mike

[johns]

Bill Maher is absolutely bang on when it comes to religion. He says what I think.

[The Good Michael]

Maher used to be more of an agnostic, but all the loonies over the years who have spoken to him and have tried to 'help' him by pitying him for not knowing God, have forced him down a different path. I hate those condescening pukes myself who have this 'If only you were brainwashed like me, you could feel this superiority too' attitude.

Mike

[Limehouse]

I think it's important to distinguish between organised religion and personal faith. Personal faith has given me enormous comfort in a life that has sometimes been very difficult to endure. Personal faith has guided me and rewarded me in many different ways.

If a person asked me to explain how God has influenced my life I would speak with them about the different ways he has done so but I would never pity anyone who does not have a religious faith or tell them that they are in error because many people have a personal code by which they live and they can be as inspirational as any God-botherer.

Just as I would never criticise anyone for not having a faith - I kind of expect people to undestand that I do have a faith and do not want to be branded 'nuts' for having faith in God. It should work both ways.

[The Good Michael]

Limehouse,

Personal beliefs are completely different from organized religion as you say. I have no issues with personal faith in something. It's of course an impossibility that anyone is correct on what God exactly is, so organized religions that claim to know are full of bs and are a menace to the world.

Mike

[c.d.]

Hello Michael,

Have you read "god Is Not Great" by Christopher Hitchens? If not, I highly recommend it. He rips ALL religions a new one.

c.d.

[kensei]

My firlfriend has a sister who lives in Los Angeles and works in music licensing for the entertainment industry, and she once shot down Bill Maher when he hit on her in a bar in a very arrogant "Don't you know who I am?" kind of way. I enjoy a lot of his humor and agree with him on many points (though spirituality is very important to me), but apparently he is kind of a jerk in private life.

[Tom_Wescott]

God exists. I don't see how that can be challenged. I must say that anyone who could allow themselves to be convinced that God doesn't exist because a bunch of zealots annoy him, is far more weaker than the offending 'brainwashed' zealots.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Phil H]

I haven't been able to access the link.

But surely, organised religion simply supports and sustains those with personal faith.

This is done through such things as publishing weekly Bible readings, providing quiet places where people can pray/meditate. Allowing believers to share ideas through magazines and meetings. Providing support to the needy the basis of charity and community work.

Are you against all those things, often inspired by faith?

Or is it the smoke and bells, the vestments and formulae for prayer that you oppose?

They do nothing for me, though I am a believer and an active member of an organised prostestant church. However, I do appreciate that they provide much comfort to some for whom they are an aid to devotion and worship.

Tolerance is to be encouraged is it not?

Intolerance, even from agnostics and aetheists is not better or worse than intolerance by churches and is never a pretty sight.

Phil

[mariab]

God exists. I don't see how that can be challenged. I must say that anyone who could allow themselves to be convinced that God doesn't exist because a bunch of zealots annoy him, is far more weaker than the offending 'brainwashed' zealots.

The real issue here (since you mentioned “weakness“) is if one's prepared to deal with the fact of mortality WITHOUT the hope of an “afterlife“.
Personally I'm not “offended“ by any zealots, whatever they chose to believe in, unless they start messing up with human rights.
(And by the by, I didn't mean to say that you're a “zealot“ just because you happen to believe in God.)
I agree with Phil about intolerance.
And I think what Christopher Hitchens did with Mother Teresa was amusing, but I haven't kept up with his writings. I think he's deceased now.

[Phil H]

I find it interesting today that there is almost no day-t-day discussion of issues such as, "What happens when I die" or "where did I come from?". (I'm not talking about the occasional TV debate or book, but about casual conversation among ordinary people.)

The modern religion seems to be "science" or medicine, its priests men in white coats, to whom tithes must be offered - whether organs for donation or money.

One reason for shying away from "theology" is, i think that - if taken seriously - there are implications for the debate on abortion, euthanasia etc.

Death is passed over with much emotion and grief, but little of those memorials so valued by Victorians - graves tended etc. cremation, scattering of ashes and moving on seems to be the norm now.

In Jesus' day, for instance, ordinary people came up to him to ask the "great questions"; he could have a meaningful conversation with the Samaritan woman by the well; or a lawyer; a leper or a whore.

One reason why religion was taken so seriously in the past was that men really believed that it was crucial to the longer picture of "Life", in what happened before birth and after death. It was, for them, as important to get the details right, as we would believe it to be in wiring a plug, or repairing a car engine. There was even often a user's "manual" - the Bible; the Torah, or the Koran.

I see the same principles being repeated today in the Health driven initiatives for compulsory organ donation, stopping smoking; diets and even - more widely - the demands for human rights. Medieval man would have seen the religious imperatives as just as practical as many see today's; and who's to say that future generations may not look back on our conception of science and medicine as being as crude as we see the drivers of our forebears?

Phil

[mariab]

Medieval man would have seen the religious imperatives as just as practical as many see today's; and who's to say that future generations may not look back on our conception of science and medicine as being as crude as we see the drivers of our forebears?

Naturally I agree with the latter statement, and the former statement is historically correct, without yet implying that the medieval men's religion-centered existence was a commendable approach!
I don't think that religion or philosophy (Lynn Cates might disagree) can ever again play any significant part in the 21st century's reality-bound approach to life. Even the human rights question has been more or less resolved in most parts of the world, and essentially improved as a situation even in the worst parts of the world, where oppression still exists.
In my opinion, the 2 most important issues crucial to be resolved in the 21st century are protection of the environment and a consensus between governmental control and finances – as we're pretty much stuck in one of the worst global economic crises since the Great Depression of the 1930s...

[cappuccina]

Whatever people want to do for their own comfort and sustenance is fine with me, as long as it does not involve joining true cults (e.g., Moonies, Scientology, etc., and as long as parents do not punish minor children for not believeing what they believe etc.).

OTOH, while I am glad to discuss comparative religion, religious beliefs, religious writings, etc., I find it completely offensive when someone tries to force their beliefs down my throat or tells me or my children that we are going to "burn in hell" because we don't believe or practice something that someone else does.

Religion should be for personal comfort and faith, not an excuse for bad behavior and "one-upsmanship."

Wescott, you can choose to believe whatever you want to. However, you cannot say that the existence of "God" is a proven, irrefutable fact, because it isn't. However, as I stated above, you can choose to believe in a "God" if you wish to.

Personally, I believe in the "Golden Rule" and that is what my family lives by. We are a completely mixed religious background, and so being ethical humanists works for us.

[Tom_Wescott]

Wescott, you can choose to believe whatever you want to. However, you cannot say that the existence of "God" is a proven, irrefutable fact, because it isn't.

I can say whatever I want, and yes it is.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Phil H]

I find it completely offensive when someone tries to force their beliefs down my throat or tells me or my children that we are going to "burn in hell" because we don't believe or practice something that someone else does.

And yet is that not what we are often told by doctors and scientists - re the MMR jab - don't have it and "X" will follow; or climate change - alter your behaviors or all life on earth will become extinct, or life will be unbearable!!!

Why do they do it? Because they sincerely believe in the truth of what they say and are genuinely fearful of the implications for others who are less well-informed. (I do not necessarily agree with the conclusions but I do accept that the motives of the said doctors and scientists are of the best.

In previous ages, maybe today, some religionists are convinced that without "salvation" man's eternal soul is doomed. Their concern is for the unbeliever - their mothods may be unfortunate.

And I ask this - if you thought a neighbour or a family member was doing something that seriously put her family, herself, her child, you, at risk, would you not DO something?

Phil