Religion, what's the point?

There are fantastic videos on YouTube (with references no less!) made by truly amazing people.

Here is a scientific one, made by cdk007. Again, I recommend this channel for everyone. It debunks many of the claims made by Intelligent Design advocates and similar persons.



AArrgghhh!! You didn't warn me about the soundtrack! I've just tried to watch it, but the fourth movement of the D Minor symphony of Beethoven does rather make concentration on anything else difficult. What I found amusing though, was that in order to concentrate a tweny minute movement into ten minutes, it chopped out the fugue, after the choral recapitulation of the main 'joy' theme (set to the words of Schiller's 'Freude' of course), and then switched to the finale by deftly side-stepping the part beginning 'Seid umschlungen millionen!' and leading to 'Ahndest du den Schoepfer Welt? Such ihn ueberm Sternenzelt, ueber sternen muss er wohnen'.

I got the whole of Schiller's poem by heart when I was about eighteen, in spite of knowing little German, so knocked out was I on first discovering Beethoven's D minor symphony. But that the makers of the clip use his 'Freude' or ode to joy as their soundtrack, but cut out the words from 'Oh you millions kneel before him! Surely, World, you can feel your creator near? Seek him o'er the starry sphere - above the stars he must dwell' is a mischievous, if somewhat esoteric, joke.
 
BBC News - Jerusalem rabbis 'condemn dog to death by stoning'

Jerusalem rabbis 'condemn dog to death by stoning'

A Jewish rabbinical court condemned to death by stoning a stray dog it feared was the reincarnation of a lawyer who insulted its judges, reports say.

The dog entered the Jerusalem financial court several weeks ago and would not leave, reports Israeli website Ynet.

It reminded a judge of a curse passed on a now deceased secular lawyer about 20 years ago, when judges bid his spirit to enter the body of a dog.

The animal is said to have escaped before the sentence was carried out.

...

But a court manager told Israeli daily Yediot Aharonot the stoning had been ordered as "as an appropriate way to 'get back at' the spirit which entered the poor dog", according to Ynet.

Dogs are considered impure animals in traditional Judaism.

:wenger:
 
It will never go completely away unfortunately, people are just too stupid.
 
It will never go completely away unfortunately, people are just too stupid.

Or they are just too afraid. Religion offers them convenient answers to some of the most delicate questions like death, the after-life...I think that for some people, religion is almost like a defense instinct.
 
Or they are just too afraid. Religion offers them convenient answers to some of the most delicate questions like death, the after-life...I think that for some people, religion is almost like a defense instinct.

Yes, it is indeed childish and embarrassing.
 
I think that for some people, religion is almost like a defense instinct.

To be fair, the same could be said regarding atheism.
And no, I'm not a Deist (or whatever they're called); I just feel that 'believers' are soft targets, when anyone with any sense can see that the world's real problems stem from politics and greed. Does anybody still believe the old lie that religion causes wars?
 
To be fair, the same could be said regarding atheism.
And no, I'm not a Deist (or whatever they're called); I just feel that 'believers' are soft targets, when anyone with any sense can see that the world's real problems stem from politics and greed. Does anybody still believe the old lie that religion causes wars?

Atheists do not indulge in wishful thinking, at least not in the same way.

Tell that to the cartoonist in Copenhagen.
 
To be fair, the same could be said regarding atheism.
And no, I'm not a Deist (or whatever they're called); I just feel that 'believers' are soft targets, when anyone with any sense can see that the world's real problems stem from politics and greed. Does anybody still believe the old lie that religion causes wars?

How does atheism offer convenient answers ? Most atheists I know refer to science in order to know the truth about things in our world, and unless you imply that science gives us convenient answers...

And yes, some of the world's real problems stem from politics and greed, but imperialist religions have also played their role, especially Abrahamic religions (although I don't know about any other imperialist religions). Religion, with its power on people's minds, can easily be instrumentalized and used as a tool for politics.
 
I'm not really sticking-up for religion. It's just that atheism is, for me, somewhat discredited by those who are over-zealous in their hatred of religion.
 
To be fair, the same could be said regarding atheism.
And no, I'm not a Deist (or whatever they're called); I just feel that 'believers' are soft targets, when anyone with any sense can see that the world's real problems stem from politics and greed. Does anybody still believe the old lie that religion causes wars?
Modern Day Isreal is a perfect example of religion causing conflict. As are most other countrier in the middle east and north Africa. Tribalism comes into it too with most of them, but is that not the same thing? The bottom line is, million (if not more) of deaths have been directly caused by relgion. Religious people throughout history have raped, tortured and killed in the name of their faith. The holocaust stemmed from an anti-sematic movement. And this is just when it comes to war, I'm not even going to start some of the ridiclulous teachings which the 3 Abrihamic religions entail.

Seriously, does anybody still believe the old lie that religion is a useful force in the world?
 
I'm not really sticking-up for religion. It's just that atheism is, for me, somewhat discredited by those who are over-zealous in their hatred of religion.

I agree, it's sad that these people have to constantly attack religion - namely Christianity - rather than just leave them alone.
 
I'm not really sticking-up for religion. It's just that atheism is, for me, somewhat discredited by those who are over-zealous in their hatred of religion.
Now, there's a myth you need to get out of your head. I'd be willing to bet that these "over-zealous" atheists aren't actually so at all. In fact, if you take a close look at their person lives, I'd be willing to bet most of their friends are religious. I bash religion every chance I get, because it is fundamentaly flawed and makes the world a worse place to be. Are you suggesting this somehow 'discredits' atheism?
 
Modern Day Isreal is a perfect example of religion causing conflict. As are most other countrier in the middle east and north Africa. Tribalism comes into it too with most of them, but is that not the same thing? The bottom line is, million (if not more) of deaths have been directly caused by relgion. Religious people throughout history have raped, tortured and killed in the name of their faith. The holocaust stemmed from an anti-sematic movement. And this is just when it comes to war, I'm not even going to start some of the ridiclulous teachings which the 3 Abrihamic religions entail.

Seriously, does anybody still believe the old lie that religion is a useful force in the world?

I happen to agree with most of your post. But to use an admittedly-poor analogy: the criticism religion receives reminds me of the knee-jerk reactions to, say, stories of Prince Charles and his luxurious lifestyle; it's a distraction from the plain truth - that the poor are deliberately kept poor...and not by the Royals. Soft targets again. Look elsewhere for the real criminals amongst us.
 
Too many atheists wear their atheism as a badge of intellectual pride for me to take them seriously.

And they should be proud to have emancipated themselves from this ultimate stupidity and childishness. I wouldn't say I'm proud, because I've never really been subjected to religious pressure and intimidation in my life, but my consciousness has certainly been raised by watching countless debates on this issue. And I am constantly annoyed and disgusted by religious people claiming special rights or differential treatment, for example in the case of genital mutilation.

Isolated example, to be honest.

Not really. Though I would agree with you that none of the current wars being fought around the world is entirely religiously motivated (at least that I'm aware of), they certainly continue to play their part in most of them, and are constantly poisoning both politics and societies across the globe.
 
Now, there's a myth you need to get out of your head. I'd be willing to bet that these "over-zealous" atheists aren't actually so at all. In fact, if you take a close look at their person lives, I'd be willing to bet most of their friends are religious. I bash religion every chance I get, because it is fundamentaly flawed and makes the world a worse place to be. Are you suggesting this somehow 'discredits' atheism?

I'm guilty of generalisation - it's an occupational hazard, I guess, when it comes to discussing these matters. But I've been taken aback whenever I've read works by the supposed champions of atheism (Hitchens, Dawkins et al); they don't even bother to make a show of being unbiased, and their hatred shines through. What on earth does that bring to the debate? Of what use is such blatant, unashamed closed-mindedness and zealotry?
 
I happen to agree with most of your post. But to use an admittedly-poor analogy: the criticism religion receives reminds me of the knee-jerk reactions to, say, stories of Prince Charles and his luxurious lifestyle; it's a distraction from the plain truth - that the poor are deliberately kept poor...and not by the Royals. Soft targets again. Look elsewhere for the real criminals amongst us.
What does that even mean? Are religious people 'poor' in that analogy?
 
I agree, it's sad that these people have to constantly attack religion - namely Christianity - rather than just leave them alone.

I'll leave them alone the day they leave the rest of us alone, and keep their fairy tales to themselves.
 
What does that even mean? Are religious people 'poor' in that analogy?

:lol: Well, I did state that my analogy was rubbish. :D It was a crap attempt at stating this: religion, particularly organised religion, is a sitting duck for criticism (while much of it is merited, the point holds). Likewise, it's too easy for the media to regale us with tales of (for example) Royal excesses while the politicians screw us to death with cuts, taxes etc. In a similar way, I feel, the 'devout' are often scapegoats rather than genuine culprits.
 
I'll leave them alone the day they leave the rest of us alone, and keep their fairy tales to themselves.

How exactly are they bothering you then?

You call them fairy tales, they call it their beliefs. What's the problem, you sound bitter.
 
I'm guilty of generalisation - it's an occupational hazard, I guess, when it comes to discussing these matters. But I've been taken aback whenever I've read works by the supposed champions of atheism (Hitchens, Dawkins et al); they don't even bother to make a show of being unbiased, and their hatred shines through. What on earth does that bring to the debate? Of what use is such blatant, unashamed closed-mindedness and zealotry?
The thing I like about Hitchens and Dawkings is that they're both former Christians. They know more about religion than most religious people - and probably a few priests too. What do you expect their books to say? "Well, here are the facts.. now let's look at the evidence for religion" because that chapter would just be a bit stupid. And I should point out that the people they're debating with (the religious people writing the counter books) are just as bad if not worse. I remember in philosophy a year or two ago we were learning about 'science vs. religion' (the debates they have) and one of the religious people reffered to Dawkins as "A whinny bitch".

Crap, I starting waffling didn't I? Anyway what I'm trying to say is - these men know a lot about religion and are anything but closed-minded.

Even in America, the second biggest group is "former Christians" and on average they have a higher IQ and know more about religion than church goers, it's very unfair to label atheists with the same stick when infact every independent study carried out shows that atheists understand religion better than religious people - which is probably why they're atheist really.
 
:lol: Well, I did state that my analogy was rubbish. :D It was a crap attempt at stating this: religion, particularly organised religion, is a sitting duck for criticism (while much of it is merited, the point holds). Likewise, it's too easy for the media to regale us with tales of (for example) Royal excesses while the politicians screw us to death with cuts, taxes etc. In a similar way, I feel, the 'devout' are often scapegoats rather than genuine culprits.
Oh I see, you could have used the example of how the caf uses the same players as scapegoats no matter how they played, that would have been more understandable because your example is a bit outdated! I haven't seen anyone use the Royals as a scapegoat in my lifetime (maybe they have, but I don't read any of the rags). I don't think the same applies to religion at all - particularly when religious extremists are the only ones actually following the teachings of their particular realigion to the letter. If anything actually, casual Christians and their counterparts in other religions are what really get on my nerves. They obviously don't give two flying fecks about their religions and and only really 'believe' as a insurance policy just in case the after life really does exist. They're the ones causing the real problems in the world - because they stopped being so scared, ignorant and uninformed we could finally have a world where religion is in the minority and science is celebrated. That way, scientific researches might finally get the funding they bloody well need.
 
I'm an agnostic myself, so I don't really have a horse in this race, so to speak. I do feel though that it's a pity - after centuries of dogma - the solution appears to be...more dogma and bloody-mindedness. The legacy of organised religion's distrust and dislike of science seems to be yet more irrational emotional thinking (rather than unbiased debate leading to genuine progress). Of course, the vast majority of atheists reject deism for the best of reasons - I don't doubt this - but, sadly, some bear all the hallmarks of the 'convinced' who brook no argument or dissent. Plus ça change...
 
If anything actually, casual Christians and their counterparts in other religions are what really get on my nerves. They obviously don't give two flying fecks about their religions and and only really 'believe' as a insurance policy just in case the after life really does exist.


Yep, agreed. Mere lip service to faith is a waste of everyone's time, even God's. ;):D
 
How exactly are they bothering you then?

You call them fairy tales, they call it their beliefs. What's the problem, you sound bitter.

Luckily I live in a very secular and atheistic country where religious influence has diminished greatly over the last 100 years. On a personal level I'm not that bothered, bar the odd nutcase knocking on my door. When they do claim special treatment of any kind however (such as the debate which has been going on here lately, whether hospitals should perform circumcisions or not), I'm going to say exactly what I think about that.

Though I do respect the right to freedom of religion very much, I do not respect the beliefs themselves at all. And I reserve the right to say exactly what I think about it, because luckily, in this country, we still have freedom of speech. If you can't handle that, move.
 
Luckily I live in a very secular and atheistic country where religious influence has diminished greatly over the last 100 years. On a personal level I'm not that bothered, bar the odd nutcase knocking on my door. When they do claim special treatment of any kind however (such as the debate which has been going on here lately, whether hospitals should perform circumcisions or not), I'm going to say exactly what I think about that.

Though I do respect the right to freedom of religion very much, I do not respect the beliefs themselves at all. And I reserve the right to say exactly what I think about it, because luckily, in this country, we still have freedom of speech. If you can't handle that, move.

:lol:

You've obviously got a chip on your shoulder about it. Nobody's arguing whether you have the right to those views, so stop playing that card and acting like you're some radical thinker. I'm not religious, but I respect those who are which is something you obviously can't do for unspecified reasons aside from 'claiming special treatment'.
 
:lol:

You've obviously got a chip on your shoulder about it. Nobody's arguing whether you have the right to those views, so stop playing that card and acting like you're some radical thinker. I'm not religious, but I respect those who are which is something you obviously can't do for unspecified reasons aside from 'claiming special treatment'.

":lol:"

No, I can't respect religious beliefs. They're stupid, childish, perverse, immoral, disgusting, and sometimes dangerous. A disgrace to the human race. On the contrary, I lose a bit of respect for anyone who claims to be religious.
 
To be fair, the same could be said regarding atheism.
And no, I'm not a Deist (or whatever they're called); I just feel that 'believers' are soft targets, when anyone with any sense can see that the world's real problems stem from politics and greed. Does anybody still believe the old lie that religion causes wars?

Tell that to homosexuals in Uganda, or to young girls in Sudan who have to face having parts of their genitalia hacked off as part of some dark age religious ritual. Or to people who have had family members killed by religious fanatics who believe they are carrying out the will of God.

You can't simply blame it on politics. Everything is political. To blame scripture fuelled terrorism or religious-based persecution on politics alone is the same as blaming the holocaust solely on politics, rather than on racism and other warped ideologies. Religion influences politics.
 
":lol:"

No, I can't respect religious beliefs. They're stupid, childish, perverse, immoral, disgusting, and sometimes dangerous. A disgrace to the human race. On the contrary, I lose a bit of respect for anyone who claims to be religious.


Well then I feel sorry for you and you're hugely exaggerated opinions.
 
Religion's "take it and leave it" is incompatible with today's modern thinkers where everything is questioned and where knowledge is freely available everywhere.

One more recent case of religious idiocy happened in Malaysia: Keep husbands sexually satisfied to curb infidelity, says wives club - The Malaysian Insider

Keep husbands sexually satisfied to curb infidelity, says wives club

UPDATED @ 02:55:04 PM 04-06-2011

By Clara Chooi
June 04, 2011

RAWANG, June 4 — A wife who obeys and fulfils her husband’s sexual needs will deter him from infidelity or going to prostitutes — that is the Obedient Wives Club’s (OWC) solution to curb social ills across the globe.

The club launched its Malaysian chapter at the Perangsang Templer Golf Club today and plans to spread its wings to other countries like Indonesia on June 19 and even European nations like London, Paris, Rome and Frankfurt in the coming weeks.

The OWC boasts some 1,000 members already — 200 in its first chapter in Jordan launched on May 1 and 800 in Malaysia, at least 50 per cent of whom are said to be middle- to upper-class career-minded individuals and intellectuals. The club was formed by Global Ikhwan which was founded by the now banned Al Arqam Islamist group and is open to wives of all races and faiths.

OWC vice-president Dr Rohaya Mohamad told reporters that women often forget their duties as a “good wife” also entails pleasuring their husbands in the bedroom.

“If you look at the world today, women are already being treated as sex objects... in magazines, on TV... so why can’t they be sex objects to their husbands? It is legal and permitted by God.

“A good wife is a good sex worker to her husband. What is wrong with being a whore in bed to your husband?” she asked.

She said the OWC will hold seminars and talks to train women to be good wives, counselling sessions for married couples and will even offer lessons on sex and the art of seduction to those who request for them.

Dr Rohaya admitted the club’s message would invite much controversy and criticism, particularly from women’s rights groups and feminists, but insisted that a wife’s obedience to her husband would ultimately keep men from resorting to prostitution to fulfil his sexual needs.

She also agreed that the more liberated Western societies would likely find it harder to accept OWC’s objectives but reminded that the club’s concept stemmed from a universal belief in God.
She also agreed that the more liberated Western societies would likely find it harder to accept the club but reminded that the club's concept stemmed from a universal belief in God.

"It is common to have different schools of thought but at least they must be open to accept different ways of thinking," she said.

Dr Rohaya said a man who is kept sated and satisfied in the bedroom would have no reason to stray and this ultimately results in a happy and passionate marriage.

“The family institution is protected and we can curb social ills like prostitution, domestic violence, human trafficking and abandoned babies.

"Now, this obedience is lacking and it is causing many marriages to breakdown. Men are having girlfriends and mistresses, they are going to prostitutes... I believe the problem starts at home where his sexual needs are unfulfilled," she said.

She said women should return to the basic Islamic teaching that a good wife should fulfill four conditions — pray five times a day, fast during Ramadan month, take care of her body and obey her husband.

When asked if a wife should remain loyal and obedient to her husband if he abuses her or insists on going to prostitutes, Dr Rohaya said: “God has his ways and is fair to all. A husband is also subject to God’s rule, meaning he can go to hell too. But a woman must be a good wife to the end.”

The trained medical practitioner, who is herself a third wife and has eight children with her husband, said she is very happy with her marriage and considers her husband’s other three wives and nine children as her own family.

The club’s launch today, which was held together with a mass wedding ceremony involving 10 couples, saw the attendance of a large number of news organisations, including correspondents from major foreign wire agencies.

The bold bit is the thing I find most annoying (from a purely logical, not moral perspective) - the idea that we must be open to accepting different ways of thinking. I don't think there's anything wrong with accepting different ways of thinking that have logical sense - but I don't think there's anything right with accepting different ways of thinking "because you never know".

Arguments like "We don't know X, but religion Y has an answer for that, so you should consider it" really don't make sense to me - in order to consider that, we should be able to take apart the reasons for considering it.

For every unknown fact X, we can produce a explanation Y for why it may happen - but without further investigation, it really is just pie in the sky stuff. Consider it? Yes - as one of the infinite number of possibilities, most of which have no evidence whatsoever...
 
Tell that to homosexuals in Uganda, or to young girls in Sudan who have to face having parts of their genitalia hacked off as part of some dark age religious ritual. Or to people who have had family members killed by religious fanatics who believe they are carrying out the will of God.

You can't simply blame it on politics. Everything is political. To blame scripture fuelled terrorism or religious-based persecution on politics alone is the same as blaming the holocaust solely on politics, rather than on racism and other warped ideologies. Religion influences politics.

The above examples are appalling, of course, but if I merely listed reprehensible examples of 'political' abuses such as: 'Tell that to the peaceful demonstrator killed by police in last year's ------- demo', then that would be unfair; it's merely picking n' choosing what would fit my point, as you have done. Politics is often a euphemism for control, much the same as organised religion.
 
Have you ever read anything by S. Kirkegaard, Dostojevski, Juergen Moltmann, Karl Barth, Bonhoeffer, Alter, Blomber, Dunn?

No, I'm not much of a reader, I prefer debates where both parts can present their points of view.
 
there is a lot we can find fault with organized religion, which I think is what Steve is saying.

But belief in God is a personal thing. You have to experience it.

Throughout history, some of the worst atrocities have been done in the name of God.
 
Agreed, RD, and thanks.