Religion, what's the point?
- Thread starter TheRedFlag
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik and Imran are here to talk about a frustrating 2 points dropped at Crystal Palace. They then discuss the regeneration of Old Trafford. Finally, Nik is joined by special guest Michael Statham from the Football Oranje podcast - who gives us a more in depth look at our EL opposition FC Twente, and then runs through the (many) Dutch connections currently at United.
Religion doesn't have a monopoly on those philosophies, the golden rule for example, as I suspect you know, predates its inclusion as a religious ideal.
No it doesn't, but it consolidates lots of useful teachings and messages into one easy little book. What you're really saying is that you disagree with certain aspects of religion.
Clever simplification, you'll probably get a fair few green smilies for that one.
The typical definition of religion is belief in, and worship of, god/gods. And that is all bollocks. I don't have to disagree with every sentence written in the Bible or the Qur'an to say that I think religion is bollocks.
What's the point of only taking the golden rule, which again, predates religion, and ignoring say the bit where it tells us kill everyone who doesn't believe in the book?
Why can't we just do away with the book and keep the golden rule as an end in itself?
Just because some of the ideas religions copied were good doesn't make religions themselves less bullshitty.
Why can't we just do away with the book and keep the golden rule as an end in itself?
Just because some of the ideas religions copied were good doesn't make religions themselves less bullshitty.
Personally, I primarily disagree with its self proclaimed infallibility. It does consolidate a lot of useful teachings, but also some really awful ones, and says they're direct from the mouth of god. That is not something that should be respected, it should be challenged at every level.
It's not all about the worship of gods, religion is much more than that. You're basically simplifying all of religion down to the few issues you have with it.
You have an issue with believing there's a big invisible man in the sky - fine. Many people do, myself included.
You have an issue with some of the out dated messages that are no longer relevant as they were written for a time period where they were relevant and considered the norm - fine. Many people do, myself included.
That's not all religion. I also suspect that you know it isn't either.
Congratulations, you found a definition to suit your argument. Well done.
Take the belief in the supernatural out of religion, and what are you left with, exactly? Nothing I'd call religion, and I doubt most people would.
This semantical game is pointless.
You need to be able to justify those beliefs, cultural systems and moral values. To say "because god wills it" is not justification. Religion needs to justify its stance in the same way we ask the Conservative party or Labour to do so.
Take the belief in the supernatural out of religion (and while we're at it, the messages in there that are no longer relevant) and you are left with a book full of teachings that millions of people around the world use as a guide to living a peaceful kind and loving life. Respectful of others, unfazed by certain attributes of society that are changing for the worse, who use it to build themselves into good human beings.
As I said, religion is more than 'there's an invisible man in the sky.' It's you that's choosing to use that one example, to suit your argument.
If religious people are so respectful of others then why is it that countries where religion is prevalent have low standards of living with many people oppressed whereas more secular societies are more inclusive of others?
If everyone just treated religion like a philosophy textbook, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion.
- Who says they're no longer relevant? The Qur'an, for example, is supposed to be the final and unalterable revelation, never to be changed or superseded.
You're not supposed to just pick and choose in a historical context with these books, that kind of defeats the purpose of having an omniscient being telling you how to live. There's no line in the Bible or the Qur'an which says "but hey, a few thousand years from now, when human civilization is different, you can just jettison all the barbarism that I've advocated in this book".
- Without the supernatural aspect of it, all you're left with is philosophy. There are other texts, books and principles that people live by, without anyone being tempted to call it religion. By your definition, reading John Stuart Mill and agreeing with some of his arguments and deciding to live by them constitutes religion.
You can have everything else in your definition without the supernatural part of it and not call it religion. You can't include the supernatural part of it and not call it a religion.
I think there are to issues that can be discussed:
1.) Whether or not religion is true in its claims
2.) Whether or not religion is harmful or beneficial
These are too separate issues and I don't think they should be conflated. One is a scientific question (although it can be approached more philosophically) and the other is political and sociological. When it comes to deciding whether or not religion is bollocks, question number 1 is all that is relevant. The truthfulness of religion is all that matters when it comes to believing in it or not.
Quite, and whose to say that wasn't the intention until someone realised it could be used to manipulate people.
This is where common sense should come into it. It shouldn't take a rocket scientist to work out that certain aspects of the holy books are no longer relevant. Namely the bits that promote violence as an acceptable method of revenge etc or things that we as societ have deemed unacceptable in this day and age. It's a book that was written when these kind of things were acceptable and the norm. In 100,000 years people will most likely look back on some things we do today that we think nothing of, in horror. Wondering why on earth we followed something that they deem disgusting. Society at that time said that it was okay, and society nowadays say taht some of it is not okay. This may be a poor analogy but when they wanted to edit Mark Twain books to remove the words 'nigger' and other offensive terms etc we all stood up quite rightly and said no, because it doesn't take a rocket scientist to be able to apply common sense to subject matter, and interpret it in a way that's relevant. Why should they edit the holy books when we can simply do the same?
Also devils advocate for the moment, it also doesn't defeat the object of an omniscient being telling you how to live, because choosing not to is a choice we as society make as we age and mature. If such a god existed, we'd simply be judged for going against what he wanted after we died for choosing to live our lives differently. Whether that would be right or not is a completely different matter and debate, but I'm just saying this to show how it certainly doesn't defeat the object of having an omniscient being because we always have free will.
Who gives a shit? Whether you can view it here, or you can view it there, you can view it. That's what's important. There's a great deal we can take from the holy books, or go digging for and find elsewhere through various different sources, and there's also a great deal that back in the day was acceptable but nowadays we deem it unacceptable. Millions of people seem to manage this just fine and dandy.
On the isiolated occasions where people don't, which is a drop in the ocean of total 'subscribers' if you will to religion, the issues are dealt with on an individual level without needing to affect millions of people who don't have a problem.
Philosophy isn't divinely inspired.
Silva you would do well to do religious studies at any secular university on an undergraduate level, it would enormously help you in understanding the most basic questions regarding theology and religious studies. At the moment the amount of crap, no disrespect, that your spouting all over this thread is nothing but embarrassing. Really terrible, and you're all so vocal on this topic. We actually used to have some pretty good discussions here a few years back, with Frosty, Mike, Sincher, and some other posters. But sadly this current discussion, especially involving you and Saliph, is on a really bad troll-level.
- Once again, you're ignoring the obvious here, which is that so many millions of people really do believe that these texts came from God, and constitute the principles around which human beings should organize their lives. It's not about "common sense", it's about following the word of God. And as I said, adapting the texts to the times is well and good and all, but it kind of defeats the purpose of believing a text to be divinely inspired and a guide to human behavior. Stephen Fry made this point well in a debate:
What's the point of religion if it constantly needs to be adapted to the times?
The fundamentalists are actually more intellectually honest than the so-called moderates, because at least they make a claim and stick by it, and don't engage in the kind of obscurantism that you're engaged in here.
It's not a drop in the ocean. Far from it. The majority of Muslims think for example that apostasy should be punishable by death. Why? Because it says so in their holy book. The Christian dogma that life begins at the moment of conception is what led to a ban on stem cell research for many years in the US. The Catholic dogma that condoms are sinful has led to Catholics going to the most AIDS-infested regions in the world to preach genocidal nonsense to ignorant Africans. What people believe to be true about the world has real-life consequences.
Yes Silva, waste your time on theology, the study of nothing.
Oh thanks, I'll take that in, thanks for actually answering all my troll comments, you really showed me.
Hit a nerve, has he?
Well I find it amusing how much time you and your colleague are wasting on this forum so passionately discussing the very many aspects of the study of nothing.
Go on then, educate us.
Hit a nerve? By his general attitude summarised as 'feck this shit, religion is bollocks'? Yea, totally shook my foundations.
I'm actually answering the points raised against my view on the issue, most of which have been ignored. I wonder why.
You've completely missed the point of the comparison. I drew it to show how you have an exaggerated respect for religion. I think it worked well.
Just when I thought it was safe to go back in the CE forum. Who let you back in?
Oh I agree, it was an initial attempt at making sense of the world around us and is a necessary consequence of self awareness. The trouble is that it's an extremely potent tool in manipulation, for both good and bad. It promotes dogmatic thinking with regards to any breakthrough that challenges the orthodox, and that is not beneficial.
A genuine work of philosophy, if flaws in its thinking began to show, would be ruthlessly taken apart. Why is this frowned upon with religious texts and ideas?
You've said this before, I remember asking you to back it up but don't remember you doing so. Maybe I missed it. Every Muslim I know thinks what you've just said is a load of bollocks. Are you referring to perhaps some kind of survey carried out that might have questioned few Muslims? As this is something you quite obviously cannot apply to 'the majority of Muslims.' Unless you actually ask a majority of Muslims. A majority of those spoke to, does not equal a majority of total for example.
I'd be genuinely interested to see the source.
Theocracies such as Saudi Arabia aren't fond of things like "choice", it's only in secular societies like in the UK where the majority of people believe in universal human rights.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_Saudi_Arabia#Blasphemy_and_apostasy
No, Pew don't ask just "a few people". They ask many thousands. Other polls with questions of this kind have been conducted with similar results.
A well-run opinion poll is representative of the majority. That's the whole point.
http://www.examiner.com/article/pew...r-law-to-allow-islam-stoning-amputation-death
http://www.pewglobal.org/2010/12/02...orld-divided-on-hamas-and-hezbollah/#prc-jump
36% of young British Muslims favor death for apostasy
But Saliph, they're so accepting and loving to others!
No, Pew don't ask just "a few people". They ask many thousands.
A well-run opinion poll is representative of the majority.
http://www.examiner.com/article/pew...r-law-to-allow-islam-stoning-amputation-death
http://www.pewglobal.org/2010/12/02...orld-divided-on-hamas-and-hezbollah/#prc-jump
36% of young British Muslims favor death for apostasy
Uh huh... so in other words, not the majority of Muslims.
'Many thousands' as if this figure is in any way significant or representative of the majority of Muslims.
Also your '36% of young British Muslims'
What you mean to say is, the majority of the small percentage of Muslims that were interviewed. Not the majority of Muslims.
You can't just casually drop that line. I can't go and ask 200 people something, and then say the majority of millions all think the same thing. It's absolute bullshit. It's the majority of the people I asked, which make up a relatively small part of the total pool, and whose answers could be influenced by any number of aspects such as location, education etc.
If you want to use a statement as bold as that, you need an actual factual source to back it up. Not the word of 200 people.
Uh huh... so in other words, nowhere close to the majority of Muslims.
'Many thousands' as if this figure is in any way significant.
Also your '36% of young British Muslims'
What you mean to say is, the majority of the small percentage of Muslims that were interviewed. Not the majority of Muslims.
You can't just casually drop that line. I can't go and ask 200 people something, and then say the majority of millions all think the same thing. It's absolute bullshit.
Dude, you obviously don't know how opinion polls work...
Do you think that the pollsters in the US each election cycle ask a majority of the population? And yet with only a few hundred/thousand responders they predict the results very accurately.
The whole point of an opinion poll is to get a representative sample (insofar as this is possible) in order to make a judgement about the majority.
Jesus tapdancing Christ, what the hell do you think opinion polls are for?!
How does sample size matter when theocracies actively sentence people to death for going against their religion?
Then what you need to say is, 36% of the British Muslims that we interviewed say that 'yadda yadda yadda.'
Not 36% of British Muslims, because your poll simply does not reflect that statement.
Your statement was bullshit, that 36% of the 1.6 million young Muslims in Britain believe that apostasy should be punishable by death. You and I both know that's not what your poll shows.
It essentially shows that 72 people said yes. Sample size is important. If you want an idea about what 1,600,000 million people think, then you need to be asking more than 209.
Otherwise by that scale, I could find 8 people in the FF (that directly reflects btw as a percentage of Caf members to total people asked, as your poll does to total Muslims vs people asked) and ask them their opinion of if Scholes is shit or not. Then if 3 people that happen to be retards say yes, and the rest all say no then I can claim '37.5% of RedCafe think that Scholes is shit.'
We both know the answer to that question is a resounding no. Of course sample size matters.
I feel dumber for actually having to explain this to you. When you asked me for a source, did you really expect me to fish up an opinion poll conducted of the entire global Muslim population?
You clearly know nothing about how opinion polls are run, or what their purpose is. Nothing wrong with that, but at least have the self-respect not to embarrass yourself by pretending that you do.
And yes, 208 people is not a big sample, and there's more uncertainty than if there's say, 10,000 people, but it's an indication nonetheless.
Goodness gracious.
You clearly know nothing about how opinion polls are run, or what their purpose is. Nothing wrong with that, but at least have the self-respect not to embarrass yourself by pretending that you do.
And yes, 208 people is not a big sample, and there's more uncertainty than if there's say, 10,000 people, but it's an indication nonetheless.
Goodness gracious.