Thanks for the information, although "Judaism. . . irrelevant to the West?". It just strikes me that the trappings, customs, and rituals of all religions should provide rich material for anyone interested in employing them. Broadens the sphere of comedy and satire--even if some hit close to home.
Religion, what's the point?
- Thread starter TheRedFlag
- Start date
Thanks for the information, although "Judaism. . . irrelevant to the West?". It just strikes me that the trappings, customs, and rituals of all religions should provide rich material for anyone interested in employing them. Broadens the sphere of comedy and satire--even if some hit close to home.
I've never understood why some Christians are quick to point out an apparent double standard when a comic attacks Christianity, but not Islam. What is their point? Christianity, to its credit, doesn't have a recent history of responding to what it considers offensive by killing people. Islam does. Just because Islam has (tragically) managed to succeed, with use of violence, in suppressing the ridicule of itself to some extent, does that mean that the same must apply to all religions?
Either you believe people have the right to ridicule religion or you don't. If you do, then you should argue for the right to ridicule Islam, not for the reining in of the right to ridicule Christianity.
Either you believe people have the right to ridicule religion or you don't. If you do, then you should argue for the right to ridicule Islam, not for the reining in of the right to ridicule Christianity.
What would be the consequences to mocking the others you mentioned?
Yes, Judaism does offer rich trappings for comics and Jim Jefferies may have made use of it. I'm not sure.
But it is irrelevant in that politically it has no real bearing on what happens in Western society.
As Jimmy Carr says about insulting the Church of England, "what are they going to do, organise a fete?"
This would hold more weight if you weren't doing it in a thread that's been attacking Islam for the last 30 pages.
I'm pretty sure a lot of Jewish comedians have made a living out of self deprecation.
Politically speaking it's Islam and Christianity which are the general powerhouses. You can't rule out Judaism as an irrelevance though.
Sorry for any pain Islam may have caused you in this thread or otherwise. I shall step forward, excuse me.Oi non-believers, leave the poor kid alone.
I have produced a study showing that Humans are 'predisposed' to believe in gods and the afterlife. Where is your counter argument?
I believe that almost anything humans do/create is subject to ridicule on some points, even (especially) my own beliefs. I only hope such observations possess insight and humor. A later post points out that Islam has taken a beating in this thread although I must confess to not reading the first 88 or so pages. I just noticed that the comedian in question was chastising some Catholic teachings and wondered how expansive his observations might be.
Interesting how quickly people take offense to simple questions.
Delusion.There are a lot of inaccuracies in this clip, the simplest of all is that because you call it "Eve" it doesn't make it the religious "Eve", and likewise the Y-chromosomal Adam isn't necessarily the religious "Adam" (I've noticed that atheists often use this tactic to cause some confusion, use terms/names used to describe something for other arbitrary things that describe something else, we saw it too in the definition of "nothing", and even in Cider's "cheese"
).. By the way, Dawkins even got what scientists now think about who lived before wrong here..Anyway, here is a nice discussion about religion vs atheism..
This would make for an interesting discussion.. I'll get back to this point later..
Mormonism too.
I have a suspicion that's converted to Judaism just for the jokes.
And this offends you as a Jewish person?
No, it offends me as a comedian.
One of the greatest sitcom episodes ever (Seinfled 'The Yada Yada')
There are a lot of inaccuracies in this clip, the simplest of all is that because you call it "Eve" it doesn't make it the religious "Eve", and likewise the Y-chromosomal Adam isn't necessarily the religious "Adam" (I've noticed that atheists often use this tactic to cause some confusion, use terms/names used to describe something for other arbitrary things that describe something else, we saw it too in the definition of "nothing", and even in Cider's "cheese"
Anyway, here is a nice discussion about religion vs atheism..
They're not inaccuracies. The Adam and Eve in the bible/Quran lived at the same time, the adam and eve he's referring to there are ones who are the most recent common ancestors through the female line and the male line. They lived tens of thousands of years apart.
And I've already seen it that video. By the way, John Lennox thinks Islam is bollocks, you sure he's a good person to quote in such a debate?
I watched 20 minutes of that waiting for the promised evidenced-based justification of religion... Lennox continued to waffle tangentially.
The Mormons are the LDS (Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints). If you lived in the Mountain States or California you, too, would despise those white shirted, black-tied bicycle riders.
Religion, ultimately, is not about "evidence" but about "faith." Believe evidence-based religion shortly after you embrace faith-based science.
Or simply believe nothing without evidence. Faith is invalid.
I'd say "simply believe nothing." Even most "evidence" can be faked.
That depends wholly on the nature of the evidence.
Faith is but wishful thinking. To convert wishful thinking into belief in the absence of evidence requires a fair degree of delusion. In the case of religion there's a fair degree of evidence allowing us to trace such delusion quite incontrovertibly to the systematic brainwashing of children.
This happens when people fake evidence: http://fauxphilnews.wordpress.com/2012/02/22/kripke-resigns-after-allegations-of-academic-fraud/
- You say that as if it's a point in its favor.
- What's this supposed to mean? Science by definition isn't faith-based.
- And your point is.. what? Science has corrective mechanisms built into itself to make sure that people don't get away with faking evidence.
That's the whole point of the peer review process in fact. If other scientists can poke holes in your hypothesis or find evidence to the contrary, it's dismissed. Religions don't apply this to their claims.
I'm on my hols for a week.
The comment on religion wasn't favorable. I'm sorry I didn't include a smiley face for your benefit.
While science isn't faith based and is supposed to have built in corrective mechanisms, anyone who has had to listen to conflicting "expert witnesses" in a trial is aware that forensic science is also amenable to whoredom.
Don't lionize science as some infallible logical process, it's as subject to corruption as any other human endeavor.
Trials aren't subject to particularly rigorous peer review. They're basically a high stakes debating club. They don't really add to scientific theories, and the evidence from case to case will vary, hence the differences in opinions.
Edit: The threshold for something to be considered as a fact is also quite high
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis#Scientific_hypothesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fact_and_theory
Edit: The threshold for something to be considered as a fact is also quite high
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis#Scientific_hypothesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fact_and_theory
Trials are, in fact, subject to rigorous peer review but, because they are not usually about science, are reviewed by a different peer structure.
I am well aware of what the United States Supreme Court THINKS is the standard for introduction of scientific evidence in a trial, which, incidentally doesn't have a damn thing to do with "rigorous peer review" but rather "general acceptance in the scientific community," which, if you think about it, is a higher standard. The attempt is not to add to scientific theories but to utilize existing scientific theories to add the finder of fact in reaching a decision. While evidence will differ from case to case, the scientific theories supporting certain evidentiary issues do not. Again, we find that applying what are alleged to be the theories in general acceptance in the scientific community to specific facts leads to startlingly different conclusions depending on who is paying the scientific expert.
That wasn't my point. When evidence for a criminal investigation is found, it's going to be specific to a case the evidence will rarely be concrete. Forensic science itself might be a little flawed, but that's not to do with the theories being particularly bad, rather the evidence being particularly bad. For one, you can rarely do an apt job of recreating a crime, and that would make the job harder. You have to remember that the budget these guys will have won't be particularly high.
Why don't you look at what you're doing right now? Using a computer, which is running on electricity to connect to the internet. That's a far better example of how science works. Forensic science is flawed, no one is doubting that. Nor is anyone saying that science is a constant arbiter of rightness. Science is more of a process than a list of absolutes after all. Religion isn't a process, and is a list of absolutes. Many of which have been proven wrong.
Why don't you look at what you're doing right now? Using a computer, which is running on electricity to connect to the internet. That's a far better example of how science works. Forensic science is flawed, no one is doubting that. Nor is anyone saying that science is a constant arbiter of rightness. Science is more of a process than a list of absolutes after all. Religion isn't a process, and is a list of absolutes. Many of which have been proven wrong.
Silva--if you can't read, I will explain this to you--I never insulted science, I never suggested religion was superior. My statement about "faith-based science" was supposed to be read as satirical because it followed "evidence based religion" (which doesn't exist). Don't take yourself so seriously or pretend you are my intellectual superior. I've had my 9 years of college and 60 years on this planet and have a fair grasp of the scientific process, peer review, and the uses of science in the general community. I like science, I use science, one son majored in environmental engineering, the other is a math major. I used the testimony of many scientists and engineers in my time as a trial attorney. Science is a good in our society. I'm sorry I tried to make a joke that was so far over your uncomprehending head. I do, however, find many scientist to be whores, just like lawyers and used car salesmen, with alleged valid opinions ava8
Now--please, give it a rest.
Now--please, give it a rest.
Didn't see that post sorry
Religion is pretty silly though
Religion is pretty silly though
Which brings us back to the comic possibilities of all religions, which is where someone else misread me.
You'll have to get up to speed with the caf again Bob (NB this may involve some slowing down).
Elsewhere in the media I read the hyperbolic rubbish and personal attacks attached as comments to news articles and think "that doesn't happen at the RedCafe." Why do I want to believe that "reasonable minds may differ"--ah, but that assumes facts not in evidence. Perhaps my age and time away from here gave me some erroneous nostalgic memories of this community, but it still beats MSN, Fox, or Yahoo. We just need to remember that old, politically incorrect comment about arguing with other people on the internet.
under the guise of religion I see that some Pakistanis have banned women from shopping alone without a male relative during Ramadan. Those sinful single women are obviously too much of a distraction to the faithful men.
this is latest in the long line of bullshit coming out from that part of the world and it got me to thinking:. Is penis size and subjugation of women related? The smaller the dick, the more restrictive the rules on women in that society. if that's the case then the women in Africa would be most free.
this is latest in the long line of bullshit coming out from that part of the world and it got me to thinking:. Is penis size and subjugation of women related? The smaller the dick, the more restrictive the rules on women in that society. if that's the case then the women in Africa would be most free.
It's got nothing to do with penis size. It's not like women have a particularly easy ride in Africa. Japan on the other hand, isn't as bad a society for women to live in and the men there aren't famous for having 12 inch shlongs. It's down to the way those societies have educated people, and where religion has a strong presence, the people in those societies will be raised to value the worth of men more than the worth of women.
Religion has the same basic of understanding of women as I did when I was 12 "Well, I've got an external part and it feels good when I ejaculate, women don't and therefore there's nothing really in it for women." This leads their stance of women's sexuality to be rather backward. That's not to say they don't know that women enjoy sex, it just leads their policies to say they shouldn't.
Religion has the same basic of understanding of women as I did when I was 12 "Well, I've got an external part and it feels good when I ejaculate, women don't and therefore there's nothing really in it for women." This leads their stance of women's sexuality to be rather backward. That's not to say they don't know that women enjoy sex, it just leads their policies to say they shouldn't.
Mississippi Returns Prayer To Schools For Students With A ‘Disclaimer’ To Protect The District
Mississippi governor signed a new law requiring school districts to adopt a policy to allow a “limited public forum” at school events such as football games or morning announcements, to let students express religious beliefs.
Gov. Phil Bryant of Mississippi signed the bill into law requiring…
“…public schools to develop policies that will allowstudents to pray over school intercoms, at assemblies and at sporting events. While not allowing school-sanctioned prayer, the law permitsstudents to offer public prayers with a disclaimer by the school administration.”
“(The bill) provides a limited public forum — making it clear the state is not endorsing the speech,” Sen. Chris McDaniel, R-Ellisville said. “What we don’t want to do is make it where prayer is discriminated against.”
The act, effective Monday, also sets out a model policy for adoption by local districts, mirroring the law, and forbidding treatment of religious expression any differently than nonreligious expression.
http://www.theglobaldispatch.com/mi...h-a-disclaimer-to-protect-the-district-13075/
Mississippi governor signed a new law requiring school districts to adopt a policy to allow a “limited public forum” at school events such as football games or morning announcements, to let students express religious beliefs.
Praying Hands (Betende Hände) byAlbrecht Dürer
The policy must include a disclaimer that suchstudent speech “does not reflect the endorsement, sponsorship, position or expression of thedistrict.” (Senate Bill 2633)Gov. Phil Bryant of Mississippi signed the bill into law requiring…
“…public schools to develop policies that will allowstudents to pray over school intercoms, at assemblies and at sporting events. While not allowing school-sanctioned prayer, the law permitsstudents to offer public prayers with a disclaimer by the school administration.”
“(The bill) provides a limited public forum — making it clear the state is not endorsing the speech,” Sen. Chris McDaniel, R-Ellisville said. “What we don’t want to do is make it where prayer is discriminated against.”
The act, effective Monday, also sets out a model policy for adoption by local districts, mirroring the law, and forbidding treatment of religious expression any differently than nonreligious expression.
http://www.theglobaldispatch.com/mi...h-a-disclaimer-to-protect-the-district-13075/