Religion (can open, worms everywhere)

[Matthias]

Let's make up a religion game; any number can play.

There's an invisible Dragon in this room. See how the window was fogged this morning? It was sacred Dragon breath and we are surely blessed. Have you ever felt a chill in your body, and shook it off? That was the Dragon within you.

In order to have a religion, we must have some teachings to follow: doctrines and dogmas to assure we're playing the game correctly. Otherwise, what would the officials and authorities of the church have to do? Here's a standardized set of codes, canons and laws, good for all cultures and languages.
 

ETHICS: the Golden Rule seems to work well.

ANTHROPOMORPHIC: Give the Dragon human qualities; Gods are created in man's image, not the other way around. This makes it more comfortable and easier to sell.

IMMORTALITY (This is a big religious come-on gimmick, and can be embellished with creativity): Yes, there is a special life after death, but ONLY for Dragon worshippers. (This exclusiveness is very important, and will help hold the faithful in times of doubt.) Also, financial donations to The Dragon's Church (10% suggested plus a gift from the estate of the deceased) will greatly assist in reserving a special place on the right hand of The Dragon in the life after--the more the better. (This reservation is like a bribe to a maitre d' or ticket scalper.)

ONE: Worship only the Dragon, all others are fakes. This is very important because the decentralization of multiple Gods diffuses power. One God, THE God concentrates authority; this was the strength of the Israelites in the ancient world and has been adopted by all successful western religions.

ALL KNOWING: The Dragon reads your mind, so don't get caught with doubts.

THE PROPHET of the Dragon was a great, divine seer.

THE GOOD BOOK: a custom-made scripture, direct from the Dragon, can be created to fill all the wishes and needs of the targeted group. It can be made up of folk wisdom, drama, heaven and hell, etc. Don't forget to mention financial giving several times.

EDUCATION/BRAINWASHING: Spread the "Good News" through outreach missions, and Sunday School, especially for children.

SCAPEGOAT: Just like governments, it helps to have a bogeyman out there to increase fear; Satan has worked well for Christians. Hinduism threatens the transmigration of souls into animals (eat too much=pig).

FORCE: If the new game is slow in catching on, coerce a few people to play, especially children, and the future is assured.


See how easy it is. We can do one with a Dog, so other prophet motive, egotistical mystics can have their own flock of sheeple. Or another with Dog spelled backwards: God. (Trumpets, drums, organ music, hymns, chanting--serfs, vassals, ignorant masses bow and show respect.) Etc, etc, ad nauseam.

It was all just another power hustle--politics. **Religion**: a shameless sham.

The Church: a cynical, celestial swindle; monk's myths.

An exclusive hereafter: a haughty, heavenly hoax; divine deception.

[gazzyk1ns]

The power of spiritual healing and homeopathic treatments is founded on the ability of the body and mind to heal itself.

Hehe yes, it creates a placebo effect, like religion does for many people...

[kenneth trousers]

Wrote 3 different paragraphs and they were all shite.
Check out this essay on 'Is creationism scientific?`
http://www.humanism.org.uk/site/cms/contentViewArticle.asp?article=1359

[Capuchin]

Have you noticed most people who truly believe in a religion seem to be more at peace with themselves, less stressed and easier to get along with (disclaimer: This may all go to shit if you decide to invade their country or actively support terrorist organisations)

No.
I've noticed that religious people are as likely to be as stressed or as calm as anyone who doesn't subscribe to a religion.

[european son]

The big difference between rationalism and religion is that scientific hypotheses can usually be tested and discarded if incorrect.

not really. no scientific hypothesis can be tested in isolation, but only as part of the paradigm they are part of. in testing any scientific hypothesis a number of background assumptions must be made.

in scientific circles if a hypothesis is empirically tested and does not fit with the world, it is indeed discarded. however, this is merely a matter of convention.

regarding truth only (as opposed to the simplicity of the system or the desire to preserve those things at the centre of it)  the background assumptions could just as easily be rejected, and the original hypothesis kept.

[Big Jack McBastard]

This old horse eh?

I do try to stay away from these topics (not too hard though) because as per usual nothing is resolved by the end of them.

However, some basic guidelines regarding religion for anyone with any sense are needed....

Don't impose your religion on others and that includes your family.

Why? - Because of shit like war, honour killings and people disowning and/or berating their loved ones for their choices. Also if the people on the receiving end of your banging on about god, don't believe in it, then you're not only wasting their time but yours as well.

Don't use your religion as an excuse for your opinions or actions.

Why? - Because it's the flimsiest pre-text in the book and shows the hypocrisy of those who think 'war in the name of god' is an allowable thing. If you're after blood then say so. Trying to make you're actions or thoughts sound more acceptable by claiming some divine providence only serves to make you either look like a loon or alienates people who do not believe what you do.  

'People can believe whatever they want as long as they keep it to themselves'

Consider the sentence above for a moment.

Now to me that sounds like a hot bed of delusion, 6 billion people live on the planet just imagine all the crazy shit some people could end up believing and keeping to themselves.

Sounds fucking dangerous if you ask me, so I'd like to know what you believe but also why you believe it if the reasoning behind the belief is idiotic;

Eg: " I believe in the fish god Humbumbala because of the visions that appear in my cornflakes every morning"

Than it can be dismissed as lunacy. If there is a personal back-story to the belief as is the case with the main religions, then a deeper understanding of someone's life can be gained making it easier to see why they do, wear and say the things they do.

Once you've pinned down where they were born, what their parents believed and how devout the person is now, it's just a matter of stating the bleedin' obvious.

If your born in a country where religion is a high priority, your parents are members of that religion and raised you to be the same, then you're more than likely going to come away with this belief structure embedded in your mind.

<Beliefs> "They're just how you were taught and raised, it doesn't make them real. That's why I always recommend a psychedelic experience, because it makes you realise everything you've learned is just learned" - Bill Hicks

I still don't like being called an atheist, I'd rather be called 'heathen' (as it sounds cooler) or better yet nothing at all. If there were a category of religious non-belief that did not have a name I'd sign up in no time.

[Ambient Sheep]

Still, for the record, I think that modern, educated non-religious western society has its own religion, called rationalism....

Nice. :thumbsup:

As a kid I was forced to go to Sunday School and even then I remember thinking that Christianity just didn't add up.

(Sheepy wryly recalls his own misheard confusion at age seven that Jesus was the sum of God)

In particular, if one of Jesus's own disciples (Thomas) doubted him - and he was THERE - then how are the rest of us supposed to believe in his divinity just from the say-so of the gospels written many years after Jesus's death?

Yes, that always bothered me too.

People even kill in the name of religion.  How fucked up is that.  When judgment day comes and they stand before God (assuming there is one etc... etc...) he'll boom out "NOT IN MY NAME" and they'll be straight down there with a red hot poker up the jacksy.

I've linked to it before and I shall link to it again, this time in big letters so people who stopped reading my bollocks above get to see it:
The Onion: God Clarifies 'Don't Kill' Rule.  Brilliance.  Utter, utter brilliance.

[gazzyk1ns]

The doubting Thomas story is fictional like the rest of the Bible and exists as a bullying tactic. Thomas doubted, Jesus came and showed him some scars, Thomas knelt before him and apologised profusely for his "sin". The message is clear, doubt any aspect of Christianity for whatever reason, and you will be looked upon as a fool by even your friends and made to request forgiveness for your "sin". So don't question it. Ever. Even when things seem bizarre or clearly don't 'add up'. You naughty sinner.

There are many bullying tactics in the Bible, as I've said before, and this is the sort of devious thing which means I don't mind shouting my mouth off about the fact that religion is clearly all completely fictitional.

[sproggy]

Have you noticed most people who truly believe in a religion seem to be more at peace with themselves, less stressed and easier to get along with (disclaimer: This may all go to shit if you decide to invade their country or actively support terrorist organisations)

No.
I've noticed that religious people are as likely to be as stressed or as calm as anyone who doesn't subscribe to a religion.

But they know something we don't.

[Munday's Chylde]

That Aesop was a bit of a bully too.

[Pinball]

The big difference between rationalism and religion is that scientific hypotheses can usually be tested and discarded if incorrect.

not really. no scientific hypothesis can be tested in isolation, but only as part of the paradigm they are part of. in testing any scientific hypothesis a number of background assumptions must be made.

in scientific circles if a hypothesis is empirically tested and does not fit with the world, it is indeed discarded. however, this is merely a matter of convention.

regarding truth only (as opposed to the simplicity of the system or the desire to preserve those things at the centre of it)  the background assumptions could just as easily be rejected, and the original hypothesis kept.

I believe the world is flat, then disproved by satellite imagery. Umm, okay I was wrong. Try getting a religious nutter to change their views so radically.

[Munday's Chylde]

I believe the world is flat, then disproved by satellite imagery. Umm, okay I was wrong. Try getting a religious nutter to change their views so radically.

You'd need a very high satellite.

I believe in God by the way.

[fum]

Personally I don't have a problem with someone believing whatever god they want to believe in, as long as they don't preach and try to convert me.

I feel religion was invented out of fear. Death is one of the great unknowns of this world and some people can't handle that and they need some sort of god and afterlife to believe in, to relieve this fear.

I dissagree with kids being brought up to believe a particular religion, surely its better that they make up their own minds, when they are older.

Either way each to their own.

[Neil]

Sorry, would usually read a whole thread before responding but I'm pished and impot...impatient.

I've gone on about this before, and to no great effect. Still, for the record, I think that modern, educated non-religious western society has its own religion, called rationalism. Members of this religion smugly assume that they have disproved the assertion that things can exist which are not susceptible to scientific examination. They respond to the failures of past moral systems by having no moral system, thinking that this failure to even try to behave justly makes them morally superior to those who have tried and failed.

That's interesting, but personally I would have to say that once you cross the road that bridges agnosticism and aethiesm, the notion of an all-seeing god just seems ridiculous.  I really have to liken it to Santa, you're brought up believing in this chap with a white beard who knows if you've been naughty or nice, and will punish or reward you accordingly.  You eventually realise that Santa is a pack of shit though, something that's a nice story as a kid, and which has perhaps been used to threaten you to behave every now and again.

As an aethiest, the notion of god just seems silly to me now.  There's not one shred of proof for it, not ONE.  So why should we believe it?  Why should we even "respect peoples beliefs" when they're putting their faith in such a whacky premise?  Why should we give them the benefit of the doubt?

This, what I'm doing now, is rationalism then, yeah?  Cool, I can accept how it would look smug to a believer or agnostice.  What I don't get is why such a nonsensical story is given such credence.  There's NOTHING to support the idea that a god actually exists, not one single bit of evidence, and if you try debating that with a Xtian they will spit out one of their standard replies.  "I've never been to Greenland...but I know it exists!"  Yes, but that's easily verifiable...if you want to, you can look at pictures of it, and I don't just mean Tacos or turds that look a bit like it, I mean the actual thing.  You can even get on a plane and visit if for yourself.  

It's not rational to say god doesn't exist.  It's bleeding obvious!  Where is he?!  What I seem to be getting from your argument is the following jutl:  "If I say x is so, then you can't say it isn't just because it doesn't make sense."  Is that what you mean mate?  How would you go about disproving the existence of the Easter Bunny or Santa then?

[fum]

If god exists why would he let an 8 month old baby die.

The vicar told my niece that god couldn't bear to be without one of his angels so he took her back.

selfish bastard.

Also my nan was the most kindest, loving person anyone could ever wish to meet (she believed in god as well). She died a long drawn out death in agony. (she died of cancer). If god exists why do bastards die happy in their sleep and good people suffer.

[Pinball]

If god exists why would he let an 8 month old baby die.

The vicar told my niece that god couldn't bear to be without one of his angels so he took her back.

selfish bastard.

Also my nan was the most kindest, loving person anyone could ever wish to meet (she believed in god as well). She died a long drawn out death in agony. (she died of cancer). If god exists why do bastards die happy in their sleep and good people suffer.

It's random. There is no grand scheme, apart from US corporate greed of course ;-)

[stavlich the orphan]

Yes, I agree. Actual rationalists are aware that rationalism has no claims to be all-encompassing - it's an approach to phenomena, and we have not yet encountered all phenomena (well, we might have, but it's certainly not proveable that we have.)

The question of  this divide between religious/non-religious , rationalists/irrationalists is symptomatic of a general schism throughout human thought. As mentioned, true rationalists have an awareness of the fallibility of scientific method, in providing an all encompassing viewpoint. Many people who claim to be rationalists however, lack this fundamental understanding...they believe that science alone can provide all the answers.

Members of this religion [rationalism] smugly assume that they have disproved the assertion that things can exist which are not susceptible to scientific examination.

In this sense though we can see that, just as so called rationalists are split, the opinion on religion is also split, between those who place their faith in dogma and institutionalised religion, - a closed belief system  - and those who place their faith in "something out there", a "maybe", or who follow a religion of sorts, just not by the methods prescribed by the religious institutions. People who in essence acknowledge the possibility that some higher form of being, of purpose, is out there, but who also recognise that that too, is not infallible.

I said "I accept that to be Christian you have to believe this stuff happened, but I just hate it when it's stated as fact like that".

It is this open vs. closed mind schism, that bothers you, and what explains your hostility DevlinC. Unfortunately, the fact is that our impressions of religious people are often formed by religious types who have a closed mind set, as opposed to those who enjoy perhaps a more inner, reflective sort of religion,  and typically a more open mindset. The mistake is to assume that all religious people are irrationalists, or that rationalists do not also have room for the belief of a higher being.

If studied, this open/closed divide can also explain the often two way divide, present in various other spheres of interest, for example poltics and its conservative vs. liberal beliefs. In fact a dangerous product of the closed mindset are those who place an implacable faith, faith in the ability of science to emancipate mankind, in capitalism to deliver social justice, as much as those who place faith in being delivered to the afterlife, evangelicals and al-qaeda alike.

[A Passing Turk Slipper]

If god exists why would he let an 8 month old baby die.

Just because suffering exists this is not proof of the non-existance of God. You cannot simply say God doesn't exist because X happened and only a right bastard would let that happen. We know nothing about God, and if he does exist I'm sure he would be able to tell you exactly why an 8 month old baby died - be it because he wants the earth to progress without him interfering or another reason. There is all sorts of suffering that exists in the world but a world without suffering would be impossible. I think the argument of design is quite convincing - everything must have come from something. Although this does raise the question if God does exist where did he come from and why did he exist in the first place? I used to be strongly athiest but now I am more agnostic. There is no proof God does exist but you cannot really prove he doesn't. I agree with what jutl posted early on in the thread.

[Bill Oddie]

(Sheepy wryly recalls his own misheard confusion at age seven that Jesus was the sum of God)

That's a common error, Jesus was actually the sum of a remainder of an unbalanced equation inherent to the programming of the original God.



I've nowt serious to add here, apart from to ask Jutl what it is that "Rationalists" say can't exist because science can't explain it.

[Smackhead Kangaroo]

Bah you people relaly are cunts.
I shall make this one post and then watch this thread turn into pseudo philosophical posturing with yer grab a name philosophising you cunters.
Oh and for those who don't know Bertrand Russell occupied every philosophical position under the sun. If I remember correctly he turned religiously at the end of his life (probably for some sort of hope).

Religion strikes me as one of those things people really ought to find ofr themselves rather than have such fundamental beliefs instilled int them. To justify your position after you've already decided it's the right one is begging the question. ALthough I doubt I'll meet too many people who came to their own conclusion that there was a  higher being. (I mena people who have no religious information given them). I'll admit that in learning we generally learn various things and then their deeper justifications afterwards but frankly I'm thinking of mathematical principles which while not all encompassing are at least reliably true, whereas God isn't usable or testable/provable in the same manner.

And curse whoever was the fool who claimed that religions have at their true core kernels of truth. You monumental tosser. YOu're just putting your own spin on interpretation of religion. Of course anyome can look at religion and pick out some rather common sense truth like "it's bad to hurt people indiscriminately". These religions grew out of rules for control for morality, things like "them's mar pigs, yer ain't gunna be messin wit ma pigs". You really think that right at the beginning they stem from thing's like 'Love thy neighbour'? bah.

Rats- what important questions? Are there any? any we can't answer at all that is.

Yes people who truly believe in an all loving force protecting them are less stressed and peeaceful. it's rather obvious why isn't it.

I have more to rant but you're all cunts.

EDIT- The arguments form design is as inconclusive as any other proof for God.- I presume you're well acquainted with it but the easiest rebuttal is that, in the argument you HAVE to make a comparison between designed objects and non-designed (naturally occurring?) objects. Such a distinction is merely a tool at our level of perception. and when applied to god is no distinciton at all.

Oh and when it comes to suffering as an argument against God- I'm willing to accept someone can use it as long as the suffering is directly important to themselves. although not if they just heard about it. I'm reasonably certain this is inconsistent, but I could have worse inconsistent beliefs

[Neil]

Did anyone get past Smackhead Kangaroos first paragraph?  Look, I've talked to you on the chatroom before and I know you're an alright fellow, but on here you do tend to come across like a meth-soaked glue-addled tramp cursing at imaginary dragons.  Why not save the tediously predictable "you're all twats" stuff till the end of your rant, then people might get to digest the meat of your argument.

[Gamma Ray]

And curse whoever was the fool who claimed that religions have at their true core kernels of truth. You monumental tosser. YOu're just putting your own spin on interpretation of religion

What? How do you avoid putting your own spin on it? How do you step outside of your own skull? In what way are you doing anything different to that monumental tosser?

The moral of the story for me is that it doesn't matter what the hell you believe on an intellectual level, it's what you do that counts.

[Rats]

Hehe, that's exactly how far I got, he was all over the place, I couldn't muster the attention to make sense out of it.
Didn't that wheelchair bloke say that it was more probable (ooer alien missus) that some kind of god exsisted than didn't or am I making that up? To be honest, even though I keep an open mind and I don't discount anyone's beliefs, I still don't think anything we can think up will be right, they all seem to be wild stabs in the dark to me as other have said, there's no real proof of anything. We just have to wait and see or never know. We all just need something to occupy our minds and allay our fears. You don't see monkeys drinking cider and posting to threads like this do you?

[Pinball]

Humans think too much, and too much thinking is harmful to your health (look at what happened to most of the philosophers, suicidal mofos).

<reaches for another beer>

Switch the brain off, man ;-)

[Munday's Chylde]

As an aethiest, the notion of god just seems silly to me now.  There's not one shred of proof for it, not ONE.  So why should we believe it?  Why should we even "respect peoples beliefs" when they're putting their faith in such a whacky premise?  Why should we give them the benefit of the doubt?

Well... I was brought up in a very anti-religious household. My Mothers parents were Jehova's witnesses and also psycoticaly cruel - she hated them and consequently hated all forms of religion, from an early age she was quick to drill into me that there was no God (though fortunately she was happy to let me believe in santa and the tooth fairy) . As such I never attended church and never prayed in school assemblys - my primary school headmaster once dragged me to his office, bollocked me for sitting with my eyes open and mouth shut during the lords prayer and refused to believe me when I told him my Mother didn't approve of it. Then he rang her up and she proceeded to shout at him, after that I was excused from attending them.

So you see there was no brainwashing for me, but the thing is by the time I reached my early teens I KNEW that there was a God. It's never left me either, it's based on nothing at all, no teachings, no reasoning, nothing. It's just a sense of complete and utter belief that came from nowhere and can't be shaken. I can't argue the existance of him, I could easily argue the non-existance of him infact (it's a hell of a lot easier) but it doesn't change the fact that I believe in him. I still don't attend church, I don't live a pure life, I don't follow the rules of the bible and I'm unconcerned about blaspheming like a muther when I feel like it (see deidre 3) - I do pray on occasion, but only when I really want something selfishly (and it's worked a few times too, I owe at least two shags to God.). So I'm not a religious nutter, I don't try to get other people to believe in him simply because I couldn't care less who does and who doesn't, I don't even know what the afterlife holds for me - technically i don't know if I've lived a good enough existance to enter heaven but I'm not even concerned about that (i think im technically agnostic so the possibility of a heaven and hell is really 50/50 to me) the point is that I do believe in a creator and would be lying if I said I didn't.

Why should you respect my beliefs in a whacky premise? Why should you give me the benefit of the doubt? I don't know, I'm not sure I would, it's called blind faith I suppose - can't explain it, it's a fairly empty one for me too, I remain envious of those people who have taken religion so to heart that they feel their salvation is guaranteed and are therefore constantly happy with their lot. To me it's not that simple, it's just that i believe the universe was created by some supreme being and that he still lords over it now. It doesn't give me comfort anymore than the existance of a police force does, it's just another real thing out there is all.

[sore bottom mum]

Religion was conceived as a good way of building armies, where men are convinced to fight with the sound knowledge that there's something beyond death.

It also helps many deal with the shear futility of living.

I think the 'church' has killed much of our societies faith by the way it projects Christ as this bloke who you know you would find irritating if you met -  this wishy-washy muscular do-gooder. But, reading the New Testament as you would a book, he is the ultimate outsider figure who no one really understood. He was  battling against the dull rationalism of those around him, and in that sense quite unlike any God-fearing person I've ever met.

One of the best images of Christ I think was painted by Carravagio, where he's not this CK model with bohemian good looks, but  rather odd looking, slightly paunchy and clean shaven.

[Pinball]

JESUS WAS NOT WHITE!!!! Christ, he looks like porcelain in that painting (not as bad as the Virgin Mary though who's whiter than white), so he must be Holy. If the monks who 300 years after Jesus's alleged death wrote the Bible (ok slight simplification, but that's when the writing caboodle started) can't even get his skin colour right, how the Holy Hell can we trust anything they said in the Good Book? It's just a social manipulation tool, nothing more nothing less.

It's not even a very good plot, it's unconvincing and it's full of conflicting "facts". Let's just say, it wouldn't make the bestseller lists nowadays ;-) Then the social dominators use it as a basis for a belief system and societal leverage. And people fell for that? Well I guess they had no choice.

The sensible way to introduce kids to religion would be to let them grow up, then teach them the different religions, philosophy and let them make their own minds up in a modern scientific context. But no, instead we get brainwashed at a young age when everything we hear is unquestioned and assumed to be factual, along with tooth fairies and Father "Coca Cola" Christmas. I found it took years to shake off those deeply held assumptions about Christianity and actually objectively question them. And in more dominating and brainwashing systems like Islam, clearly it's 100 times more difficult to break free. The French have the right idea - Church and State should be separate. That is, no fucking religion in schools. Can't wear your head scarves or Mr T-sized crosses? Tough shit. Wear them at home. Dress up as a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle and worship Bill Gates for all I care.

[gazzyk1ns]

Well... I was brought up in a very anti-religious household. My Mothers parents were Jehova's witnesses and also psycoticaly cruel - she hated them and consequently hated all forms of religion <snip>

So you see there was no brainwashing for me

Well there was, you were brought up in a very anti-religious household.

but the thing is by the time I reached my early teens I KNEW that there was a God. It's never left me either, it's based on nothing at all, no teachings, no reasoning, nothing. It's just a sense of complete and utter belief that came from nowhere and can't be shaken.

Hehe it's a bit like how posh kids brought up really "well" always turn into goths in their early teens and get a liking for metal out of nowhere...

[Munday's Chylde]

Oh yeah, that must be it. I used to come home aged 16 wearing a dog-collar, Mum used to find copies of the bible hidden under my matress - once i was laid on my bed praying with a pair of headphones on and when i opened my eyes there was a fresh cup of tea next to me etc.

[Big Jack McBastard]

once i was laid on my bed praying with a pair of headphones on and when i opened my eyes there was a fresh cup of tea next to me etc.

Snarf!

Gazzy does have a point though, even if it doesn't apply directly to you Mundays. Most folks in this country are fairly lax when it comes to religion, thank fuck, so the odds on a kid going rebel (be it one way or the other) when they hit their teens is fairly high. After all they don't have to worry about their folks going postal on them if they do.

You get to a certain age and you make your own decisions on religion and are free to express them, I suppose it's one of the few perks of living here.