RELIGULOUS--Bill Maher

@Solace,

I missed the part about world peace. As for that, all I can say is that religion is only an excuse for war. The reason is greed. And I think I said somewhere once before that shooting down religion won't kill greed. I wouldn't dignify the greedy by allowing them the mask of their religious excuses, they don't deserve it.

1 Reply

@Solace,

Solace,

You cannot ignore the Bush administration, here is a violation of the division between church and state. Believers are trying to usurp the public school system to brainwash children in the mindless theory of creationism, no, you cannot ignore the crazies, if you do, you do it at your own peril.

1 Reply

@boagie,

Yes there is peril, I won't deny that. But there's very little that the Bush administration has done that is even remotely reconciliable with the precepts of any mainstream American religion. Like I said, it's just a mask. Perhaps instead of trying to convince religious people to give up their faith, which the vast majority of them will not do, we should try to convince them to hold their followers, especially those followers in public office, to account for not upholding the tenents of their faith.

As for education, I can always tell my children the right of it. Ultimately, educating a child is the parent's responsibility. Mind you, I say this as counter to a worse case scenario, cause I too oppose the idea of having schools teach children creationism.

1 Reply

@Solace,

Solace,

I guess the hope is that America will become less fanatical religiously and learn that the sky is not going to fall if they put a rationalist into office. Look at how many young Americans this president has killed with his lies and deceptions, this is the bible belts version of how things should be. Religion will always be around, it is like the late Joseph Campbell once stated, "Life is mythologically compelled." It is when the religious hold political sway, that is when the whole planet is in trouble. Atheists are not the only enemy of the faithful, so to are scientists, teacher and people in general that can read. The idea is not to do away with religion, but to castrate it politically, a start would be to take away its tax exempt status, which it should not be enjoying while it remains politically active.

0 Replies

@Solace,

Solace;32830 wrote:

I missed the part about world peace. As for that, all I can say is that religion is only an excuse for war. The reason is greed. And I think I said somewhere once before that shooting down religion won't kill greed. I wouldn't dignify the greedy by allowing them the mask of their religious excuses, they don't deserve it.

Religion is not the problem. It is the actions and desires of bad people, as always. These people will use religion, or anything else that is handy, as an excuse for their actions. Religion in itself, which is just a conceptual system of belief, is neither good nor bad; each religion has some merits and some flaws in its belief system. How people interpret its message, and what they choose to think or do from that point forward, is on them.

Some of the people here act like the world was perfect before the current major religions came about. History has shown that no matter the different religious/spiritual/philosophic views of human societies, people will always steal, kill, and generally do bad stuff. It's easy to blame religion, but it's more difficult to accept that it's just something in our nature that causes this corruption. Some people learn to govern this part of their nature, while others give in, but it's there, and it has always been, long before organized religion came about it.

1 Reply

@OctoberMist,

OctoberMist:

First I just want to state the obvious, that you are probably religious (I'm guessing Christian), and if that is true then there is no reason to argue with you because to change your mind would take drastic measures, something akin to years and years of rehab.

But since you live in a small town and all, and probably would be entertained by more challenges to your magniloquent and impulsive statements, let me respond to the ones you made in response to my post.

OctoberMist says:

Quote:

2) The "Christian Relgion" is not a monolithic entity. There is a VAST set of different beliefs with Christiantiy. Not all who identify as Christian believe the exact same thing. -- Another Hasty Genralization.

Quote:

1) The movie makes a generalization about ALL religions, though it only deals primarily with Fundamentalist Christianity.

I must confess, I never actually said I saw the movie, or even commented on the movie. I was commenting on the quote placed on the starting post of this thread. I'm not going to go further, and just say that I still agree with the quote from Bill Maher, and also get a strange feeling you are offended by it. For that I am sorry. But things are changing friend, and people are starting to get help, and I've even met many recovering Catholics and Christians. There is hope. :shifty:

4 Replies

@Blazenarrow,

Blazenarrow wrote:

First, there is no reason to chastise fellow members. We can disagree without suggesting the other interlocutors are thoughtless.

Now, to the point. You contradict yourself. You admit that Christians have a variety of beliefs, yet then conclude that the Christian faith tradition is "monolithic". If Christians have a variety of beliefs, then the tradition is not monolithic because the tradition is not in any way uniform. That they use the same text does not even make Christianity monolithic, rigid, inflexible and uniform. Simply means they use the same book. Hinduism is not monolithic; you can be Hindu and be a theist, agnostic or atheist. Yet, these diverse Hindus use some of the same books.

Further, not all Christians use the same text. The Bible is not a uniform text. Apart from various translations, the contents of the book vary from denomination to denomination. And then you must consider various Christian scriptures that are not included in any Bible, apocrypha.

0 Replies

That last post must have required some deep thinking, eh boagie?

0 Replies

@Pangloss,

Pangloss said:

Quote:

Religion is not the problem. It is the actions and desires of bad people, as always. These people will use religion, or anything else that is handy, as an excuse for their actions. Religion in itself, which is just a conceptual system of belief, is neither good nor bad; each religion has some merits and some flaws in its belief system. How people interpret its message, and what they choose to think or do from that point forward, is on them.

Well said, Pangloss.

This is exactly the point I have been trying to make all along.

Anything, be it religion, politics, philosophy, or even a shovel, can be used for good or ill.

It is the application and those who apply it the the problem lies with; not with the conception itself.

0 Replies

@Blazenarrow,

Blazenarrow;32840 wrote:

First I just want to state the obvious, that you are probably religious (I'm guessing Christian), and if that is true then there is no reason to argue with you because to change your mind would take drastic measures, something akin to years and years of rehab.

This is a philosophy forum. I believe the goal is not to argue or change minds--it is to discover wisdom. You have apparently discovered this wisdom, so, please, allow us to bask in its glory and we will thank you for its greatness.

Quote:

But since you live in a small town and all, and probably would be entertained by more challenges to your magniloquent and impulsive statements, let me respond to the ones you made in response to my post.

Stereotyping small-town folks now, huh? Maybe he lives in a small town; I don't know if that's good or bad. But you are in the worst position, biding your time in a very, very small mind. Your statements seem to be as magniloquent and impulsive as any.

Rather than waste time examining the rest of your ill-conceived attack, I will leave you with your own words of advice, that perhaps you should recall next time, "before you hit post":

Quote:

Let me suggest to you something. Think about what you actually type, and what the words you are saying really mean before you hit post.

1 Reply

@Blazenarrow,

:perplexed: uummm, blazenarrow, dude, those quotes aren't mine. I believe they're OctoberMist's.

And, actually, for what it's worth, I do consider Christianity to be monolithic, though my reasoning is different than yours. But that's neither here nor there. Point is, I think you need to readdress your last post.:flowers:

Ooohh, oohh, but I do like what you said about my "magniloquent and impulsive statements". That is so me! :a-ok: (Course you were prolly paying that compliment to OM, so rats on it... I want a sad/crying emoticon people!!!)

Btw, is magniloquent actually a word? If not, I'm stealing the rights to it! Very Happy

2 Replies

@Solace,

Magniloquent is a word:

magniloquent - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

1 Reply

@Blazenarrow,

First off, Blazenarrow, you're attributing comments that I made to Solace; she/he didn't write them - I did.

Blazenarrow said:

Quote:

First I just want to state the obvious, that you are probably religious (I'm guessing Christian)

No, I am not religious at all. I follow no religion and especially not Christianity which I have serious philosophical disagreements with. I've stated this several times in this thread, so please try actually reading what I've said before jumping to erroneous conclusions. :rolleyes:

Quote:

and if that is true then there is no reason to argue with you because to change your mind would take drastic measures, something akin to years and years of rehab.

Since I'm not a Christian, this point of your does not apply.

Quote:

But since you live in a small town and all,

Where did you get that? I live in San Francisco. It's not exactly a "small town" by any stretch of the imagination. Again, please try reading
before replying to me.

Quote:

and probably would be entertained by more challenges to your magniloquent and impulsive statements, let me respond to the ones you made in response to my post.

This is the second point of yours nullified by your lack of reading.

Quote:

This one is easy. Let me suggest to you something. Think about what you actually type, and what the words you are saying really mean before you hit post.

Charming.

Quote:

You state that the "Christian Religion" is not a monolithic entity, and your evidence is that not all Christians believe the same thing. I agree with you on one point, and that's that not all Christians believe the same thing.

Ok. Please remember this admission because I'm going to use it to demonstrate how you contradict yourself...

Quote:

I'll explain why this is, after I first dispute the first part of your statement. What is the "Christian Religion" that you speak of? Because first off, the "Christian Religion" that I was aware of, seemed to be a structured and established set of beliefs based off of two books, bible one and bible two (lol no j/j).

LOL @ You. The Bible is but one of the books that Christianity is based on. There are many other depending on what branch of Christianity one is looking at. For example, in the Roman Catholic church, the works of Tertullian, Augustine, and Aquinas are an intregal part of the positions of the faith, whereas in the the United Methodist, Episcopalian, and Anglican community, the works of John Wesley are an intergral part. In the Charismatic, Pentecostal, and Evangelical faiths, the works of many modern writers are an intergral part such as James Dobson, Jack Chick, and others.

Even in jest, portraying the Bible as the sole basis of Christianity is quite silly and only demonstrates your lack of study.

Quote:

On a serious note, the old and the new testament are what define the underlying meaning implied when you carelessly throw around the term "Christian Religion", and there are no doubts about that.

Heh! First of all, it is Boagie who is carelessly throwing around the term "Christianity" as a unified term; not me. Try reading the thread, my wooly friend. Smile

Second, you say: "the old and the new testament are what define the underlying meaning implied..

In this, you are wrong. As I demonstrated, there is much more that goes into the various branches of Christianity than just this one book.

Quote:

Hold on there. You're bashing beliefs as "misinterpretations"? -- In order for you to make a claim of "misinterpretation", you would neccessarily have to possess the correct interpretation (or be making a claim thereof that you possess superior knowledge to the rest). But since you don't even follow the religion, how is it that you have the 'correct' interpretation? LOL

You might try chosing your words more carefully in the future. Smile

Now back to your argument, such as it is...

Quote:

That's because what is really going on when you talk about people 'following' a religion, is people interpreting a book, and an inherent property of human nature is to differ in ones interpretation of a given set of concepts, ideas, questions, or in this case a book.

I completely agree.

Quote:

The people who follow Christianity are not 'monolithic', that you are right. However the premise, and underlying ideas inherent in the Christian and Catholic religion (and MANY other religions) are based off the interpretation of some text, which I would say makes it monolithic. That's just not even arguable.

ROFL! Let's examine what you just said:

Premise: The followers of Christianity are not monolithic.

Premise: The premise of Christianity is based off of a text.

Premise: Anything based off a text is monolithic.

Conclusion: Christianity is monolithic.

Contradict yourself much? Smile

And, earlier, you said:

You state that the "Christian Religion" is not a monolithic entity, and your evidence is that not all Christians believe the same thing. I agree with you on one point, and that's that not all Christians believe the same thing.

So if the followers of Christianity do not believe the same thing, then how could either the belief system or the religion be monolithic?

Who do you think composes the religion? -- The followers. Do you think that the religion exists independantly of the followers?? LOL

Nice work. Scotland Yard should be knocking on your door to hire you as Chief Inspector any day now.... :bigsmile:

Quote:

Now to your first point:
I must confess, I never actually said I saw the movie, or even commented on the movie. I was commenting on the quote placed on the starting post of this thread. I'm not going to go further, and just say that I still agree with the quote from Bill Maher, and also get a strange feeling you are offended by it. For that I am sorry.

What amuses me is the hypocritical lack of logic that is being perpetutated in the movie. The movie purports that reasoning and critical thinking are superior to spirituality -- and then completely contradicts it's own premise by basing it's argument on a logical fallacy.

I find the inherent contradiction hilarious. Laughing

Quote:

But things are changing friend, and people are starting to get help, and I've even met many recovering Catholics and Christians. There is hope. :shifty:

Since I'm not a Christian, you're barking up the wrong tree.

Please, please try reading before making these knee-jerk-reactions posts. Thanks.

1 Reply

@Pangloss,

Pangloss wrote:

This is a philosophy forum. I believe the goal is not to argue or change minds--it is to discover wisdom. You have apparently discovered this wisdom, so, please, allow us to bask in its glory and we will thank you for its greatness.

My goal is to change minds, regardless of what "the goal" is. :a-ok:

Quote:

Stereotyping small-town folks now, huh? Maybe he lives in a small town; I don't know if that's good or bad. But you are in the worst position, biding your time in a very, very small mind. Your statements seem to be as magniloquent and impulsive as any.

Yes, someone mentioned they actually lived in a small town, and I'm sorry young child, but I made no stereotypes regarding people living in small towns. :a-ok:

Pangloss wrote:

This is a philosophy forum. I believe the goal is not to argue or change minds--it is to discover wisdom.

So, if the goal is not to argue and change minds, then is your goal to castigate people with your negative opinions and slandering remarks?
:a-thought:

Pangloss wrote:

But you are in the worst position, biding your time in a very, very small mind.

:nonooo:

Quote:

Rather than waste time examining the rest of your ill-conceived attack, I will leave you with your own words of advice, that perhaps you should recall next time, "before you hit post":

Young child, I attacked no one. I responded to OctoberMist's post which was made in response to my opinion on Bill Maher's quote.

Please, try and take a deep breathe and don't let little words on an internet forum get you all into a tizzy! Very Happy

1 Reply

@Solace,

Solace wrote:

uummm, blazenarrow, dude, those quotes aren't mine. I believe they're OctoberMist's.

Solace will you please accept my apology. I carelessly quoted you instead of OctoberMist, who was the one that responded to my post about Bill Maher's quote. I've edited my post, sorry again friend!

Quote:

Btw, is magniloquent actually a word? If not, I'm stealing the rights to it!

Yes, it is a word!

magniloquent |magˈniləkwənt|
adjective
using high-flown or bombastic language.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

Magniloquent is a word:

magniloquent - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

Neat! Something good came of this exchange. Within that definition, I also liked the term "bombastic". Usage: Violent agreement within these posts seems to have reached a bombastic level.

Thanks

0 Replies

@OctoberMist,

OctoberMist wrote:

First off, Blazenarrow, you're attributing comments that I made to Solace; she/he didn't write them - I did.

I know! Whoops!

o

Quote:

No, I am not religious at all. I follow no religion and especially not Christianity which I have serious philosophical disagreements with. I've stated this several times in this thread, so please try actually reading what I've said before jumping to erroneous conclusions.

GJ, I'm glad you've seen the light. Yes, you are right, I read but 1/10th of the material in this thread. Sorry.

Quote:

Where did you get that? I live in San Francisco. It's not exactly a "small town" by any stretch of the imagination. Again, please try reading
before replying to me.

Again, a silly error displaying my lack of thoroughness.

Quote:

LOL @ You. The Bible is but one of the books that Christianity is based on. There are many other depending on what branch of Christianity one is looking at. For example, in the Roman Catholic church, the works of Tertullian, Augustine, and Aquinas are an intregal part of the positions of the faith, whereas in the the United Methodist, Episcopalian, and Anglican community, the works of John Wesley are an intergral part. In the Charismatic, Pentecostal, and Evangelical faiths, the works of many modern writers are an intergral part such as James Dobson, Jack Chick, and others.

Ohhhhhhhh is that what Christianity is based on! :bigsmile:

Quote:

Heh! First of all, it is Boagie who is carelessly throwing around the term "Christianity" as a unified term; not me. Try reading the thread, my wooly friend.

Second, you say: "the old and the new testament are what define the underlying meaning implied..

Well, apparently you know a lot about Christianity and Catholicism. I admit, I know very little. But to clarify a point here, I never said that the old and new testament are what defines the underlying meaning in the VARIOUS BRANCHES of Christianity. I said that the two books define the underlying meaning or purpose of THE Christian religion. Again, the ONLY reason why there are various branches of Christianity, is because various branches INTERPRET the bible differently.

Quote:

In this, you are wrong. As I demonstrated, there is much more that goes into the various branches of Christianity than just this one book.

What makes the different branches of Christianity?

Let me ask you a question, in the year 1 AD, following the death of Christ, did the Christian Religion actually exist? What about the year 15 AD, or even 30 AD, did the Christian religion exist at this point? In fact, when did ALL of Christianities branches come into existence? Did they all appear at the same time? Or did the various branches of Christianity slowly develop over an extended period?

Quote:

So if the followers of Christianity do not believe the same thing, then how could either the belief system or the religion be monolithic?

The 'belief system' is based on the text contained in the bible. And again, let me ask you: When did Christianity first appear in history? Is it possible that Christianity, the religion, the belief system, actually existed before the new testament? And if so, who were the Christians, or the people following Christianity?

Quote:

Who do you think composes the religion? -- The followers.

So then did the 'followers' as you claim, compose the Christian religion prior to the new testament being written? Did they compose the Christian religion 5,000 years ago? "The Religion" is a set of beliefs, ideas, interpretations, and explanations of the world stemming from a singular source, the text presented in the bible.

The followers were not able to follow, until they had something to follow. That being the inherent beliefs contained within the bible.

1 Reply

@Blazenarrow,

Blazenarrow;33017 wrote:

My goal is to change minds, regardless of what "the goal" is.

Good for you. This must mean that you have some great insight into the way things are. What are you waiting for? Let's hear it already and have our minds changed for the better.

Wait a minute...how are you going to change anybody's mind for the better on this subject? You have already admitted your ignorance on the topics concerning this thread:

Quote:

I read but 1/10th of the material in this thread.

Quote:

a silly error displaying my lack of thoroughness.

Quote:

apparently you know a lot about Christianity and Catholicism. I admit, I know very little.

So, no, I am not castigating you. You have brilliantly done this to yourself.

How can you hope to change our minds for the better if you, as you have already admitted, didn't read the thread, are not thorough, and know very little about the topic being discussed? :perplexed:

0 Replies

@Blazenarrow,

Blazenarrow wrote:

Solace will you please accept my apology. I carelessly quoted you instead of OctoberMist, who was the one that responded to my post about Bill Maher's quote. I've edited my post, sorry again friend!

Yes, it is a word!

magniloquent |magˈniləkwənt|
adjective
using high-flown or bombastic language.

Ya it's all good. Am kinda bummed about magniloquent being an actual word though... I so wanted to make up a meaning for it!

1 Reply

@Solace,

Blazenarrow wrote:

My goal is to change minds, regardless of what "the goal" is. :a-ok:

The above, while in concept seems logical, isn't something that will ever work.

If we have to go out there and think that we have to get everyone to follow our systems of belief and 'change their minds', that's only because we haven't convinced ourselves of it. We can't change someone else's mind unless we change our own first. Theirs is not ours to change it's merely a reflection of the change we should be implementing at home and within ourselves.

That's something we should all consider as we go back and forth within these forums.

0 Replies

RELIGULOUS--Bill Maher

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know