What is your religion?

George Carlin on Religion said:


When it comes to bullshit, big-time, major league bullshit, you have to stand in awe of the all-time champion of false promises and exaggerated claims, religion. No contest. No contest. Religion. Religion easily has the greatest bullshit story ever told. Think about it. Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time!

But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He's all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can't handle money! Religion takes in billions of dollars, they pay no taxes, and they always need a little more. Now, you talk about a good bullshit story. Holy Shit!

But I want you to know something, this is sincere, I want you to know, when it comes to believing in God, I really tried. I really, really tried. I tried to believe that there is a God, who created each of us in His own image and likeness, loves us very much, and keeps a close eye on things. I really tried to believe that, but I gotta tell you, the longer you live, the more you look around, the more you realize, something is fucked up.

Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed. Results like these do not belong on the résumé of a Supreme Being. This is the kind of shit you'd expect from an office temp with a bad attitude. And just between you and me, in any decently-run universe, this guy would've been out on his all-powerful ass a long time ago. And by the way, I say "this guy", because I firmly believe, looking at these results, that if there is a God, it has to be a man.

No woman could or would ever fuck things up like this. So, if there is a God, I think most reasonable people might agree that he's at least incompetent, and maybe, just maybe, doesn't give a shit. Doesn't give a shit, which I admire in a person, and which would explain a lot of these bad results.

So rather than be just another mindless religious robot, mindlessly and aimlessly and blindly believing that all of this is in the hands of some spooky incompetent father figure who doesn't give a shit, I decided to look around for something else to worship. Something I could really count on.

And immediately, I thought of the sun. Happened like that. Overnight I became a sun-worshipper. Well, not overnight, you can't see the sun at night. But first thing the next morning, I became a sun-worshipper. Several reasons. First of all, I can see the sun, okay? Unlike some other gods I could mention, I can actually see the sun. I'm big on that. If I can see something, I don't know, it kind of helps the credibility along, you know? So everyday I can see the sun, as it gives me everything I need; heat, light, food, flowers in the park, reflections on the lake, an occasional skin cancer, but hey. At least there are no crucifixions, and we're not setting people on fire simply because they don't agree with us.

Sun worship is fairly simple. There's no mystery, no miracles, no pageantry, no one asks for money, there are no songs to learn, and we don't have a special building where we all gather once a week to compare clothing. And the best thing about the sun, it never tells me I'm unworthy. Doesn't tell me I'm a bad person who needs to be saved. Hasn't said an unkind word. Treats me fine. So, I worship the sun. But, I don't pray to the sun. Know why? I wouldn't presume on our friendship. It's not polite.

I've often thought people treat God rather rudely, don't you? Asking trillions and trillions of prayers every day. Asking and pleading and begging for favors. Do this, gimme that, I need a new car, I want a better job. And most of this praying takes place on Sunday His day off. It's not nice. And it's no way to treat a friend.

But people do pray, and they pray for a lot of different things, you know, your sister needs an operation on her crotch, your brother was arrested for defecating in a mall. But most of all, you'd really like to fuck that hot little redhead down at the convenience store. You know, the one with the eyepatch and the clubfoot? Can you pray for that? I think you'd have to. And I say, fine. Pray for anything you want. Pray for anything, but what about the Divine Plan?

Remember that? The Divine Plan. Long time ago, God made a Divine Plan. Gave it a lot of thought, decided it was a good plan, put it into practice. And for billions and billions of years, the Divine Plan has been doing just fine. Now, you come along, and pray for something. Well suppose the thing you want isn't in God's Divine Plan? What do you want Him to do? Change His plan? Just for you? Doesn't it seem a little arrogant? It's a Divine Plan. What's the use of being God if every run-down shmuck with a two-dollar prayerbook can come along and fuck up Your Plan?

And here's something else, another problem you might have: Suppose your prayers aren't answered. What do you say? "Well, it's God's will." "Thy Will Be Done." Fine, but if it's God's will, and He's going to do what He wants to anyway, why the fuck bother praying in the first place? Seems like a big waste of time to me! Couldn't you just skip the praying part and go right to His Will? It's all very confusing.

So to get around a lot of this, I decided to worship the sun. But, as I said, I don't pray to the sun. You know who I pray to? Joe Pesci. Two reasons: First of all, I think he's a good actor, okay? To me, that counts. Second, he looks like a guy who can get things done. Joe Pesci doesn't fuck around. In fact, Joe Pesci came through on a couple of things that God was having trouble with.

For years I asked God to do something about my noisy neighbor with the barking dog, Joe Pesci straightened that cocksucker out with one visit. It's amazing what you can accomplish with a simple baseball bat.

So I've been praying to Joe for about a year now. And I noticed something. I noticed that all the prayers I used to offer to God, and all the prayers I now offer to Joe Pesci, are being answered at about the same 50% rate. Half the time I get what I want, half the time I don't. Same as God, 50-50. Same as the four-leaf clover and the horseshoe, the wishing well and the rabbit's foot, same as the Mojo Man, same as the Voodoo Lady who tells you your fortune by squeezing the goat's testicles, it's all the same: 50-50. So just pick your superstition, sit back, make a wish, and enjoy yourself.

And for those of you who look to The Bible for moral lessons and literary qualities, I might suggest a couple of other stories for you. You might want to look at the Three Little Pigs, that's a good one. Has a nice happy ending, I'm sure you'll like that. Then there's Little Red Riding Hood, although it does have that X-rated part where the Big Bad Wolf actually eats the grandmother. Which I didn't care for, by the way. And finally, I've always drawn a great deal of moral comfort from Humpty Dumpty. The part I like the best? "All the king's horses and all the king's men couldn't put Humpty Dumpty back together again." That's because there is no Humpty Dumpty, and there is no God. None, not one, no God, never was.

In fact, I'm gonna put it this way. If there is a God, may he strike this audience dead! See? Nothing happened. Nothing happened? Everybody's okay? All right, tell you what, I'll raise the stakes a little bit. If there is a God, may he strike me dead. See? Nothing happened, oh, wait, I've got a little cramp in my leg. And my balls hurt. Plus, I'm blind. I'm blind, oh, now I'm okay again, must have been Joe Pesci, huh? God Bless Joe Pesci. Thank you all very much. Joe Bless You!

Baman said:
Well, most religious debates on the internet (and IRL for that matter), usually ends up reminiscent of a grand fleet battle where indestructible ships line up broadside with infinite ammo and exchange fire until either, they all get bored and return to port, or someone pulls the plug and drains the water.
It's virtually impossible to convert anyone, no matter how many fancy cannons you've brought or boarding parties you've sent.
But for anyone who enjoys watching naval battles, it's a brilliant pastime...

angel999 said:


Perhaps it is hard to convert but WHEN TIME WILL COME....You will have to choose...IT IS SIMPLE: A) Be with God and kill all his enemies or B) Side with them and try to kill God.

EITHER SIDE YOU TAKE THE OTHER WILL KILL YOU SO YOU HAVE TO KILL ONES WHO TRY TO KILL. IN THE END IT'S SATAN OR GOD. CHOOSE WISELY FRIEND.

Kionniko said:
I am my own god.

Satan is a symbol of Man living as his prideful, carnal nature dictates. The reality behind Satan is simply the dark evolutionary force of entropy that permeates all of nature and provides the drive for survival and propagation inherent in all living things. Satan is not a conscious entity to be worshipped, rather a reservoir of power inside each human to be tapped at will. Thus any concept of sacrifice is rejected as a Christian aberration—in Satanism there’s no deity to which one can sacrifice. - Peter H. Gilmore

Chavez said:


Wow! It's so clear now! I finally understand, thanks! :3

angel999 said:


Interesting thoughts but ONE MISTAKE. Do you really think that this is just something that drives or is born within. NO FRIEND, it is ones you do not know anything about. Keep dreaming and being tricked cause they always do. Being engulfed in complicated thoughts that mind boggle.

The way you are thinking two things will happen to you: A) You will be killed for being ignorant or B) You will be given all the GOD stuff until you are not needed anymore and then have all taken away. In other words someone will screw you over until you are no good anymore to screw. Then you will lose all GOD things and be literally SHIT.

DO NOT GET FOOLED.

angel999 said:
<stuff>

LolitaDecay said:
Why can't you just accept other people's opinions and stop preaching? You're entitled to try and proove people wrong but saying someone will be 'literally shit' is going too far, don't you think?

LolitaDecay said:
Why can't you just accept other people's opinions and stop preaching? You're entitled to try and proove people wrong but saying someone will be 'literally shit' is going too far, don't you think?

selective_yellow said:

You just can't handle The Truth.

selective_yellow said:

You just can't handle The Truth.

angel999 said:


No, no...I am saying someone might trick you like this. Being shit=being worthless....sorry if the choice of word is bad.

LolitaDecay said:
Well fair enough, but replying to every post by someone who has a different view to you about how they're going to hell is going completely against the point of the topic.

LolitaDecay said:
Well fair enough, but replying to every post by someone who has a different view to you about how they're going to hell is going completely against the point of the topic.

hello

just wanna know

i'm muslim.

LolitaDecay said:
I'm not worthy.
/cry

Long ago khorven said:
Seeing no reason to believe some-thing and thus not believing it still is not adequate a scientific step. One may in science only postulate false if one has proven false, which is again a fallacy often made. 'I have not proven true, thus I assume false.', there is also what is called 'independence', that propositions may either be true or false within a formal system with no inconsistencies, assuming any is adding an axiom, however in empirical science the axioms are that which we can test and measure, the existence of a god is some-thing we cannot do such of and thereby not believing in a god because there is no reason to do so is about as strange as taking an unsolved problem in physics which still may be true or false and just assume it one of the either in calculations.

A simpler way to demonstrate that a formal flaw in logical structure is made is actually:

'I see no reason no god exists, therefore I believe there is at least one.'

Both are of identical structure and both rely on an axiom which per empirical gathering is true, however both lead to each others negation and thus it is sufficient to say the structure cannot be a form of coherent logic and it is not necessary in principio to say why.[...]

khorven said:
Well.. I'm more or less annoyed by Dawkins making appear that he uses coherent logic, poloticians, biologists, psychiatrists and a lot more make logical fallacies by the number, that's robably why they disagree with each other.. logic is objectively true or false, no escape... many people seem to be ignorant about how rigid 'logic' really is in the purest sense.

angel999 said:
Interesting thoughts but ONE MISTAKE. Do you really think that this is just something that drives or is born within. NO FRIEND, it is ones you do not know anything about. Keep dreaming and being tricked cause they always do. Being engulfed in complicated thoughts that mind boggle.

The way you are thinking two things will happen to you: A) You will be killed for being ignorant or B) You will be given all the GOD stuff until you are not needed anymore and then have all taken away. In other words someone will screw you over until you are no good anymore to screw. Then you will lose all GOD things and be literally SHIT.

DO NOT GET FOOLED.

Siing said:
I support this guy's view:

http://www.timboucher.com/journal/2005/01/06/he-killed-somebody-because-he-loves-us/

It totally makes sense, and Is much more viable than anything else i've heard about Christianity.

Kaiserpingvin said:


Personally I think a majority of these disagreements come from the difficulty in agreeing on axioms and basic propositions from which to develop theories.y they disagree with each other.. logic is objectively true or false, no escape... many people seem to be ignorant about how rigid 'logic' really is in the purest sense.

Personally I think a majority of these disagreements come from the difficulty in agreeing on axioms and basic propositions from which to develop theories.

angel999 said:
<preaching>

ladyxzeus said:

Have you ever thought of founding an Evangelist church in a Latin American country? The last guy who did it got rich. :o

Anyway, I'm enjoying the technical debate... Maybe I'm just religious because life is (or seems) prettier that way. ^_^

angel999 said:
Interesting thoughts but ONE MISTAKE. Do you really think that this is just something that drives or is born within. NO FRIEND, it is ones you do not know anything about. Keep dreaming and being tricked cause they always do. Being engulfed in complicated thoughts that mind boggle.

The way you are thinking two things will happen to you: A) You will be killed for being ignorant or B) You will be given all the GOD stuff until you are not needed anymore and then have all taken away. In other words someone will screw you over until you are no good anymore to screw. Then you will lose all GOD things and be literally SHIT.

DO NOT GET FOOLED.

Siing said:
I support this guy's view:

http://www.timboucher.com/journal/2005/01/06/he-killed-somebody-because-he-loves-us/

It totally makes sense, and Is much more viable than anything else i've heard about Christianity.

khorven said:
Indeed, but different axioms or not, he makes dubious arguments by the number, an example being on of my favourites.

'Yes, but these people find joy and strength in religion.'
Dakwins: 'There are also other ways to find this.'

Formalizes as. for all x, if x is joyful and there exist a y not equal to x (y is also joyful) then x is not need. or: forall x (joyful(x) and exist y (joyful(y) and y != x) - > notneeded (x)) in more formal language.

That is his argument, the implication of that is that we may remove a joy whenever there are still other things joyful. It comes down to that we may remove all joys until there is only one left, because then there aren't other joys left any more. That's the undeniable logical implication of this argument, and that he doesn't accept, thus a reduction to the nonfitting has been made. 'Reductio ad absurdum, proof by contradiction' that this, even by his axioms cannot be a logically valid argument.

Of course, this situation can be hindered by putting certain demands (praedicates) to the joys we discard away, and if he can define those, then he's the man, I for one, cannot.

Kaiserpingvin said:
angel, you're giving the poor mod a hard time what with your rampant doubleposting. And your syntax leaves hordes of calligraphy-pandas to be desired.



I believe his praedictate would be along the lines of - and now I put words in his mouth - "any method that is supported by lies and fallacies, as theism is, should be discarded even if it supplies joy". Applying logic and reason to ethics is somthing I find dodgy in the first place anyway, though, so I won't stand and defend Dawkins on this point (I agree with him on many points, but his religion-critique leaves much except eloquence to be desired).

angel999 said:
Perhaps it is hard to convert but WHEN TIME WILL COME....You will have to choose...IT IS SIMPLE: A) Be with God and kill all his enemies or B) Side with them and try to kill God.

EITHER SIDE YOU TAKE THE OTHER WILL KILL YOU SO YOU HAVE TO KILL ONES WHO TRY TO KILL. IN THE END IT'S SATAN OR GOD. CHOOSE WISELY FRIEND.

Kaiserpingvin said:
C) I don't join either side. I won't cave in to no dualistic morals even if it's metaphysically imprinted in the world, oh no.

LadyShiva said:
This sign says alot:

Reavery2k said:
"religion is the opium of people. just say no"
-Karl Marx

LadyShiva said:


sometimes you can't say no to your parents or you get beaten. I'm trying to weasel my way outta church.

Baman said:


And that is one of the worst things with organized religion. When parents brainwash their children into their religions. Even baptizing should be illegal, and the child should be allowed to choose freely for itself when it's older.

Baman said:


And that is one of the worst things with organized religion. When parents brainwash their children into their religions. Even baptizing should be illegal, and the child should be allowed to choose freely for itself when it's older.
...
...
Sometimes, I'm such an idealist I make myself sick.

Baman said:
Ah, religious schools are even worse.
Now, I know it is a little too much to demand that all religion be abolished entirely, but at least, it should be kept from sticking it's nose where it doesn't belong.
...
Then again, where does it really belong? It is a control institution after all.

angel999 said:


The control is not the problem, it is the program. Too strict, too outdated. Like a computer you need to updates so people will continue liking the religion. Just like playstation to playstation 3 and FF to FF13 by now.

Baman said:
Ah, religious schools are even worse.
Now, I know it is a little too much to demand that all religion be abolished entirely, but at least, it should be kept from sticking it's nose where it doesn't belong.
...
Then again, where does it really belong? It is a control institution after all.

@ladyxzeus-
The problem though, is that once a child is subjected to religion at an early age, chances are it will be shaped by it nevertheless. As for quitting, it's not like you have a "leave this religion" button either. In Norway for example, pretty much everyone is a member of the state church, even if they hardly believe in anything. But since they've always been members and don't really know how to quit (and are too lazy to care) they are still officially members, and the blasted church gets a piece of the tax money.
...
Even I haven't bothered to go through the quitting process...

Baman said:


Yet at the same time, the religions are adapting fairly well. Take the tyrannical and monolithic Catholic church in the middle ages. Eventually, it had to acknowledge that the earth wasn't flat, and these days, religious people brush off the inconsistencies in the bible as "needing to be interpreted differently"
Religions are though skinned old beasts, and gladly shift hides when necessary. Which is why it's so frustratingly difficult to kill them off.

khorven said:


You do realize that brainwashing children with religious ideas is one and the same with brainwashing them with moral ideas id est telling them they shouldn't go out stealing.

From a concept of analytical philosophy, this situation is more complicated than it seems and a solution is far sought. Fairness in this respect will not be achieved without abolishing the entire legal system. That Bruno was burnt for thinking Terra wasn't the centre of the universe is not at all too different from just punishing a man now because he steals... it is the same objectively spoken and every-one today who looks with disgust at that would've stood on that square cheering as he was burnt the same way they do now if a serial killer is 'put to justice'. The difference being tha today, they are imprinted with today's moral, and in mediaeval times they would with that moral.

So one could go with fairness, or with the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, what t is now. Which means a world not liveable for the intelligent alas, Russell, Newton, Socrates, Plato and all of man's greatest minds resented the world, the social systems and the people that lived in it for those things.

It's not that simple as often postulated.

And by the way, it's a misconception that the church didn't believe the world to be a sphaere in times of Columbus, every-one slightly educated knew since antiquity that the world was a sphaere, and the church had no dispute with Columbus about that, but about its size, it was calculated in antiquity within 5% accuracy already how large it was by looking at the stars, and Columbus held it to be smaller, probably largely because he wanted it to be smaller so that he could sail to India the other way around. And the church was right, it wasn't smaller and indeed they were right when they told him he never could've had enough supplies with him, but luckily for him, half way and dehydrated and nigh starved to dead, he found America... how the hell would he have proven the earth a sphaere by finding another continent any-way?

This man deserves no place in history books.

Baman said:


Yet at the same time, the religions are adapting fairly well. Take the tyrannical and monolithic Catholic church in the middle ages. Eventually, it had to acknowledge that the earth wasn't flat, and these days, religious people brush off the inconsistencies in the bible as "needing to be interpreted differently"
Religions are though skinned old beasts, and gladly shift hides when necessary. Which is why it's so frustratingly difficult to kill them off.

barboachtraner said:
To quote Bertrand Russell himself...

As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one can prove that there is not a God. On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think that I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because, when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.

That is essentially my own position. The decision to identify as an atheist is more a matter of connotation than anything else. To most people, agnosticism implies vacillation between belief and disbelief in an established religion such as Christianity. That isn't the image of myself I would wish to convey to a stranger. Strong atheism may be unsound, but the term atheism does not necessarily imply the strong variety, and not even Richard Dawkins, who khorven criticizes for insufficient rigor, is a strong atheist. People like Dawkins are, above all, activists concerned with the harmful consequences of religious dogma. Formal logic can be useful, but it's not the only intellectual tool avaiable, and all knowledge of the natural world is necessarily grounded in induction. As a biologist, Dawkins can't deal in the same sort of absolute rigor as a mathematician, but he recognizes the value of empiricism.

barboachtraner said:
Beyond that, I just can't accept khorven's moral nihilism. I would not identify with moral absolutism in the sense embodied by religion, but I do believe in the possibility of defining an objective, utilitarian morality. To dismiss burnings at the stake so easily based on the prevailing social mores of the time just seems so... wrong.

khorven said:
You do realize that brainwashing children with religious ideas is one and the same with brainwashing them with moral ideas id est telling them they shouldn't go out stealing.

From a concept of analytical philosophy, this situation is more complicated than it seems and a solution is far sought. Fairness in this respect will not be achieved without abolishing the entire legal system. That Bruno was burnt for thinking Terra wasn't the centre of the universe is not at all too different from just punishing a man now because he steals... it is the same objectively spoken and every-one today who looks with disgust at that would've stood on that square cheering as he was burnt the same way they do now if a serial killer is 'put to justice'. The difference being tha today, they are imprinted with today's moral, and in mediaeval times they would with that moral.

So one could go with fairness, or with the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, what t is now. Which means a world not liveable for the intelligent alas, Russell, Newton, Socrates, Plato and all of man's greatest minds resented the world, the social systems and the people that lived in it for those things.

It's not that simple as often postulated.

And by the way, it's a misconception that the church didn't believe the world to be a sphaere in times of Columbus, every-one slightly educated knew since antiquity that the world was a sphaere, and the church had no dispute with Columbus about that, but about its size, it was calculated in antiquity within 5% accuracy already how large it was by looking at the stars, and Columbus held it to be smaller, probably largely because he wanted it to be smaller so that he could sail to India the other way around. And the church was right, it wasn't smaller and indeed they were right when they told him he never could've had enough supplies with him, but luckily for him, half way and dehydrated and nigh starved to dead, he found America... how the hell would he have proven the earth a sphaere by finding another continent any-way?

This man deserves no place in history books.

deathangel521 said:
pastafarian

Baman wrote:
but morals can exist without the lore of a religion.

Dozer said:

Before I read through this thread, let me just say that you are wrong. Morals were originally based off religion.

khorven said:
Morals are logically equivalent to religion, that's the point, they postulate the 'existence' of some-thing intangible.

deathangel521 said:
it's all about the noodley appendage bro