Bogley

[JP]

I don't think Imus should have lost his job in the first place. Maher is just an @$$hole.

[Rev. Coyote]

rockgremlin wrote:
Its an interesting concept. If you openly and harshly slander a religion -- some people may get their feathers ruffled but overall, no big deal. On the other hand, if you even hint at a racist comment, you could get yourself killed.

The difference is, religion is a choice, and therefore open to scrutiny. Race is not a choice.

[Cirrus2000]

Rev. Coyote wrote: rockgremlin wrote:
Its an interesting concept. If you openly and harshly slander a religion -- some people may get their feathers ruffled but overall, no big deal. On the other hand, if you even hint at a racist comment, you could get yourself killed.

The difference is, religion is a choice, and therefore open to scrutiny. Race is not a choice.

Bingo. "The things you believe are ridiculous and utterly unsupportable, and you do stupid things (and do/hide criminal things) in the name of that belief." As opposed to, "You have skin of a certain color, and bone structure of a certain shape, and your parents came from a country I don't understand, therefore you do stupid things which offend me, and are not capable of the same high level of comportment as me and my ilk."

It's unfortunate that religion is afforded the high level of no-questions-asked respect that it is. Until we start to question the incredible (literally "that cannot be believed") claims of religion, and simply defer to the foolish, mutually incompatible and inconsistent beliefs, those beliefs will continue to inspire fear, hatred, warfare and bloodshed.

The thing is, that those of one belief will disparage the views of another, not realizing that their beliefs are just as crazy as the others. "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?" Ah, the irony.

Dang it, I have to stop venting about religion on here. People will think I'm obsessed.
:haha:

[James_B_Wads2000]

LOAH wrote: Maher is great. He doesn't sugar coat anything and he tends to have very valid points, from what I've seen.

I don't have HBO and spend more time on the internet than television, but a friend of mine watches religiously and I end up catching an episode from time to time.

I kind of wish he was running for office, but I doubt that's going to happen any time soon.

You can download audio podcasts of the show for free. That's what I do.


James

[jumar]

Quote: Until we start to question the incredible (literally "that cannot be believed") claims of religion, and simply defer to the foolish, mutually incompatible and inconsistent beliefs, those beliefs will continue to inspire fear, hatred, warfare and bloodshed.
Religios beliefs can also inspire courage, love and peace. Lots of bad has been done in the name of religion, but there's also been a lot of good done in the name of religion. I think it largely comes down to individuals. You can find a**holes in every religion and you can find good decent people trying to make a better world in every sound religion.

[Sombeech]

kall me krazy, but I'm gonna have to assume that the molestations weren't done in the name of the church....


When I take a dump in the afternoon, I'm not doing it in the name of my employer, my religion, or even bogley.com - all of these items heavily influence my life though. If I do it at work, it's not sponsored by my employer. When I do it at home, my wife may have to deal with it a couple hours later but it's not done in the name of my family.

"In the name of _______" can be a little misleading.



BTW, this post has been written in the name of AC/DC, because that's my favorite band.

[rockgremlin]

Here's somethin to think about: Religion is quite similar to Darwinism in that both are faith-based ideologies. Whether you have faith that the earth was created by some freak accident, or by the hand of an eternal creator it's all the same. Both require a firm belief in something that is not tangible.

That said, it is clear that Cirrus believes in the Church of Darwin. Nothin wrong with that. I don't judge you or think you're bad/wrong/immoral/evil or otherwise. I only ask that you don't lump me in the same category as the child molesters just because I might share a similar belief system.

[Cirrus2000]

rockgremlin wrote: Here's somethin to think about: Religion is quite similar to Darwinism in that both are faith-based ideologies. Whether you have faith that the earth was created by some freak accident, or by the hand of an eternal creator it's all the same. Both require a firm belief in something that is not tangible.

Evolution is not tangible (you can't see it), but at least it's logical... and leaves evidence in the fossil record. Like gravity, you can't see it, but you can see its results. Gravity's results are just a little more obvious over a short timespan.

Quote: That said, it is clear that Cirrus believes in the Church of Darwin. Nothin wrong with that. I don't judge you or think you're bad/wrong/immoral/evil or otherwise. I only ask that you don't lump me in the same category as the child molesters just because I might share a similar belief system.
I'll agree that I believe in the system of gradual improvements first postulated (popularly) by Darwin, but I do object to the term "Church of". The ultimate Greek root for church means "Lord's", and I can't get behind that... I don't know where 'matter' began, where the universe 'came from', and don't expect to ever know - not sure that it can ever be known by us - but I'd rather not therefore chalk it up to some supreme being. Then we'd just have to say where did He (she, it...) come from. If He's always been there, then why can't we just as simply say that the universe/matter has always been there, and skip the supernatural?

I'm sorry, but I probably do sound condescending when I disparage religious faith in general. I really don't mean to (condescend, that is - I do mean to disparage faith itself), and I don't think that one is evil, wrong, etc. because of such a faith. I simply believe in enjoying, marveling at, reveling in the wonders of life, the universe, and everything without believing that it was put here by some great hobbyist in the sky for decoration around his ant farm (humanity). Sure, it would be neat decoration, but I find a non-supernatural explanation, and our bit part in it, so much more... huge!

I also believe that a world without religion would be a better world. And just because people do brave, loving, wonderful acts because of religion does not make it any more true. People can do such acts without religion.

I honestly don't mean to lump people together, and just because there are some people (in the FLDS, in the Catholic Church, etc.) who deserve a good solid mockery/skewering (Mother Teresa, anyone?) not everyone, even firm believers in those groups, are a homogeneous mass.

I could go on for pages, but I'll just say that I don't hate, or even dislike people of faith. Really I don't. It may sound trite, but I love people - truly. I only seem kind of nasty on the forum!

Edited to fix some messed up italics...

[denaliguide]

faith is where you just believe in something because you do. you can't measure or quantify what you believe in.

darwinism is measureable and quantifible. you can develop hypothesis and experiment and see the results of your experiments.

they are not the same at all.

[stefan]

shoot, guys, with all the rhetoric these days, i was starting to believe religion and science were the same thing.

thanks for setting me straight :2thumbs:

[man_on_mountain]

Rev. Coyote wrote: Coming from the Catholic-saturated East Coast, I believe Maher was right on target. Not only was the Pope a Hitler Youth (a Nazi), but his so-called "church" didn't offer shit in terms of comfort to the Jews during WWII. The silence of the Vatican was tantamount to complicity.

On the subject of pedophilia, the Catholic "church" has soft-pedaled the issue, opting to reassign child-molesting priests to other parishes if they only attacked one or two little boys. The "church" took no hard line on the issues, but moved to protect its perverted clergy. After that, the whole operation deserves nothing less that loud public ridicule for being the sick joke of global religious organizations.

(And this is all before looking at the church's history involving, oh, the Inquisition. And promoting overpopulation and the spread of AIDS in developing nations with the condoms=trip to Hell myth. Etc. Etc.) Oh, and every friend I had in Catholic schools around Richmond was at least once beaten by a penguin (nun). And those bitter old bitches can really dish out a whipping.

I liked this quote from Maher: "In fact, whenever a cult leader sets himself up as God’s infallible wingman here on Earth, lock away the kids." Couldn't be more true.

As far as the Mormons are concerned, it upsets me when a breakaway sect like Jeffs' followers in Texas is identified as being one in the same with the LDS. It is not. And there's the difference between the Mormon faith and the Catholic: The Vatican is at its very heart and soul a cult that quietly protects the practice of child rape. The LDS central church does not.

One more point -- There's a huge HUGE difference between pedophiles and polygamists. They are not the same. For the record, I have no problem with polygamy as long as everyone is an adult and there of their own free will. After all, this is America (last time I checked).
On the subject of Bill's quote itself.
People are too sensitive. Anything with the word "Nazi" or "pedopile" always smacks a bunch of people in the nuts. I think Bill has a point, and a lot of people would rather focus on his vulgarity than the validity of his point. Honestly, what did he say that wasn't true?

On the LDS portion of bill's quote:
The problem with polygamy is not the multiple wives, it's the fact that many of the "wives" are underage. Yes, this is America, where the law is supposed to apply equally to everyone, and pedophilia, regardless of it's motives, is a crime. The irony is that, no the LDS church does not "quietly protect" the practice of child rape, but they used to openly practice it, and the dissacknowledged branch of their church, the FLDS church, still does.

[rockgremlin]

denaliguide wrote: faith is where you just believe in something because you do. you can't measure or quantify what you believe in.

darwinism is measureable and quantifible. you can develop hypothesis and experiment and see the results of your experiments.

they are not the same at all.


You can develop experiments to attempt to prove Darwinism? I'm intrigued...do explain how. Darwinism is a theory that requires the passage of eons to explain the status quo -- and none of us were around to witness if what Darwin proposed is actually what took place. In that sense, Darwinism requires a certain degree of faith. It is after all still a THEORY.

In religion, you don't just believe things "because you do." At least I don't. I would hope nobody does. Just like theories are constantly tested in science, so too personal faith should be tested in religion. Otherwise the followers are led blindly, with nothing on which to base their beliefs.

[James_B_Wads2000]

rockgremlin wrote: You can develop experiments to attempt to prove Darwinism? I'm intrigued...do explain how. Darwinism is a theory that requires the passage of eons to explain the status quo -- and none of us were around to witness if what Darwin proposed is actually what took place. In that sense, Darwinism requires a certain degree of faith. It is after all still a THEORY.

In religion, you don't just believe things "because you do." At least I don't. I would hope nobody does. Just like theories are constantly tested in science, so too personal faith should be tested in religion. Otherwise the followers are led blindly, with nothing on which to base their beliefs.

Rock,

I believe in your basic analogy of your second paragraph. People should ask questions about religion/life and come up with their own conclusions.

But it is clear that you do not understand the definition of scientific theory. Darwinism is no more a religion that Mormonism is a science in the classical sense of the words. Some religious people take issue that “non-believers” do follow a particular doctrine, i.e. Bible, Koran, Book of Momo, L. Ron Hubbard or whatever. So the assumption is made that they have to place their faith in something, that something must be science.

This is an incorrect assumption.

This whole Darwin creationist thing was debated to death in this thread months back:
Grand Canyon: creation vs evolution
Take a read.


James

[rockgremlin]

James_B_Wads2000 wrote: But it is clear that you do not understand the definition of scientific theory....Your assumptions are incorrect.

Ya, you know what? Really don't give a shit anymore...I'm wrong, I acknowledge it, move on....

[DiscGo]

rockgremlin wrote: James_B_Wads2000 wrote: But it is clear that you do not understand the definition of scientific theory....Your assumptions are incorrect.

Ya, you know what? Really don't give a shit anymore...I'm wrong, I acknowledge it, move on....



Nice Gremlin. That really was pretty funny. :haha: