Religulous: The Movie

[quote]haney1 wrote:
kaaleppi wrote:
Lonnie123 wrote:

I want to see something real, something concrete. I want to see the stars rearrange themselves and spell out “Lonnie, This is God” and I want there to be evidence that it actually happened. If God will truly punish me for not believing in Him, he owes it to me to prove his existence to the level of my skepticism… He created me knowing full well I would be skeptical after all, right? If he does not satisfy my curiosity, then he is the one damning me to Hell, not me.

Isn’t that a bit idealistic stance? Who cares if you damn god morally when you burn eternally in hell. In fact, it would be perfectly logical given how life in general goes. Steveo or someone else of the believers on this board have made that point before and I think it is a good one. God, if he/she exists, owes you nothing but you owe everything.

sigh
Why oh Why does every still hold this idea of hell being a physical fire that burns are non-physical entity like a soul?

[/quote]

…because most of them have some literal interpretation or idea of what the scripture actually says which prevents any deeper thought into it…because they want to initially believe it all to be bogus so they don’t bother.

I do have to say that anyone who has been given life and can’t see that as a gift (even if they didn’t ask for it…like any of us asked to be born) makes me wonder why they think their view of life itself is so accurate.

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…it would only be logical if i asked to be born, but i didn’t. So i owe nothing to nobody. [/quote]

Blasphemy. According to Mormon doctrine, we all lived with God in the preexistence and chose to be born (except for the followers of Satan, who will never receive a physical body).

It actually makes more sense to me that way. At least you have a say in your ultimate destiny, unlike many religions which fabricate a fickle God who decides your destiny for you.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
haney1 wrote:
kaaleppi wrote:
Lonnie123 wrote:

I want to see something real, something concrete. I want to see the stars rearrange themselves and spell out “Lonnie, This is God” and I want there to be evidence that it actually happened. If God will truly punish me for not believing in Him, he owes it to me to prove his existence to the level of my skepticism… He created me knowing full well I would be skeptical after all, right? If he does not satisfy my curiosity, then he is the one damning me to Hell, not me.

Isn’t that a bit idealistic stance? Who cares if you damn god morally when you burn eternally in hell. In fact, it would be perfectly logical given how life in general goes. Steveo or someone else of the believers on this board have made that point before and I think it is a good one. God, if he/she exists, owes you nothing but you owe everything.

sigh
Why oh Why does every still hold this idea of hell being a physical fire that burns are non-physical entity like a soul?

…because most of them have some literal interpretation or idea of what the scripture actually says which prevents any deeper thought into it…because they want to initially believe it all to be bogus so they don’t bother.

I do have to say that anyone who has been given life and can’t see that as a gift (even if they didn’t ask for it…like any of us asked to be born) makes me wonder why they think their view of life itself is so accurate.[/quote]

I think it should be a requirement in High school to learn how to read ancient literature correctly. It would enlighten our understanding of ancient people. At the very least it would make Shakespeare, or Homer’s work understandable.

[quote]ephrem wrote:
kaaleppi wrote:
Lonnie123 wrote:

I want to see something real, something concrete. I want to see the stars rearrange themselves and spell out “Lonnie, This is God” and I want there to be evidence that it actually happened. If God will truly punish me for not believing in Him, he owes it to me to prove his existence to the level of my skepticism… He created me knowing full well I would be skeptical after all, right? If he does not satisfy my curiosity, then he is the one damning me to Hell, not me.

Isn’t that a bit idealistic stance? Who cares if you damn god morally when you burn eternally in hell. In fact, it would be perfectly logical given how life in general goes. Steveo or someone else of the believers on this board have made that point before and I think it is a good one. God, if he/she exists, owes you nothing but you owe everything.

…it would only be logical if i asked to be born, but i didn’t. So i owe nothing to nobody. Besides, i’d rather go to hell than spend eternity with christians in heaven (-:

[/quote]

This point of view is actually an encapsulation of how modern philosophers in political theory (Rawls, V.O. Quine) taught the rest of the elite to think — if you were born with brains or inherited money, you were simply lucky. You didn’t EARN those brains or money, so society is free to vote them away from you.

…i have my parents to thank for bringing me into the world, and i have myself to thank for bringing me through life’s trials to where i am now. We all find comfort in something, and for me i find comfort in knowing that in a virtually infinite universe, the chance of life evolving from nothing, given enough time, is 1/1…

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
Lonnie123 wrote:

I want to see something real, something concrete. I want to see the stars rearrange themselves and spell out “Lonnie, This is God” and I want there to be evidence that it actually happened. If God will truly punish me for not believing in Him, he owes it to me to prove his existence to the level of my skepticism… He created me knowing full well I would be skeptical after all, right? If he does not satisfy my curiosity, then he is the one damning me to Hell, not me.

Isn’t that a bit idealistic stance? Who cares if you damn god morally when you burn eternally in hell. In fact, it would be perfectly logical given how life in general goes. Steveo or someone else of the believers on this board have made that point before and I think it is a good one. God, if he/she exists, owes you nothing but you owe everything.[/quote]

God wants me to believe in him correct? I can say this because it says so in the books he has apparently inspired to be written. If I believe in him I go to heaven for the rest of time, if I do not, I go to hell for the rest of time.

If God wants me to believe in him, and God has created me as the kind of person I am (ie the kind of person who requires evidence for their beliefs) than it most certainly is up to God to show me the requisite evidence, or else HE is damning ME to hell, I am not damning myself. Not to mention the punishment is wildly unjust, but thats another topic.

If God does not show me the evidence required to believe in him than he is not a moral being, and therefore not subject to any sort of worship in the slightest.

[quote]Professor X wrote:

I do have to say that anyone who has been given life and can’t see that as a gift (even if they didn’t ask for it…like any of us asked to be born) makes me wonder why they think their view of life itself is so accurate.[/quote]

Where are you getting the idea that people who do not believe in God do not see life as a gift? I really dont see how people WITH a belief in God can see this as a gift considering they expect to live FOR ETERNITY in “heaven.” Kinda makes the few short years you have on Earth pale in comparison, right? Or maybe, just maybe, you should damn well make the most out of those years because after that, thats it.

From Richard Dawkins:

[quote]We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born. The potential people who could have been here in my place but who will in fact never see the light of day outnumber the sand grains of Arabia. Certainly those unborn ghosts include greater poets than Keats, scientists greater than Newton. We know this because the set of possible people allowed by our DNA so massively exceeds the set of actual people. In the teeth of these stupefying odds it is you and I, in our ordinariness, that are here.

Moralists and theologians place great weight upon the moment of conception, seeing it as the instant at which the soul comes into existence. If, like me, you are unmoved by such talk, you still must regard a particular instant, nine months before your birth, as the most decisive event in your personal fortunes. It is the moment at which your consciousness suddenly became trillions of times more foreseeable than it was a split second before. To be sure, the embryonic you that came into existence still had plenty of hurdles to leap. Most conceptuses end in early abortion before their mother even knew they were there, and we are all lucky not to have done so. Also, there is more to personal identity than genes, as identical twins (who separate after the moment of fertilization) show us. {1} Nevertheless, the instant at which a particular spermatozoon penetrated a particular egg was, in your private hindsight, a moment of dizzying singularity. It was then that the odds against your becoming a person dropped from astronomical to single figures.

The lottery starts before we are conceived. Your parents had to meet, and the conception of each was as improbable as your own. And so on back, through your four grandparents and eight great grandparents, back to where it doesn’t bear thinking about. [/quote]

Now THAT is reverence for life you can only have in the context of a natural process, something you really cant appreciate in the context of religion in my opinion. Comparing that to “God made me in his image to serve him all my life” and you can see why some of us dont think you need religion to enjoy this time on Earth… Rather I think it clouds it and muddy’s the water for what can really be enjoyed about being a human being and being alive in the times we are in.

[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:

God wants me to believe in him correct? I can say this because it says so in the books he has apparently inspired to be written. If I believe in him I go to heaven for the rest of time, if I do not, I go to hell for the rest of time.

If God wants me to believe in him, and God has created me as the kind of person I am (ie the kind of person who requires evidence for their beliefs) than it most certainly is up to God to show me the requisite evidence, or else HE is damning ME to hell, I am not damning myself. Not to mention the punishment is wildly unjust, but thats another topic.

If God does not show me the evidence required to believe in him than he is not a moral being, and therefore not subject to any sort of worship in the slightest. [/quote]

If I rememeber it right, I think it was Steveo’s point, that we don’t know the ways of the lord. We can critisize him, but it is of no importance, our moral indignation doesn’t mean anything. Bow or burn, wasn’t it like that he expressed it? We are not in a position to truly demand anything. I find it to be a strong argument, you either take it or leave it, no bargaining.

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:

If I rememeber it right, I think it was Steveo’s point, that we don’t know the ways of the lord. We can critisize him, but it is of no importance, our moral indignation doesn’t mean anything. Bow or burn, wasn’t it like that he expressed it? We are not in a position to truly demand anything. I find it to be a strong argument, you either take it or leave it, no bargaining.[/quote]

Of course we know the ways of the Lord… He has penned multiple books telling us about His ways. Of course, only one of those is the real book, I’ll leave it to you to figure out which one.

Phrases like “We cannot know the ways of God”, “God works in mysterious ways”, and “God helps those who help themselves” do not serve to show how mysterious God is and how much more above us he is, they show that the idea of God is not logical, not moral, and is a made up entity that was relased into prime time without having all the kinks worked out. Unfortunately they cant release a Bible 2.0 with all the contradictions and moral atrocities taken out or it would readily expose them .

How is what you have proposed (“We dont know”) a strong argument? I see no argument at all there, only the admission of ignorance.

Please take this in the spirit in which it is intended, but you really need to do some reading on this topic. The fact that you think “We cant know Gods ways” is an argument at all, much less a good argument, outs you as someone who does not understand the basics of logic. There is a HUGE unstated major premise in there that you need to prove before you even begin to prove that we cannot know Gods mind.

[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:

Of course we know the ways of the Lord… He has penned multiple books telling us about His ways. Of course, only one of those is the real book, I’ll leave it to you to figure out which one.

Phrases like “We cannot know the ways of God”, “God works in mysterious ways”, and “God helps those who help themselves” do not serve to show how mysterious God is and how much more above us he is, they show that the idea of God is not logical, not moral, and is a made up entity that was relased into prime time without having all the kinks worked out. Unfortunately they cant release a Bible 2.0 with all the contradictions and moral atrocities taken out or it would readily expose them .

How is what you have proposed (“We dont know”) a strong argument? I see no argument at all there, only the admission of ignorance.

Please take this in the spirit in which it is intended, but you really need to do some reading on this topic. The fact that you think “We cant know Gods ways” is an argument at all, much less a good argument, outs you as someone who does not understand the basics of logic. There is a HUGE unstated major premise in there that you need to prove before you even begin to prove that we cannot know Gods mind.[/quote]

I don’t mind that you don’t appreciate my attempts. You have strong opinions and are certain of them. So you are missing my point. One more attempt: If you are building yourself a castle of faith I think it is a killer argument. Unbeatable. A castle of faith is something that e.g. Luther wanted us to build. Your castle of faith seems to be built on logic.

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
Your castle of faith seems to be built on logic.[/quote]

Which makes it NOTHING like a castle of faith. If you have logic and evidence as your foundation for belief, you have absolutely no need for faith.

I find it peculiar that people choose to wall off their religion into this area where logic, reason, and evidence do not come into play but demand it in every other area of their life. Why does religion get a free pass in this regard? Why is faith considered a virtue and not a flaw? Accepting claims without evidence is a positive trait? I’ve never understood this.

[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:
kaaleppi wrote:
Your castle of faith seems to be built on logic.

Which makes it NOTHING like a castle of faith. If you have logic and evidence as your foundation for belief, you have absolutely no need for faith.

I find it peculiar that people choose to wall off their religion into this area where logic, reason, and evidence do not come into play but demand it in every other area of their life. Why does religion get a free pass in this regard? Why is faith considered a virtue and not a flaw? Accepting claims without evidence is a positive trait? I’ve never understood this. [/quote]

…it’s psychological. Beliefs are accepted as true in the absence of certainty, on the basis of faith. This means that beliefs are riddled with doubt, and that doubt can only be quenched if enough people support the same [kind of] ideas. It also means that the thought of others not needing the same kind of support for their ideas is incompatable with their worldviews. The way their beliefs function is then superimposed on everyone and everything, and all other views disregarded…

[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:
kaaleppi wrote:
Your castle of faith seems to be built on logic.

Which makes it NOTHING like a castle of faith. If you have logic and evidence as your foundation for belief, you have absolutely no need for faith.

I find it peculiar that people choose to wall off their religion into this area where logic, reason, and evidence do not come into play but demand it in every other area of their life. Why does religion get a free pass in this regard? Why is faith considered a virtue and not a flaw? Accepting claims without evidence is a positive trait? I’ve never understood this. [/quote]

You seem to be allergic to the word faith. I don’t know what to say, I could recommend a book for you, William James: Varieties of religious experience. First published 1902.
Here’s an excerpt from the sleeve notes of my copy:

“The problem I have set myself is a hard one: first, to defend…‘experience’ against ‘philosophy’ as being the real backbone of the world’s religious life… and second, to make the hearer or reader believe, what myself invincibly do believe, that, although all the special manifestations of religion may have been absurd ( I mean its creeds and theories), yet the life of it as a whole is mankind’s most important function.”

Many modern neurosciencentists and evolutionary psychologists do today consider, that religion is a vital ingredient in that what we have become, culture bearers.
James book is exellent read, highly recommended.

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:

You seem to be allergic to the word faith. I don’t know what to say
[/quote]

You only have to ask yourself why you consider this a bad thing. I’m not “allergic to faith” with regards to many things, but these are usually rooted in some type of fact. If my mom invites me over for dinner I have faith that she will provide food when I show up. If my friend says they will pick me up to go downtown, I expect they will show up.

However, if you are asking me to have faith that their is an all powerful, all loving, all knowing God that wants to have a personal relationship with me because he loves me… but will send me to an eternal hell if I dont believe in him even though he does not provide ANY evidence for his existence, well now I dont know what to say.

You also may want to read Carl Sagans “Varieties of scientific experience” since we are recommending books to each other.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
“There are no atheists in foxholes” [/quote]

Thats a better argument against foxholes than atheism.

There are plenty of atheists in foxholes and I found the film to be extremely entertaining and laugh out loud funny in places.

It didn’t have much depth however I don’t think that was its purpose.

[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:
kaaleppi wrote:

You seem to be allergic to the word faith. I don’t know what to say

You only have to ask yourself why you consider this a bad thing. I’m not “allergic to faith” with regards to many things, but these are usually rooted in some type of fact. If my mom invites me over for dinner I have faith that she will provide food when I show up. If my friend says they will pick me up to go downtown, I expect they will show up.

However, if you are asking me to have faith that their is an all powerful, all loving, all knowing God that wants to have a personal relationship with me because he loves me… but will send me to an eternal hell if I dont believe in him even though he does not provide ANY evidence for his existence, well now I dont know what to say.

You also may want to read Carl Sagans “Varieties of scientific experience” since we are recommending books to each other.[/quote]

Are you under the impression that I have tried to convert you? I’m having a discussion with you and I have expressed it as my opinion, that it is worthwile to look at religion as a phenomena, not as a competing worldview. That’s the scientific way to do things, after all. You know, to understand. Know thy enemy.

You can take a bunch of worldviews, put them on your table, sort them out and start to compare them. You’ll find striking similarities. E.g. argumentation.
I said that Steveo’s argument bow or burn is a strong one, sometimes maybe as a tool for proselytizing too, but mainly as a tool to strenghten his fortress of faith (fortress is actually a better word than castle to convey the idea).
Now, the point where I intruded was when you expressed the idea that it was god’s duty to convince you. What you actually did there was that you presented an argument thats main function is to strengthen the fortress, in this case your fortress. It definitely has no power to convince a believer when you say that god owes you something.

Well, that’s all I had to say about that, I think. Thank you for the recommendation. I will read the book, I like Sagan.

[quote]haney1 wrote:
sigh
Why oh Why does every still hold this idea of hell being a physical fire that burns are non-physical entity like a soul?
[/quote]

A little off topic, but everyone should read Dante’s Inferno at some point. The most creative description of hell I have come across. Purgatory and Paradise aren’t as good as Inferno.


I’d have liked to have seen the rest of the interview with this guy.

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
There are plenty of atheists in foxholes and I found the film to be extremely entertaining and laugh out loud funny in places.

It didn’t have much depth however I don’t think that was its purpose.[/quote]

My favorite parts of that film were when he is interviewing the two old Vatican priests who seem to have become inured to the bullshit, and who have no qualms about speaking their mind.

Father Coyne, the Vatican astronomer, has the best line in the movie, on why the Catholic Church is actively pursuing astronomy: “it’s not that the Church wants us to get out there and baptise those extra-terrestrials… before the Mormons get at them!”

I would have liked to have seen a lot more from him, and from Father Reggie Foster.

I’d say that the Catholic Church owes Bill Maher a huge debt of gratitude, for making the Catholic Church seem like the most level-headed and rational religious institution on the planet.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is no mean feat.

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
I’d say that the Catholic Church owes Bill Maher a huge debt of gratitude, for making the Catholic Church seem like the most level-headed and rational religious institution on the planet.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is no mean feat.[/quote]

That’s a really good point - well spotted.

I also agree about seeing more of the Preist outside the Vatican - he was hilarious.