What do you think is the funniest thing about religion or athiesm?

answers said:
I think it's pretty funny that religious people believe when they pray to god they can hear god speak back to them.
Click to expand...

I don't think it humorous at all. Insanity on such a grand scale ruling over the earth isn't funny. It's terrifying.
 
decons said:
Religious ideas are not the causes of violence and fatal ignorance. Most of the believers are not violent people and their reasons are as human as the ones I wrote above. It is about how they are mobilized by some political minds and in which circumstances they become successful.

An ordinary believer has no time to prevent scientific research or intervene the way other people use their own body. In fact, they would not hesitate to use the benefits of science. These tasks require people who make it their job. The conditions in which they thrive are subject to social, political, and historical examination.

An atheist should know better than arguing about something s/he thinks doesn't exist. This discussion has no end until the atheist creates a god and they all believe it.

I think it is an atheist's self-betrayal to spend time on an idea that doesn't change through discussion. If one values the material conditions, one needs to spends time on understanding them.
Click to expand...

It's true that there might be human reasons for violence and ignorance in the first place, but it is also true that religion nurtures and sustains violence and ignorance in some areas that would otherwise naturally die out.

An atheist should know better than arguing about something s/he thinks doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

You should know better; that there are reasonable arguments against some things existing. The material conditions right now include people that believe in irrational ideas, and that's what I like to spend time understanding. I have seen people's opinions change on the matter.
 
Grim_Reaper said:
Well if you empathize with other people you are sharing there feeling not their thoughts so by this statement you feel there is a life after death and you feel there is a GOD and you feel religion is not funny. Is that correct I still stand by my original post the funny thing about religion is religion and they way people use it as a shield instead of just being themselves.
Click to expand...

When I used the word "empathy", I meant "identification with and understanding of another's situation, feelings, and motives"*. If I shared the same feeling, I wouldn't try to identify myself with it, I would already know it.

By the way, the editing on my previous post was about replacing "understand" with "imagine", as it is impossible to completely understand another person.

* http://www.thefreedictionary.com/empathy
 
spidergoat said:
It's true that there might be human reasons for violence and ignorance in the first place, but it is also true that religion nurtures and sustains violence and ignorance in some areas that would otherwise naturally die out.
Click to expand...

Religion, by itself, does nothing. This is why it is open to interpretations and varying practices. If it was up to religion, you would find nobody to argue on its behalf, because religious rules don't change. If there are people who are not content with their own practice of religion, and feel the need to impose it on others with violence or otherwise, then it is a human power relation being visible and thus being subject to analysis within its material conditions.
 
spidergoat said:
It's true that there might be human reasons for violence and ignorance in the first place, but it is also true that religion nurtures and sustains violence and ignorance in some areas that would otherwise naturally die out.
Click to expand...

true, but this can be said of ideologies and -isms in general. consider descartes' (et al) assertions about the "animal": such notions have "justified" generation upon generation of barbarity against the other. communism? "freedom"? (the "freedom-haters" must be vanquished).

and this is true not just of violence, but of ignorance as well. alternately, one could argue that buddhism was largely responsible for the lack of advancement in indian medical science: prohibitions against vivisection. and of all the -isms which discourage one from entertaining the perspective of their "enemies."
 
parmalee said:
true, but this can be said of ideologies and -isms in general. consider descartes' (et al) assertions about the "animal": such notions have "justified" generation upon generation of barbarity against the other. communism? "freedom"? (the "freedom-haters" must be vanquished).

and this is true not just of violence, but of ignorance as well. alternately, one could argue that buddhism was largely responsible for the lack of advancement in indian medical science: prohibitions against vivisection. and of all the -isms which discourage one from entertaining the perspective of their "enemies."
Click to expand...

If rational discourse and reasonable doubt are encouraged, most "isms" do not suffer the same thing that faith-based religions do.
 
spidergoat said:
If rational discourse and reasonable doubt are encouraged, most "isms" do not suffer the same thing that faith-based religions do.
Click to expand...

unfortunately, encouraging such and effecting such are two very different things. and many -isms that are not commonly described as "religions" do very much rest upon faith in something; i mean, most -isms do posit certain a priori assumptions and pre-suppositions.
 
spidergoat said:
If rational discourse and reasonable doubt are encouraged, most "isms" do not suffer the same thing that faith-based religions do.
Click to expand...

No "-ism" can stand to critical thinking. Being called an "-ism" is destructive for a school of thought. It draws the boundaries forever. But when we think about an "-ism", we must bear in mind that it might be called an "-ism" only because of its followers. It might only tell about the needs of its followers, rather than the idea.
 
That's rather beside the point. A scientific "ism" is inherently subject to criticism. Other "isms" are religious in nature in that they cannot be questioned, such as Communism.
 
spidergoat said:
That's rather beside the point. A scientific "ism" is inherently subject to criticism. Other "isms" are religious in nature in that they cannot be questioned, such as Communism.
Click to expand...

Who says communism cannot be questioned?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top