LoneWolf Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 Having said that, religion does seem to fill a need in many societies so what you replace it with is difficult to identify. I used to think Marxism had the answer to your question. Not so. Most of the old communist countries replaced the opiate of the masses with the cult of the personality. Just as bad I think. The more so as when I got a bit older, say 25 or so, I realized I wasnt a Marxist but an out and out Capitalist ! Religion then replaced with the worship of money ? I watched Dr Jonathon Miller on TV recently who made the case very well for not following any religion. For myself, I think religion should be a personal choice, something to do or practice in private, and society should not under any circumstances be guided by any particular religious organisation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 I agree with all your comments Lone Wolf, humanity does need some higher authority to look to, be it capitalism, God, or whatever. You need only look at the USSR and the effective outlawing of religious worship during the years of communism. Along came Perestroika and Glasnost and suddenly all religious festivals were observed and religion became very popular. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the-rhymes Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 I agree LoneWolf, atheist ideologies such as communism have just the same potential as religion for making people do bad things. I however would say that I'm a Christian in the broadest sense of the word. I don't go in for deep theological debates I simply think that Jesus had good things to say! Out off all the religions I have studied (In my own basic way) I'm most impressed by the example of this man. The story of the Good Samaritan is wonderful. Jesus taught about kindness, tolerance and passive resistance. It's strange how the teachings of such revolutionaries have been twisted by the establishment to constrict society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 I watched the programme tonight, it was very interesting and really articulated the way I have felt about religion for a long time. It is frightening to see the depth of Christian fundamentalism in the US, 45% of whom (i.e. the entire population) do not believe in evoluntionary theories! The evangelical minister was almost maniacal in his denouncement of scientists as arrogant for doubting the truth of the 'word' based on their own proven and demonstrable theories. It all confirms the view that you have no chance in arguing against someone who just shrugs and says 'but I believe'! The Jew-turned-Muslim was equally worrying (have to say, he was from New York)! Reference was also made to the Vatican's refusal to condone the use of condoms in the fight against Aids, because they believe that the latex has micropores which will allow the virus to escape. In their view, the use of condoms, far from reducing the spread, will actually increase the spread as people will engage in more sexual encounters with condoms, erroneously believing that they will prevent infection! Given that the Catholic church is gaining in popularity in sub-Saharan Africa, and given that the same region is in almost an epidemical grip of the disease, I wonder if the Catholic church will be prepared to cough up some more compensation (after the catalogue of child abuse scandals that have been paid-off) when it is found to have been intrumental in counselling its followers not to use the most simple preventative and cheap measure! No need for a condom when a fresh, young choirboy will do the trick! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amadeus Posted January 9, 2006 Author Share Posted January 9, 2006 Watched it as well - Dawkins seems to be quite firm in his views and opinions, which I think is good - although he's sure to cause some controversy, and gain the hatred of some people with that. The "teapot theory" towards the end summed it up in an interesting way - if you can make enough people believe, then they will even buy into the story of a teapot circling the sun.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 Yes, but the important thing with the teapot theory (put forward by Bertrand Russell, I think) is that it cannot be proven, so cannot be unequivocally disproven, and so will stand! Odd logic, isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoneWolf Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 Yes, but the important thing with the teapot theory (put forward by Bertrand Russell, I think) is that it cannot be proven, so cannot be unequivocally disproven, and so will stand! Odd logic, isn't it? Do I ever wish I had a decent education and could make those quotes. Maybe I wouldnt be stuck doing a nightshift as well ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 You only had to watch the programme, Lone Wolf! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posters Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 I thought the programme was well presented and thought through. I agree with his premise that religion and science are mutually exclusive. I'm looking forward to the next one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theintelligentthug Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 me and the girlie were talking about this last night. maybe the catholic church has it wrong. jesus died on the cross for our sins, right? well maybe, to atone for all of mans sins, the head of the church should be nailed to the cross every year, until we get the point. whaddya think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave the Cardboard Box Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 To have your eyes opened and see the true light, read Richard Dawkins The Selfish Gene and The Blind Watch Maker. They explain the why and wherefore of everything about us, (and every other living organism). We are indeed controlled by another deity, in everything we do. His name is DNA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speckled Frost Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 Is science not becoming the new religion? While it seems to produce tangible results and explanatory theories it also has flaws. Every day there seems to be theories and counter-theories, cancelling each other out - where's the irrefutable proof in that? I'm not pro-religion or anti-science, I just feel uneasy that anyone should have blind faith in anything. Dawkins suggests religion can make good people bad but aren't there also examples of the reverse happening? The guy clearly cherry picks, he has strong feelings so naturally all his arguments have bias. I didn't see the programme but I'd be interested to know whether he made the distinction between organised religion and faith. I'd have thought the arguments would be exclusively levelled at the former. Any theory which can fill a hole in people's outlook, whether in knowledge or spiritually, will evoke powerful influence. There is no reason why scientists couldn't also take advantage of others' ignorance and insecurities for their own gain as religious authorities have done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave the Cardboard Box Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 But...... Dawkins and co rely on something called "Evidence" and "Facts" - a long line of them from Darwin onwards - and the basic Darwin message has hardly changed in 140 years. "Faith" relies on a willingness to be gulled into believing what others tell you, or believe what people wrote in documents up to 4000 years ago, with no evidence. On that basis, Princess Diana, Elvis Presley and Robin Hood will be the Saints and Gods of the year 4006. Meantime, Hydrogen, carbon and oxygen will react in the same way with each for eternity, and those pesky amino acids will never change their minds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bombay Bad Boy Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 You're all Infidels Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 I thought the program lacked balance. All religions have extremists and to just portray them meant for me it lost something. However I did enjoy watching the New Yorker. As a Jew turned Muslim he was always going to have to be Holier than thou but to ask a Liberal Westerner "Why do you let your women dress as whores?" I thought was absolutely classic! A complete and utter (and probably very dangerous) fruitcake. Reference was also made to the Vatican's refusal to condone the use of condoms in the fight against AidsThe way it was explained to me was that there is no sex outside of marriage in the Catholic Faith. Therefore absolutely no requirement for birth control of any kind. QED.We are indeed controlled by another deity, in everything we do. His name is DNA. There is not the slightest doubt that as a species some of us are absolutely obsessed with exchanging DNA! The double helix drives evolution forward but the methodology is split into two camps - the Eventists and the Gradualists. I believe in both. I was surprised that the Bible Belt Evangelist didn't point out that yes you can trace evolution backwards to a distant point but can you not see that it has been guided from the beginning to here? Looking forward to the next one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.