"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich." — Napoleon.
and another:
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject." — Winston Churchill.
one more:
"All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit." — Thomas Paine (1737-1809).
Lastly:
"Faith is believing what you know ain't so." — Mark Twain.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich." — Napoleon.
and another:
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject." — Winston Churchill.
one more:
"All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit." — Thomas Paine (1737-1809).
Lastly:
"Faith is believing what you know ain't so." — Mark Twain.
I really like these, by the way, in case I didn't mention it before. These latter diatribes that are basically about who has read more were starting to get a little boring.
"It ain’t supposed to make sense; it’s faith. Faith is something that you believe that nobody in his right mind would believe."
-- Archie Bunker
"All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit." — Thomas Paine (1737-1809).
I saw it some months back. Not too terribly impressed. Not impressed with Bill Mahar being terribly impressed with himself, actually. A bit self-indulgent and his arguments felt somewhat circular and tinged with bitterness about his own experiences.
In short, it felt like a rant. Not a very funny rant at that.
Haven't seen it; a review I read stated that of the big three, Maher reserves his most caustic attacks for Christianity - his send-ups of the other two being rather limp. The film was hyped though, as an equal opportunity attack of all religions.
Being that its one of the largest (and most aggressive), that's really rather unsurprising.
I am personally pretty comfortable in Dawkins' camp, but that said I would hate a world with no cathedrals, no hymns, no stained glass artwork, no invisible friends to offer comfort. So I respect people's faiths and the various positive contributions religions have made to mankind, and loathe the various crimes and horrors that religion has fostered or that have been (are being) done in its name.
I am really getting tired of self-righteous people fingering various religions for historical crimes. When people get together in large groups, some of them tend to make trouble. End of story.
Absolutely. Religion may or may not enter into it. All you need is a certain degree of commitment/fanaticism/readiness to die for that supposed greater cause.
@ Max, you must agree that religion has proven itself to be the most fertile ground for fanatacism Except, historically we would not have called acts committed in the name of god fanatacism: this is hugely important.
Please don't misunderstand me; I am not saying the worst acts in history have religion as a motivator; I am saying it is the most effective motivator: 2 different things.
Please don't misunderstand me; I am not saying the worst acts in history have religion as a motivator; I am saying it is the most effective motivator: 2 different things.
I don't know that I can agree. In any case, it's not something we can statistically corroborate. And the distinction you make is lost on me; it appears to be so small as to be negligible, seeing as you cast religion as the most effective motivator behind the worst acts of history. I don't even know how you can go about measuring up the substance of such a claim. Much depends on what history books you seek for your sources.
Too, people are often terribly willing to overlook the good deeds done in the name of religious belief. There seems to be a fashionable wave of intolerance for religion in the West, as if it's a nasty vestigial tail of our psyche which inherently impedes progress and which must be subsequently abandoned if we are to move forward. I used to think that thesis was true but nowadays I question this orthodoxy. It often looks as if the anti-religionists have their own fanatical fervor brewing up. It makes me fearful of what we would put in its place. The state? The Benevolent Committee for Nice Non-Religious Feelings and Non-Fanatical Actions? Yikes.
Better the devil you know? Perhaps.
Religion is a weird and powerful thing. Organized religion is even stranger stuff. Often I feel we allow the major religions of the world to push us this way and that and to fight amongst ourselves when we would do better to use our energies for the betterment of life for all - and not just the damn pesky humans and their self-important notions of primacy.
Yet all too often, those who call for the wholesale eradication of religion creep me out... most cries for revolution do.
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Canadian Mac Forums at ehMac
1.5M posts
40.3K members
Since 2001
A forum community dedicated to Canadian Mac owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about collections, iOS, models, styles, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!