FARK.com: (3949587) A leading theologian says the most absurd thing about religion is all those robes priests have to wear

If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

		A leading theologian says the most absurd thing about religion is all those robes priests have to wear (telegraph.co.uk)		198
		More: Interesting

• • •

7346 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 Oct 2008 at 11:38 PM | Favorite | share:

Share this link:

URL:

http://fark.com/go/3949587

Bookmark:

Article Comments close

198 Comments (+0 »)

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

mepiget		2008-10-17 01:28:20 AM

GaryGobulcoque:
PS, atheists don't have goals. An atheist is someone who does not believe in god. That's it. There's no atheist lobbying group or something.

You're correct in saying that the semantic mapping of the word atheist does not necessarily denote any goals or anything of the sort, but when you look at individual atheists you see that many of them possess social goals; these goals tend to be fairly homogeneous and interrelated. When I say that I support their goals, I mean that I support those goals which are stereotypically ascribed to atheists - and in particular those ascribed to them by that whosits guy whose login I've already forgotten, you know, the guy to whom I replied when I made my Boobies in this thread. (I don't want to click the back button.)

mepiget		2008-10-17 01:35:05 AM

Crosshair:
But the silliest thing about your post is what you are preaching. You are trying to kill an idea. That's like trying to shoot down a cloud. Ideas cannot be forcibly killed. You can kill entire populations, yet those ideas will survive. People can, through their own choice, stop following those ideas. Even then, those ideas remain in our history. To wipe them from history is to wipe the lessons learned from people trying those ideas, dooming us to repeat them.

I didn't say that it was anywhere approaching the realm of possibility, but in an ideal world, yes, these ideas would be eliminated.

But, in truth, it really isn't impossible to eliminate these ideas or at least, through commutation of them or attitudes about them, a moiety of their malignancy. Look at the Greek myths. These were once religious in nature, but now their only use is entertainment and the elucidation of the matter why Greek, Roman, and Egyptian societies took what forms they did. One could conceivably achieve the same thing with Christian mythos, although I won't purport that it could be done in anything like a prompt or timely fashion.

thundercleese		2008-10-17 01:35:29 AM

abb3w		2008-10-17 01:37:09 AM

ninjakirby: Don't like the clothes, don't belong to the group!

Or, y'know, persuade the group/heirarchy to adopt some more comfortable distinctive dress?

ninjakirby		2008-10-17 01:39:30 AM

Oznog: Why, I ask, it doesn't make much sense
that a man of my stature should have to wear a dress
I mean, what may I inquire
were you thinking in that day
when you conjured up for a man like me
a robe that looks so gaaaaay

I know the guy who made that video. Was in his guild for a while.

GaryGobulcoque		2008-10-17 01:41:37 AM

Crosshair: The greatest slaughters of the 20th century were committed by people who were not governed, or significantly influenced, by religion. Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot Using your standard, the writings of Karl Marx and Hitler should be banned and the idea of Socialism wiped from the earth.

None of those had nothing to do with religion. Hitler was catholic, btw. But the common thing between them was that they killed for reasons other than religious reasons. Now look at 9/11, look at the crusades, look at the jihads. Those were all done in the name of religion. When was the last time someone killed in the name of atheism?

I'm not sure whether your point was that religion is not the only reason people kill (which I agree with, obv) or that the people you mentioned killed because they were atheists (which I've actually heard about a million farking times and the stupidity is getting farking annoying.) If it's the former, never mind. If it's the latter, go become an hero.

strafe		2008-10-17 01:44:04 AM

nekom: The most absurd thing about religion is that most preach forgiveness and love for your fellow man, while in practice very few people actually follow those particular teachings. Even an atheist can wear ridiculous robes.

Well yeah. Why do you think they have to keep preaching it over and over and over? If people did it automatically there wouldn't be much point in bringing it up every Sunday.

Crosshair		2008-10-17 01:45:01 AM

mepiget: I don't even understand how a person can hold such an opinion. It really and truly boggles my mind.

I don't understand how someone can vote for Obama. It really and truly boggles my mind.

We all have different views and opinions. Some of us have our views and mind our own business, others try to force them onto others. Some views can be easily explained some are more personal and theological.

As for me, my view on homosexuality comes mainly from my personal interpretation of the bible. Others would likely have a different interpretation from the same material. I respect their differing opinion. I'm not trying to force my view on homosexuality onto anyone else and feel no need to explain it as it does not affect anyone but myself.

Would I sign a petition to allow gay marriage? No. Would I sign one to ban it? No as well. I have no direct stake in the issue, only my personal views.

As I said before, I personally believe it is wrong, but it is equally wrong for me to FORCE that view onto someone else when a view such as this has no concrete wright and wrong answer. (At least not that I have found.)

We all have our prejudices, (If you say you don't, you're lying.) what we do with them is what is important. Do we use them to rule our own lives? Do we not let them rule our lives? Or do we try to impose them on the lives of others?

mandingueiro		2008-10-17 01:49:21 AM

ninjakirby: Yo, Bishop - People wear distinctive clothing to communicate their belonging to a specific group or social structure. Don't like the clothes, don't belong to the group!

what are you? some social scientist?

cr0sh		2008-10-17 01:51:19 AM

mepiget: /The fact that atheism, from an epistemological perspective, is nearly as stupid and insane as theism is another matter entirely. I support the goals of atheists while I regard them as somewhat foolish for their outright and unequivocal denial of the proposition that God exists when there exists little evidence to warrant such an action.

So, you are claiming that it is possible for fairys, leprechans, elves and invisible pink unicorns to exist as well? Why should it be statistically possible for God to exist (even if the probability is a very small), but these others not?

mandingueiro		2008-10-17 01:51:25 AM

wish more women would dress like ninjas

Crosshair		2008-10-17 01:51:44 AM

GaryGobulcoque: None of those had nothing to do with religion.

That is exactly my point. Evil people do evil things. (Sometimes good people do evil things too.) Sometimes religion is worth of blame. Other times it is used as a convenient scapegoat. You seem to like to paint it with a wide brush.

BTW, Hitler didn't kill the Jews in the name of god. As for the Crusades, they were a response to Muslim aggression and attacks toward Europe. Not saying that everything the Crusaders did was justified though.

mepiget		2008-10-17 01:52:13 AM

Yeah, we shouldn't strive to obliterate religion. (new window)

Having watched that video, I have little respect for those who believe in the concept of freedom of religion. The phrase "freedom of religion" to me is comparable to the phrase "freedom of killing people" considering just how horrendously destructive religion is.

mepiget		2008-10-17 01:54:28 AM

cr0sh:

So, you are claiming that it is possible for fairys, leprechans, elves and invisible pink unicorns to exist as well? Why should it be statistically possible for God to exist (even if the probability is a very small), but these others not?

Yes, it's possible that they exist. It's even possible that the sun does not. How can one say with total certainty? I won't invest any energy whatever into these ideas or live my life as if they were true, however, until I have some decent evidence to support them.

mandingueiro		2008-10-17 01:56:38 AM

cr0sh: mepiget: /The fact that atheism, from an epistemological perspective, is nearly as stupid and insane as theism is another matter entirely. I support the goals of atheists while I regard them as somewhat foolish for their outright and unequivocal denial of the proposition that God exists when there exists little evidence to warrant such an action.

So, you are claiming that it is possible for fairys, leprechans, elves and invisible pink unicorns to exist as well? Why should it be statistically possible for God to exist (even if the probability is a very small), but these others not?

philosophers like Robin Collins would offer evidence to the contrary. Although, personally i concur with collins argument up to a certain point, his argument falls apart when he starts anthropomorphosizing God. Otherwise his arguments are hard to refute. However by equating god to unicorns renders your arguments invalid. The two are not defined as the same.

/agnostic leaning HEAVILY toward atheism.

Gyrfalcon		2008-10-17 02:00:11 AM

"We'll soon change your mind about THAT!"

healthcare.zdnet.com

rko281		2008-10-17 02:10:05 AM

To those who tossed out the ad-hominen attacks, yes, I was expecting that, and thanks for solidifying my point. Energy well spent?

Oznog		2008-10-17 02:10:35 AM

Honestly, how do you fight in these things??

Have you ever seen somebody wear robes in a karate match, or boxing, or doing gymnastics or ice skating? NO!!! Because you can't freakin move smothered under a blanket like this!

ninjakirby		2008-10-17 02:10:40 AM

mandingueiro: ninjakirby: Yo, Bishop - People wear distinctive clothing to communicate their belonging to a specific group or social structure. Don't like the clothes, don't belong to the group!

what are you? some social scientist?

Perhaps eventually.

texasjoe		2008-10-17 02:12:05 AM

Some Wiccans worship nekkid.

The whole country should adopt Nevada's liquor laws. If you're 21, then booze is available 24/7. I would change that by dropping the age to buy from 21 to 18. If an area does the wet/dry thing, then tax the local churches. Claim to be making up lost tax revenue and added law enforcement costs of extra drunks who have to travel to get their drinks.

Why can't I get a drink when I get off work at 6:30 on Sunday morning? Because I have to open the cooler in the back of my van.

Broadside		2008-10-17 02:12:21 AM

Wait. So robes are outdated, but celibacy is still all the rage?

ultraholland		2008-10-17 02:15:56 AM

I can agree with some of the religious garb

farm4.static.flickr.com

mandingueiro: wish more women would dress like ninjas

Older photoshop entry of mine

farm4.static.flickr.com

Advantage: Ninjas

GaryGobulcoque		2008-10-17 02:15:59 AM

Crosshair: That is exactly my point. Evil people do evil things.

Okay. That's what I wasn't sure of. So many people have told me "well Hitler and Stalin were atheists" whenever I bring up the problems religion have caused. I would argue that evil doesn't exist though, and that Hitler, Stalin, Mao and all of them genuinely believed that they were doing the right thing. That's something for another time though.

Crosshair: BTW, Hitler didn't kill the Jews in the name of god

I know. I just mentioned he was catholic because I thought you might be making the Hitler was an atheist argument.

Crosshair: As for the Crusades, they were a response to Muslim aggression and attacks toward Europe. Not saying that everything the Crusaders did was justified though.

I don't argue that only Christianity is bad. That's why I mentioned the jihads in the same sentence as the crusades. I argue that religion in general leads to crap like this. Christianity has evolved, or rather Christians have evolved so they now ignore the parts of their religion that tells them this type of behavior is acceptable. But that doesn't change what the bible says. Similarly, many Muslims have started ignoring the part of their religion that tells them to kill all the outsiders. Thanks to the theocracy in the middle east though, there are still many who read their book of fairy tales and then blow themselves up in a public market.

GaryGobulcoque		2008-10-17 02:18:25 AM

mepiget: Having watched that video, I have little respect for those who believe in the concept of freedom of religion. The phrase "freedom of religion" to me is comparable to the phrase "freedom of killing people" considering just how horrendously destructive religion is.

Meh. Freedom of thought. I can't in good conscious support the right of racists to speak their mind and then say that religion should be banned. It doesn't matter how stupid and destructive something is, people should still be allowed to think it.

mandingueiro		2008-10-17 02:24:16 AM

ninjakirby: mandingueiro: ninjakirby: Yo, Bishop - People wear distinctive clothing to communicate their belonging to a specific group or social structure. Don't like the clothes, don't belong to the group!

what are you? some social scientist?

Perhaps eventually.

yeah, me too.

Broadside		2008-10-17 02:28:08 AM

GaryGobulcoque: Christians have evolved so they now ignore the parts of their religion that tells them this type of behavior is acceptable.

1095 - Western society, told by its leadership that the muslims in the Holy Land posed a grave danger to its way of life and future security, ultimately invades and conquers muslim territory, in the name of God.

2001, 2003 - Western society, told by it's leadership that certain muslims in the middle east posed a grave danger to its way of life and future security, ultimately invades and conquers muslim territories, in the name of democracy.

Vangor		2008-10-17 02:34:11 AM

Crosshair:BTW, Hitler didn't kill the Jews in the name of god. As for the Crusades, they were a response to Muslim aggression and attacks toward Europe.

Hitler exploited his masses well be they Protestants, Catholics or Germanic 'Pagan'. I am positive that Hitler, himself, did not slaughter six million Jewish people, but Hitler learned well from the antisemitic rhetoric of Luther to persuade the Christian population, the Vatican disarmed the Catholic people as a political party and approved of his antisemitic rhetoric in turn, and the occult nonsense about purity of blood persuaded the fringe faithful.

To say he did not kill Jews in the name of god is possibly correct, but a great deal of the Nazi party believed they were doing so for their respective deity. Thus, it is semantics to make the two distinct for the purposes of such a discussion.

As for the Crusades, his point was religious influence. The Muslim assault into the Byzantine empire was decidedly less religious in nature, and merely conquest, than the call to arms by the Pope. But, in either case we're still speaking of religious influence into those activities.

Notice, when you say "I personally believe it is wrong," in reference to homosexuality, what you truly mean to say is what you previously said, "my view on homosexuality comes mainly from my personal interpretation of the bible." You have no personal belief in homosexuality being wrong except your personal belief in the authority of the Bible. Lacking religion, such a belief dissipates in a modicum of interaction with other people.

This religious belief of yours causes you to numerous times suppose that when a person mentions the problems of religion, which still did foster the horrors of the Inquisition, the Crusades, Jewish Pogroms, the conflict in Ireland, the Yugoslavian wars, and stifled education, medical research, etc., that they are referring to your religion in particular in all cases. Read through your comments.

My point of that is you have a team mentality which is a root of the divisive danger which religion presents, and reinforces itself heavily with a divine authority and a chance to die without regard.

hyperspacemonkey		2008-10-17 02:36:17 AM

Vangor		2008-10-17 02:39:37 AM

hyperspacemonkey None of those are necessary for creation to exist. What kind of stupid question was that?

...how can you be sure you don't need fairy dust for creation to exist?

There, fairies are now as likely as gods and apparently Occam's Razor being applied to the natural laws of the universe which have no necessity of supernatural forces to act upon them.

GaryGobulcoque		2008-10-17 02:42:41 AM

Broadside: 2001, 2003 - Western society, told by it's leadership that certain muslims in the middle east posed a grave danger to its way of life and future security, ultimately invades and conquers muslim territories, in the name of democracy.

Democracy, not religion. They're not doing it to get at the holy land. The target happens to be the same, but the motivation isn't. Oh, and it wasn't for democracy. It was because ~~Saddam did 9/11Saddam had WMDs.~~ Okay, maybe it was democracy.

ultraholland		2008-10-17 02:47:02 AM

Vangor: hyperspacemonkey None of those are necessary for creation to exist. What kind of stupid question was that?

...how can you be sure you don't need fairy dust for creation to exist?

There, fairies are now as likely as gods and apparently Occam's Razor being applied to the natural laws of the universe which have no necessity of supernatural forces to act upon them.

Vangor, you ignorant puss bucket. You think you're real cute joking about fairy dust used in creation, huh? Well I've got news for you, pal - it was actually unicorn semen, not fairy dust. Get your shiat together.

Vangor		2008-10-17 02:47:59 AM

Broadside in the name of ~~democracy~~ payback for slighting Bush Sr., removing funding for social programs, corporate benefits such as no bid contracts, executive power grabs, and government power extension by embroiling us in a conflict with an unstable country with no threatening military presence.

FTFY

Z1P2		2008-10-17 02:50:01 AM

Riiighht, the robes are the most absurd thing... because worshipping a fictional allpowerful character who had to "die" for your transgressions of various whimsical rules that he imposed himself, and although allpowerful; couldn't just void the rules... But half of which seemed to not be enforced anymore once he started writing the second half of his book... so he had to die for your sins, but then he didn't die, instead he just played dead for three days, which has to make you wonder if your sins are really covered or not... plus, you have to wonder what kind of allpowerful creature would make arbitrary rules for you to have to try and keep just to prove that you love him, even though you've never seen or heard from him, which really just makes you realize that the whole thing is just a ruse to make you hand over some of your hard earned money to a church leader who just wants money and power.

yeah, because that's not absurd at all... definately the robes must be more absurd.

yarnothuntin		2008-10-17 02:50:10 AM

Just to jump in real quick like- All of you "religion caused so many wars!!" peeps this is for you: Wars are waged for money, power and land. To get somebody to kill for these things can be difficult in and of itself but, what is even more difficult is getting people to die for those things, especially people who have no direct benifit from said goals. In order to get people to die for those things you have to appeal to something deeper. God, freedom, "way of life" so on are things your common solder has emotional attachments to and so are easier to manipulate into dying for them.

As an atheist myself, I can not tell you how much I dispise atheists. For the most part, they are narrow minded, intollorant, petty people who practice and preach the same intollorance they seemingly strive to eliminate.

yarnothuntin		2008-10-17 02:54:36 AM

hrm, I guess I should have proof-read some of that. Ah well, you get the point.

GaryGobulcoque		2008-10-17 02:56:33 AM

yarnothuntin: As an atheist myself, I can not tell you how much I ~~dispise~~ despise atheists. For the most part, they are narrow minded, ~~intollorant~~ intolerant, petty people who practice and preach the same ~~intollorance~~ intolerance they seemingly strive to eliminate.

No, not really. I'm a huge supporter of the freedom of religion, which comes under the essential right of the freedom of thought. They get to think whatever they want (that the earth is 6000 years old and there was a zombie Jew who walked on water) and I get to think they're idiots.

GaryGobulcoque		2008-10-17 02:57:14 AM

yarnothuntin: hrm, I guess I should have proof-read some of that. Ah well, you get the point.

Okay, now I feel bad for correcting your spelling. At least you realized it was wrong afterwards.

Z1P2		2008-10-17 02:59:41 AM

yarnothuntin: Just to jump in real quick like- All of you "religion caused so many wars!!" peeps this is for you: Wars are waged for money, power and land. To get somebody to kill for these things can be difficult in and of itself but, what is even more difficult is getting people to die for those things, especially people who have no direct benifit from said goals. In order to get people to die for those things you have to appeal to something deeper. God, freedom, "way of life" so on are things your common solder has emotional attachments to and so are easier to manipulate into dying for them.

religion is all about duping people into handing over their money, power, and land, too, so what's your point?

Gyrfalcon		2008-10-17 02:59:46 AM

I want to resurrect worship of Kali so I have an excuse to strangle people and dismember their bodies in the name of religion.

It would make an interesting case before the Supreme Court.

Vangor		2008-10-17 03:02:21 AM

yarnothuntin All of you "religion caused so many wars!!" peeps this is for you

Care you to point out any such 'peeps' in this thread?

As far as I can tell, amongst us are people who are mocking the theologian, people who are suggesting religion has some culpability in conflicts, and a few of us merely mocking some ridiculous arguments.

yarnothuntin		2008-10-17 03:07:44 AM

GaryGobulcoque: yarnothuntin: hrm, I guess I should have proof-read some of that. Ah well, you get the point.

Okay, now I feel bad for correcting your spelling. At least you realized it was wrong afterwards.

Well, I just knew there would be some douche with a red pen following me around...

GaryGobulcoque		2008-10-17 03:08:46 AM

yarnothuntin: Well, I just knew there would be some douche with a red pen following me around...

Yup. It's as reliable as a Godwin.

Vangor		2008-10-17 03:11:41 AM

GaryGobulcoque: yarnothuntin: Well, I just knew there would be some douche with a red pen following me around...

Yup. It's as reliable as a Godwin.

You know who was as reliable as a Godwin?

yarnothuntin		2008-10-17 03:21:05 AM

Vangor: GaryGobulcoque: yarnothuntin: Well, I just knew there would be some douche with a red pen following me around...

Yup. It's as reliable as a Godwin.

You know who was as reliable as a Godwin?

HEH

3rdLostPassword		2008-10-17 03:23:50 AM

Or IS IT?

/hieronymusly

SpockSarah		2008-10-17 03:25:07 AM

Crosshair: Would I sign a petition to allow gay marriage? No. Would I sign one to ban it? No as well. I have no direct stake in the issue, only my personal views.

Honestly, this confuses me. You would deny equal rights to a whole segment of society by inaction? By just staying out of it? Although I am an atheist, I would sign a petition for free worship of anything people chose to worship (as long as no one gets hurt in the process) even though I personally have "no direct stake in it."

I am not trying to be argumentative or anything even close to that, but is not one of the tenants of Christianity that you do everything to help your fellow man? If an eye offends pluck it from your face? The famous quote that "I did nothing when they came for the Jews..." tells us that inaction and apathy is a dangerous thing.

No one is asking for you to go to a pride parade or to join P-FLAG. But if someone came to you with a petition, you would chose to just deny these rights? Like a lie of omission, it is a denial of rights. And yes, I say rights, because marriage is not defined as "special right" for straight people, why would it be for gay people?

Honestly, I am curious. Why is it OK to deny rights to someone, just because of who they love?

Gyrfalcon		2008-10-17 03:25:22 AM

3rdLostPassword: Or IS IT?

/hieronymusly

Yeah, but didn't he have ergotism?

Crid		2008-10-17 03:25:44 AM

A leading theologian says ~~the most absurd thing about religion is all those robes priests have to wear~~ it's a load of dingo's kidneys

FTFY

GaryGobulcoque		2008-10-17 03:26:55 AM

GaryGobulcoque: Yup. It's as reliable as a Godwin.

SpockSarah: The famous quote that "I did nothing when they came for the Jews..." tells us that inaction and apathy is a dangerous thing.

lol.

whatshisname		2008-10-17 03:29:01 AM

yarnothuntin:
As an atheist myself, I can not tell you how much I dispise atheists. For the most part, they are narrow minded, intollorant, petty people who practice and preach the same intollorance they seemingly strive to eliminate.

I think you're probably relating all atheists to a few vocal college kids or radicals. Maybe it's an American thing - where there are so few of you that you all have big mouths and want to tell the world about your beliefs.

In countries where religion is less prevalent, you have no idea who's an atheist and who goes to the Church once a month.

Displayed 50 of 198 comments