Religulous
Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2008 11:59 pm
Yeah, let's get to the real heart of the matter. It has nothing to do with God.
It has to do with religions. Religions which aren't based on a shred of evidence (all of them), and yet who control the masses in a manner which differs little (if at all) from the way the masses were controlled back in the days of Ancient China and Egypt.
People who say that 'well, without religion why would we bother with morals?' are really saying 'what would happen if there wasn't an institution telling everyone what to think and how to behave?' Wow, that sounds like freedom. Of course, they take credit for something (morals) which are a societal construct, predating organize religion.
Freedom is still something people are afraid of. We are quick to challenge lawyers, politicians or scientists on their facts, but shy away from asking religious heads for the same thing when they say who should be discriminated against, or curtail human rights, or in any other way impede the natural progress and evolution of human society. Why should people feel the need to be polite around Young earth creationists, fundamentalists (Christian or Muslim), Mormon (who endorse racism), etc.? We attack ugly political views, but socially unacceptable religious views are OK even when they can be shown to have not the slightest foundation in fact?
The worst part is so many will see this film, and the views I'm throwing out there as a wedge between religion and atheism, but this isn't really true. Like Bill Maher, I am amazingly happy to see how some religious branches (most mainstream Christianity, etc.) has evolved alongside human culture, rejecting literalism of the bible for reason and morality; embracing both science and humanity. Well this is what I hope is true--although when one wagers against ignorance, they find they are wrong quite often.
Anyway, I really enjoyed this film (though at times it is like kicking an old man who can't get up), and I'm sure with our discussion of Sarah Palin, a good ol' religious butt-whooping seems to be in order.
It has to do with religions. Religions which aren't based on a shred of evidence (all of them), and yet who control the masses in a manner which differs little (if at all) from the way the masses were controlled back in the days of Ancient China and Egypt.
People who say that 'well, without religion why would we bother with morals?' are really saying 'what would happen if there wasn't an institution telling everyone what to think and how to behave?' Wow, that sounds like freedom. Of course, they take credit for something (morals) which are a societal construct, predating organize religion.
Freedom is still something people are afraid of. We are quick to challenge lawyers, politicians or scientists on their facts, but shy away from asking religious heads for the same thing when they say who should be discriminated against, or curtail human rights, or in any other way impede the natural progress and evolution of human society. Why should people feel the need to be polite around Young earth creationists, fundamentalists (Christian or Muslim), Mormon (who endorse racism), etc.? We attack ugly political views, but socially unacceptable religious views are OK even when they can be shown to have not the slightest foundation in fact?
The worst part is so many will see this film, and the views I'm throwing out there as a wedge between religion and atheism, but this isn't really true. Like Bill Maher, I am amazingly happy to see how some religious branches (most mainstream Christianity, etc.) has evolved alongside human culture, rejecting literalism of the bible for reason and morality; embracing both science and humanity. Well this is what I hope is true--although when one wagers against ignorance, they find they are wrong quite often.
Anyway, I really enjoyed this film (though at times it is like kicking an old man who can't get up), and I'm sure with our discussion of Sarah Palin, a good ol' religious butt-whooping seems to be in order.