Jump to navigation
Sometimes I wonder if these anti-religious types listen to their own sermons.
Here: religion is human. Isn't that what you've been saying? Then how can you isolate it, cleave it from the human condition? To denounce it as 'bullshit' or to suggest, even subtly, that it is culpable for any proportion of human sin and none of its glory requires the belief that it was handed down from powers on high rather than a social fact created and fostered by our own humanity. Such a belief demands such a leap of faith that would make a Southern Baptist shiver in rapture. Perhaps humanity would benefit if religion were eradicated--a prepostrous thought--but this will only happen if we can cure its genesis. What Marx was really saying when he wrote 'religion is the opiate of the people' is this: Physician, heal thyself!
Here: religion is human. Isn't that what you've been saying? Then how can you isolate it, cleave it from the human condition?
Well, trephining (the act of boring a hole through the skull and dura mater to expose the brain, and to allow evil spirits to escape) is also "human", and it somehow got cleaved, along with a lot of what now seem like ridiculous and anachronistic superstitions. So evidently, it's not as impossible as you make out.
What Marx was really saying when he wrote 'religion is the opiate of the people' is this: Physician, heal thyself!
I always thought he was saying that if you can convince people that they'll live forever in a paradise in the sky when they die, they won't care so badly how much someone makes them suffer here on earth.
It doesn't surprise me that you didn't try to read my post, Snert, but are you suggesting that God gave us the act of trepanation? Who gave it to Galen, the great physician? Zeus? I am suggesting that something human made us think digging into one's skull was a good idea. What are you suggesting?
Then you greatly misread the passage in question.
As someone who is quite bitter about religion (nothing like the zeal of the apostate), I watched this video and found parts of it amusing. I also see very little of value in religion, and much harm.
But I agree with Unionist and Maysie regarding the unequal treatment of the three religions. Judaism and Christianity were given a pretty easy ride compared to Islam, which was portrayed in a much more insulting light.
And honestly, I just don't see the point. As someone who used to be very religious, this would not have made me see the atheist light. It just would have insulted me. And since there are a great many religious progressives out there (or religious people with good intentions who COULD be progressive), what's the use in insulting them like this?
I see no value in this thread whatsoever.
I'm not exactly sure of how we are to either "respect" religion or pretend that it is somehow progressive to defend it. As a female, I don't like religion. I don't like the way it has been used and abused and then rewritten to make women unclean, or whores, or saints. I don't like the way religion (the major three) have relegated women to nothing but property of men, and if not property then things to produce babies and wait on the far superior men. So perhaps the problem is not religion itself but the way it has been used by men to ensure women are second and third class citizens. I owe no respect to any societal body that has relegated my body and the bodies of other women to the "wise" words written in a few ancient books, written by men.
We have no problem understanding that systems in society are a product of male domination. Why should religion get a pass? It should not.
I don't think anyone is giving religion a 'pass'. The discussion began with questioning the usefulness of the OP. It's a not-very-clever stand-up routine based on religious stereotypes. To quote Maysie, 'fill your boots', but it's not pursuing any progressive agenda (nor does it claim to--it's just pap).
Caissa suggested that human scriptures with human content should be read with the historical context in mind. This isn't 'respecting' religion, it's just common (Marxist) sense. Others tried to call this defending crimes committed in God's name. I tried to point out that it was the atheists, not the religious, who are trying to put God into this equation. Caissa certainly did nothing of the kind (yet!).
I suppose I have little enough faith in the powerful men in the world to think that if they suddenly gave up religion they would cease to find stones and crosses with which to oppress women. Ask yourself: do you want the Christopher Hitchens of this world to start deciding what's best for women? Or Malalai Joya?
I think there are some thoughtful posts here. Mine possibly wasn't one of them. Maybe a meta discussion on religion, if people want to have one could be better done in a new thread, one that's gets off to a better start, as significant number of posters have made a good argument that this thread leaves a lot to be desired. Thus I shall close this one.