And everybody says the jews are the funny ones.

I should draw a picture of Muhammad laughing.

this was hilarious

Is the prank that praying is make-believe?

I think that comment constitutes trolling on some level.>> ^chilaxe:

Is the prank that praying is make-believe?

In reply to this comment by lampishthing:
I think that comment constitutes trolling on some level.>> ^chilaxe:

Is the prank that praying is make-believe?



I can honestly respect that sentiment. On the pro side, it could be right for a couple reasons.


On the con side, the other above comments include an offensive racial stereotype, deliberate insensitivity to Muslims' ban on depictions of the prophet Mohammad, and the video itself might be highly offensive to some conservative Muslims.

I was religious when I was younger, and it did extract a cost on my life history, so I do make such comments based on my own experience, rather than as an outsider.

If this was a video of some new age spiritual ritual, I don't think my comment would be questioned, so I'm not sure what the difference is in the present circumstances.


That's my 2 cents on the pro and con, anyway

I was really just saying that someone always posts something along the lines of "Haha religion is poo" on all these videos. Admittedly I think that organised religion is, indeed, poo but because it matters to a lot of people I don't degrade it. Just like if my (imaginary) little sister cherished a rock I wouldn't harm it.

Re the last con: Yes, I would have said the same thing on a new age spiritualism video. I would have even said it on a scientology video because of the general term praying. But yeah, if you'd been saying "praying to Xenu" I probably wouldn't have called you on it because some religions are just bad news for everyone. Not all though - I think that's my basic defence.
>> ^chilaxe:

In reply to this comment by lampishthing:
I think that comment constitutes trolling on some level.>> ^chilaxe:
Is the prank that praying is make-believe?


I can honestly respect that sentiment. On the pro side, it could be right.

On the con side, the other above comments include an offensive racial stereotype, deliberate insensitivity to Muslims' ban on depictions of the prophet Mohammad, and the video itself might be highly offensive to some conservative Muslims.
I was religious when I was younger, and it did extract a cost on my life history, so I do make such comments based on my own experience, rather than as an outsider.
If this was a video of some new age spiritual ritual, I don't think my comment would be questioned, so I'm not sure what the difference is in the present circumstances.

That's my 2 cents on the pro and con, anyway

>> ^lampishthing:

Admittedly I think that organised religion is, indeed, poo but because it matters to a lot of people I don't degrade it. Just like if my (imaginary) little sister cherished a rock I wouldn't harm it.
Your imaginary sister's love of a rock is benign. It doesn't seriously negatively impact other people's lives. Religion deserves to be buried, not because it consists of silly beliefs, but because those beliefs result in the misery and suffering of others.

Those beliefs result in the misery of others? Like praying to a rock would? Or a tree? Or a star?

When it comes to beliefs you have to fight each little battle by itself, or else you lose the liberty you thought you were fighting for. You can't say religion is wrong just like I can't say religion is right. We can (almost*) say that sacrificing an unwilling innocent for a God is wrong but we can't say definitively that such a bloodthirsty God does not exist.

My interpretation of liberty here is that religions shouldn't impact against others' free will but the free will of those others should not impact on the will of the religious to believe in something unprovable.

Typically it's the religions that do the persecuting though, which imao is what happens when some ambitious prick(s) starts running them. Most religions started off entirely benign, however, and I think it's very hard to justify getting rid of those without getting a Minority Report-esque problem.

*I say almost because I don't think that morals are defined outside of a specific society. i.e. the universe doesn't have a right and a wrong.*

>> ^berticus:

Your imaginary sister's love of a rock is benign. It doesn't seriously negatively impact other people's lives. Religion deserves to be buried, not because it consists of silly beliefs, but because those beliefs result in the misery and suffering of others.

*Islam?

Not too often you see "Islam" and "Comedy" on the same video.

Adding video to channels (Islam) - requested by Krupo.

@lampishthing: "...but because it matters to a lot of people I don't degrade it. Just like if my (imaginary) little sister cherished a rock I wouldn't harm it."

Truth and intelligence matter to a lot of people also. Shouldn't we respect those values as well? Or is Sarah Palin not a legitimate target for criticism just because her views are important to a lot of people?

Regarding the pet rock, I doubt it's in children's best interest to not raise them to be intelligent.

Surely the answer is to move society forward.

Your point was that religion should not be criticised because it is important to people. I just think that's fundamentally a flawed idea. Not all beliefs are equally valid and unassailable. Do you defend flat-earther's with as much tenacity?

Within religion there may be much good, but the values are not intrinsic to religion. You can keep all that good stuff while criticising and hopefully abolishing the nonsense, of which there is a great deal, and much of it dangerous.

Where is the truth or intelligence in saying there is no god? "Is there a god?" is a yes/no question that can't be logically answered either way. By claiming there is none you are expressing a belief in an answer without evidence to support it. (That's basic dilemma logic: if you can't conclude either way you simply do not have an answer - there is no biased burden of proof.)

The difference between Sarah Palin and a belief in God is debunkability. Will there be death panels? Nope. And my imaginary sister is very unhappy that you called her unintelligent because of her attachment to Iggy Basalt. Some girls love teddy bears without prejudice ya know...

I think the way to move forward is to chip the boulders to what they were before the moss gathered and fossilised, not to smash them to smithereens as they have been unashamedly wont to do to others in their way.

(FTR: I'm agnostic) >> ^chilaxe:


Truth and intelligence matter to a lot of people also. Shouldn't we respect those values as well? Or is Sarah Palin not a legitimate target for criticism just because her views are important to a lot of people?
Regarding the pet rock, I doubt it's in children's best interest to not raise them to be intelligent.
Surely the answer is to move society forward.

@lampishthing: "Where is the truth or intelligence in saying there is no god? "Is there a god?" is a yes/no question that can't be logically answered either way. By claiming there is none you are expressing a belief in an answer without evidence to support it. (That's basic dilemma logic: if you can't conclude either way you simply do not have an answer - there is no biased burden of proof.)"

Re: Iggy Basalt: ha

Questions in the sciences that aren't definitively resolvable at a given time are resolved by determining the balance of evidence and thinking probabilistically. People can answer for themselves what they think the probabilities are for any given mythological figure. In your statements, you simply said "god," so I'm not sure if you're referring to Allah, Vishnu, Ra, or whatever.

When there's a large gap between the likelihoods of two hypotheses, or when one hypothesis has enormous accepted evidence and the other side doesn't, the burden of proof can certainly be assigned to one party.

I understand that human intelligence falls along a bell curve, and maybe the masses are better off with religion, reincarnation, angels, fairies, and everything else that helps them cope, so I agree, maybe we shouldn't smash the boulder. However, on the internet, I believe people who advocate intelligence and complex cognition should probably be free to speak openly, even if that involves satirical jokes

When I was saying "God" I was speaking deliberately vaguely, trying not to specify any religion. I figure that way if we reach a conclusion we resolve the whole mess I suppose I mean "something higher" *waves hands slightly, making wooooh sounds*

I'm not sure the probability argument is relevant really. There's no probabilistic evident that there is or isn't a God as far as I know and I think if there were there would be as valid (ie not) arguments in the other direction. Ever read The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy? The thing about the babelfish leaves me in stitches everytime

I think you're confusing religious doctrine and the more general concept of religion. If a religion tries to state a fact about the observable world and is evidently wrong then it is simply wrong on the matter. That the incorrect assertion came from the religious source doesn't make it less likely that any of the religion's thoughts about the unobservable are true. I'd find it harder to trust 'em but intuition is where this started so that means nothing by the same argument. I don't think there's any real conflict between science and religion - I think they shouldn't overlap. Science should answer the answerable, religion should postulate for the unknowable.

Re the joke, I'm way over that and just enjoying the discussion at this stage >> ^chilaxe:



Questions in the sciences that aren't definitively resolvable at a given time are resolved by determining the balance of evidence and thinking probabilistically. People can answer for themselves what they think the probabilities are for any given mythological figure. In your statements, you simply said "god," so I'm not sure if you're referring to Allah, Vishnu, Ra, or whatever.
When there's a large gap between the likelihoods of two hypotheses, or when one hypothesis has enormous accepted evidence and the other side doesn't, the burden of proof can certainly be assigned to one party.
I understand that human intelligence falls along a bell curve, and maybe the masses are better off with religion, reincarnation, angels, fairies, and everything else that helps them cope, so I agree, maybe we shouldn't smash the boulder. However, on the internet, I believe people who advocate intelligence and complex cognition should probably be free to speak openly, even if that involves satirical jokes

Curse be upon your Mustache!

@lampishthing

Regarding the balance of evidence for or against religion, I've previously written:

We might have faith in the esential spiritual hypothesis, that there's an invisible spiritual material (soul, spirit, universal consciouss etc.) that invisibly perturbs neural circuits to make it look as if the brain is self-contained, but 1. modern history is a relentless chipping away of magical thinking like that, and 2. science will finish reverse engineering the human brain in 20-50 years, so I humbly don't recommend betting too much money on that hypothesis.
...
The neuroscience of religion basically shows mystical feelings are just turning off some neural circuits and over-activating others. For example, 'oneness with the universe' is just turning off the neural circuits we develop in infancy that allow us to distinguish between self and world, between where my hand stops and the table starts (one is "me" .. the other is not).

(Originally from: http://blog.videosift.com/dag/On-Atheism?loadcomm=1#comment-910402 )

I think I would have upvoted this video, but after reading the comments I already forgot what it was about.

@chilaxe

I actually spent about an hour on each of the above posts... Hours I should have spent studying for my finals... I reckon I'm gonna have to leave it at your response. I'll be thinking about it though, you are guaranteed

In the meantime I propose a high five for hijacking this light-hearted video into a heavy debate (and without vitriol at that )

@lampishthing

I do think internet debates are useful for shaping our minds and our understanding of human debates, but, yes, best of luck on your finals. I'm sure you'll go far

*length=50

The duration of this video has been updated from unknown to 50 secs - length declared by oritteropo.