Finde Ich schade dass Felix sein Top Statement gegen bekloppte Religionen zurückzieht. Fande Ich lustig und auch wahr.
@Loddar
"Tja Felix, der Punkt ist der, dass Leute, die keine Ahnung von Religion haben, dieselbe halt immer mit der Institution Kirche oder den Missinterpretionen von Religiosität Einzelner (Stichwort: Fundamentalismus) gleichsetzen..... "
Was soll das? Religionskritiker sind dann per se Ignorant jetzt?
Wie ist es wenn Ich Wikipedia ueber Religion lese?
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion
Bin Ich jetzt immer noch ohne Ahnung? Scheint mir sehr als ob eine Meinung über Religion davon abhängt was fuer Kriterien man nutzt um Religionen zu bewerten.
Eine Liste von "nette Menschen" die "nette Dinge" tun ist reine schwachsinn so lange man die "unnette" und ihr "unnette" Aktionen nur unter "Religionsmissbrauch" abstemmpeln kann. Ob es deine Meinung passt oder nicht sind Osama bin Laden, Rev Ian Paisley und David Duke genauso unter dem Label Religion zu betrachten wie Mother Teressa oder irgendwelche "modern day saints" die Du nennen kannst. Dass religiouse Leute manchmal nett sind ist klar aber dir ist es wahrscheinlich auch klar dass viele nicht religiouse Leute manchmal "gute" Taten tun, oder? Und ist die Motivation dieser Leute ihre Religion oder ihre Glaube? Vielleicht ist es auch eine Nebensache? Religion ist, weil es Religion ist, eine Sache die eine "falsche Auslegung" verursachen kann. Das es anders interpretiert wird ist eine faire Kritik an Religion.
Aber fuer eine wahre Kritik an Religion hier im Lila Kanal habe Ich keine Zeit und mein Deutsch ist zu schlecht. Deshalb habe Ich nachgeschaute wegen andere Menschen "ohne Ahnung" die Religionskritik ausüben.
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religionskritik
Dort befindet sich eine Menge Text und eine Menge Namen von sehr ahnungsvolle Menschen.
Persönlich ist fuer mich Bertrand Russell favorit. Dieses Buch ist sehr gut:
http://www.amazon.de/exec/obidos/ASIN/0 ... 79-6358144
Why I am not a Christian. B. Russell
Teilweise auch online
http://www.threads.name/russell/religionciv.html
<blockquote> The objections to religion are of two sorts - intellectual and moral. The intellectual objection is that there is no reason to suppose any religion true; the moral objection is that religious precepts date from a time when men were more cruel than they are and therefore tend to perpetuate inhumanities which the moral conscience of the age would otherwise outgrow.
To take the intellectual objection first: there is a certain tendency in our practical age to consider that it does not much matter whether religious teaching is true or not, since the important question is whether it is useful. One question cannot, however, well be decided without the other. If we believe the Christian religion, our notions of what is good will be different from what they will be if we do not believe it. Therefore, to Christians, the effects of Christianity may seem good, while to unbelievers they may seem bad. Moreover, the attitude that one ought to believe such and such a proposition, independently of the question whether there is evidence in its favor, is an attitude which produces hostility to evidence and causes us to close our minds to every fact that does not suit our prejudices.
A certain kind of scientific candor is a very important quality, and it is one which can hardly exist in a man who imagines that there are things which it is his duty to believe. We cannot, therefore, really decide whether religion does good without investigating the question whether religion is true. To Christians, Mohammedans, and Jews the most fundamental question involved in the truth of religion is the existence of God. In the days when religion was still triumphant the word "God" had a perfectly definite meaning; but as a result of the onslaughts of the Rationalists the word has become paler and paler, until it is difficult to see what people mean when they assert that they believe in God. Let us take, for purposes of argument, Matthew Arnold's definition: "A power not ourselves that makes for righteousness." Perhaps we might make this even more vague and ask ourselves whether we have any evidence of purpose in this universe apart from the purposes of living beings on the surface of this planet.
The usual argument of religious people on this subject is roughly as follows: "I and my friends are persons of amazing intelligence and virtue. It is hardly conceivable that so much intelligence and virtue could have come about by chance. There must, therefore, be someone at least as intelligent and virtuous as we are who set the cosmic machinery in motion with a view to producing Us." I am sorry to say that I do not find this argument so impressive as it is found by those who use it. The universe is large; yet, if we are to believe Eddington, there are probably nowhere else in the universe beings as intelligent as men. If you consider the total amount of matter in the world and compare it with the amount forming the bodies of intelligent beings, you will see that the latter bears an almost infinitesimal proportion to the former. Consequently, even if it is enormously improbable that the laws of chance will produce an organism capable of intelligence out of a casual selection of atoms, it is nevertheless probable that there will be in the universe that very small number of such organisms that we do in fact find.
Then again, considered as the climax to such a vast process, we do not really seem to me sufficiently marvelous. Of course, I am aware that many divines are far more marvelous than I am, and that I cannot wholly appreciate merits so far transcending my own. Nevertheless, even after making allowances under this head, I cannot but think that Omnipotence operating through all eternity might have produced something better. And then we have to reflect that even this result is only a flash in the pan. The earth will not always remain habitable; the human race will die out, and if the cosmic process is to justify itself hereafter it will have to do so elsewhere than on the surface of our planet.. And even if this should occur, it must stop sooner or later. The second law of thermodynamics makes it scarcely possible to doubt that the universe is running down, and that ultimately nothing of the slightest interest will be possible anywhere. Of course, it is open to us to say that when that time comes God will wind up the machinery again; but if we do not say this, we can base our assertion only upon faith, not upon one shred of scientific evidence. So far as scientific evidence goes, the universe has crawled by slow stages to a somewhat pitiful result on this earth and is going to crawl by still more pitiful stages to a condition of universal death. If this is to be taken as evidence of a purpose, I can only say that the purpose is one that does not appeal to me. I see no reason, therefore, to believe in any sort of God, however vague and however attenuated. I leave on one side the old metaphysical arguments, since religious apologists themselves have thrown them over. </blockquote>
Das ganze Artikel bzw Buch ist sehr gut.
Aber zurück zur Sache zu komen und Richtung Fussball
....
.... findest Du es nicht "bekloppt" wenn 2 Spieler, nämlich Torwart und Stürmer, sich alle beide kruzen bevor ein Elfmeter? Ist das nicht bekloppt?
Klar sind die viele Feiertagen in Bayern gut und Weihnachten ist auch nett, Diwali hat super Effects usw. Und klar auch machen eine Menge Leute nette Sachen durch ihre Religion. Aber Ich denke es ist immer noch fair Religionen als bekloppt zu bezeichnen. Es hat sehr wenig mit Ahnung zu tun.
Wenn Du aber religiouse Freundehast, kannst Du ein Bisschen rumfragen ob man demnächst ein Bisschen Lila Weiss beten könnte. Die Punkte brauchen wir und eine andere Taktik haben wir offensichtlich gerade nicht
Und Niemals Vergessen...
....
...WIR SIND PAPST!
