Discuss Silence

I guess the purpose of this movie is to illustrate that each religion serve the needs of the ruling class in each country.

21 replies (on page 1 of 2)

Jump to last post

Next pageLast page

Amen.

(For further studies on the same topic, audiences are encouraged to seek out "Life of Brian". )

Without religion, there is no basis for moral standards. It's simply my opinion versus your opinion.

Example: Child sacrifice was quite common in pre-Judaic societies. Who's to say it was wrong?

I don't even know where to start... :joy:

"Without religion, there is no basis for moral standards. It's simply my opinion versus your opinion."

...that's what religion is. You dream up a god, state your opinions on how other people should live their lives, then claim those opinions came from your imaginary friend. And when you do, more intelligent people counter those opinions with ones based in logic. Much like what's happening right here.

> Example: Child sacrifice was quite common in pre-Judaic societies. Who's to say it was wrong?

...and you're going to claim those child sacrifices were _not _made in the name of religion?! Spoiler alert: No one has ever been sacrificed for the sake of atheism. :laughing:

As for moral standards: I have them. Most people I know are not religious, and they also have them. Case dismissed.

More than one hundred million people were butchered in the name of Atheist-Communism in the 20th century. Look up Stalin and Mao if you still believe Atheism is a Pacifist doctrine.

As for moral standards, the fact that you and irreligious people you know have positive influences on Western society is irrelevant to the fact that those "standards" are simply your opinion, and not a standard.

Of _course _they're simply my opinion. You form your standards from your opinions, whether you claim they were given to you by an imaginary being or not. The difference is I know they're simply my opinions, while you hallucinate them being something more.

And atheism isn't a doctrine, a philosophy or a belief system; it's merely the absence of a religious viewpoint. Stalin and Mao both conducted their killings for political purposes, and certainly not as sacrifical acts. You can't sacrifice a person to the absence of religion.

Of course you can, which was my original point. Atheist-Communists committed genocide because they had no religious standards that murder was wrong. The sacrifice was for the "greater good".

I'm starting to think you're posing, just to have an argument... If you really sought to make a case, I find it hard to believe you'd keep making statements that fly directly in the face of your own stated position. I mean, you're arguing better for my point of view than I am myself! :laughing:

Since more killings have been carried out in the name of religion than anything else on this planet, "the religious standard that murder is wrong" is comedy gold. The jihads, the crusades, religious terrorism, the Inquisition, nearly ALL warfare in the Middle East, historically as well as current... But of course you know this. OK, I'll just assume you're having a laugh. Otherwise this is simply too time-consuming, too basic, even on a weekend. :grin:

This is, however, a movie site, and to get back to the OP's original point: I love the fact that this movie demonstrates in a brilliant way how religion really is simply a power tool, and how dying or even suffering for it is ultimately futile. I'll drink to good ol' Marty for that! :wink:

You refuse to accept that two Athiest-Communists committed more murders in a single century than all religions combined.

If Stalin and Mao were devout Jews who believed Thou shalt not murder, would they have ended the lives of over 100 million human beings?

@halomaniac88 said:

I guess the purpose of this movie is to illustrate that each religion serve the needs of the ruling class in each country.

So that's the narrow pov you see life as? Serving the ruling class? Ever think about serving others, or your family? Or yourself? It's just wrong. You should study philosophy more. Most religions are predicated on philosophies. From there, they're given names. It really has nothing to do with serving the ruling class. In fact, serving a ruling class would much more pertain to politics than religion. That's policy. Religion is more about morality.

@gilknut said:

Since more killings have been carried out in the name of religion than anything else on this planet, "the religious standard that murder is wrong" is comedy gold. The jihads, the crusades, religious terrorism, the Inquisition, nearly ALL warfare in the Middle East, historically as well as current... But of course you know this. OK, I'll just assume you're having a laugh. Otherwise this is simply too time-consuming, too basic, even on a weekend. :grin:

You're ignorant. And this is not true. You hear statements like this, but it's just propaganda. You're also confounding religion with politics. Many kingdoms or countries have invaded others or started wars for what they are: political purposes, but to stir their base in support of it they disguised it in religion. So it was political ends they were after, but they used religion as a cover. Religion can be hijacked by psychopaths or crazy leaders and people and used to achieve their ends, rather than serve a more spiritual and peaceful purpose, which it may be intended for. What may also be confounded is geographical and cultural influences, obviously genetic influences, as well as other traditions. Religion has done more good for more people than bad. But bad leaders or political leaders can use religion for political purposes it wasn't intended for. Also, you must separate religion from philosophy and spirituality when making points. It's like money; it can be used do good or evil (very few things can't), but in the big picture it has done more good. But in the wrong hands or people, it can be used for bad, thus giving it a bad name. Another confounding variable (and more related to politics).

@halomaniac88 said:

I guess the purpose of this movie is to illustrate that each religion serve the needs of the ruling class in each country.

I don't believe so. I thought the film spoke to issues much deeper than that.

@gilknut said:

...more killings have been carried out in the name of religion than anything else on this planet...

Perhaps it is more accurate to say that more killings have been carried out by humans than anything else on the planet?

@Halberstram said:

Without religion, there is no basis for moral standards. It's simply my opinion versus your opinion.

Example: Child sacrifice was quite common in pre-Judaic societies. Who's to say it was wrong?

Abraham sacrificed his sons until God stopped him from sacrificing another one

@halomaniac88 said:

I guess the purpose of this movie is to illustrate that each religion serve the needs of the ruling class in each country.

I forgot what the story was about but i liked the movie though it was awesome

@BenCaesar said:

Abraham sacrificed his sons until God stopped him from sacrificing another one

Abraham did not sacrifice his sons, he was about to sacrifice one son Isaac and God stopped him. Genesis 22-12. in the Bible...

Global

s focus the search bar
p open profile menu
esc close an open window
? open keyboard shortcut window

On media pages

b go back (or to parent when applicable)
e go to edit page

On TV season pages

(right arrow) go to next season
(left arrow) go to previous season

On TV episode pages

(right arrow) go to next episode
(left arrow) go to previous episode

On all image pages

a open add image window

On all edit pages

t open translation selector
ctrl+ s submit form

On discussion pages

n create new discussion
w toggle watching status
p toggle public/private
c toggle close/open
a open activity
r reply to discussion
l go to last reply
ctrl+ enter submit your message
(right arrow) next page
(left arrow) previous page