Dave Allen on Introduction to Christianity
October 5th, 2009 by Mike Lopez
This is totally hilarious. I basically went through the same process, except that there was no nun. For years when I was young I really didn’t understand why Jesus was crucified on the cross for my sins. And more…
Had a good laugh huh?
Posted in Thoughts of a Filipino Atheist
October 6th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
Thanks for the video. This is way, way better than the sermons I’ve heard in all my churchgoing years. Why? Because it’s funny and it’s fun. The most disturbing thing I’ve heard from the religous is this statement: What does morality have to do with happiness? That’s the ultimate deal-breaker for me.
October 13th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
What does Morality have to do with Happiness?
Obviously NONE.
October 23rd, 2009 at 4:24 pm
“What does morality have to do with happiness?” was exactly the response given by the religious when Bertrand Russell argued that divorce must be an option for either party of a marriage under certain circumstances (i.e. insanity or that the husband is syphillitic); he also argued that contraception must not be construed as immoral, especially by those who can’t afford to provide the child a decent life.
“The church, by its insistence upon what it chooses to call morality, inflicts upon all sorts of people undeserved and unnecessary suffering. And of course, as we know, it is in its major part an opponent still of progress and improvement in all the ways that diminish suffering in the world, because it has chosen to label as morality a certain narrow set of rules of conduct which have nothing to do with human happiness; and when you say that this or that ought to be done because it would make for human happiness, they think that has nothing to do with the matter at all. “What has human happiness to do with morals? The object of morals is not to make people happy.”
Moral rules should be there to protect people’s right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Morality has nothing to do with happiness? I sure am glad to not belong to any religious organization.
October 23rd, 2009 at 4:25 pm
“What does morality have to do with happiness?” was exactly the response given by the religious when Bertrand Russell argued that divorce must be an option for either party of a marriage under certain circumstances (i.e. insanity or that the husband is syphillitic); he also argued that contraception must not be construed as immoral, especially by those who can’t afford to provide the child a decent life.
“The church, by its insistence upon what it chooses to call morality, inflicts upon all sorts of people undeserved and unnecessary suffering. And of course, as we know, it is in its major part an opponent still of progress and improvement in all the ways that diminish suffering in the world, because it has chosen to label as morality a certain narrow set of rules of conduct which have nothing to do with human happiness; and when you say that this or that ought to be done because it would make for human happiness, they think that has nothing to do with the matter at all. “What has human happiness to do with morals? The object of morals is not to make people happy.”—Bertrand Russell
Moral rules should be there to protect people’s right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Morality has nothing to do with happiness? I sure am glad to not belong to any religious organization.
December 21st, 2009 at 12:56 pm
what kind of morality you are referring to?
relative or absolute??