What is religion?

kylith

I would have thought that this:

figures showed that there were 186,318 people who identified themselves as having no religion although it wasn’t clear what exactly this means.

is self explanatory. Having no religion means you have no religion. If someone told me they had no television, I wouldn't find it an unclear statement.

robindch

kylith wrote: »

Having no religion means you have no religion.

It's not as easy as that. "Non-denominational" christians frequently self-identify as having "no religion", despite the fact that many are fundamentalist christians.

I seem to remember that jakkass/philologos self-identifies as having "no religion".

:rolleyes:

kylith

robindch wrote: »

It's not as easy as that. "Non-denominational" christians frequently self-identify as having "no religion", despite the fact that many are fundamentalist christians.

I seem to remember that jakkass/philologos self-identifies as having "no religion".

:rolleyes:

Some people just can't make up their minds, can they?

robindch

kylith wrote: »

Some people just can't make up their minds, can they?

I think it's more that certain denominations of christianity feel they can only assert the total supremacy of the bible by officially denying that they are interpreting it for their client population. The word "denomination" implying that there's some interpretation to which they're predisposed.

Obviously, the leaders are interpreting the bible...

JonPierson

kylith wrote: »

Some people just can't make up their minds, can they?

I think they're called 'agnostics'.

kylith

kylith wrote: »

If someone told me they had no television, I wouldn't find it an unclear statement.

unless you're a tv licence inspector

philologos

robindch wrote: »

It's not as easy as that. "Non-denominational" christians frequently self-identify as having "no religion", despite the fact that many are fundamentalist christians.

I seem to remember that jakkass/philologos self-identifies as having "no religion".

:rolleyes:

I go to an evangelical CofE church in central London right now.

What I have said is that I rarely give myself the title as being "religious". I don't put a lot of trust in ritualism. I believe in Jesus, and I strive to follow Him with God's help. That's pretty much what I say. I also don't identify strongly with any one denomination. I argue for Biblically sound Christianity. That's what I try to do. It doesn't particularly matter to me what church it is, as long as it teaches the truth faithfully.

the culture of deference wrote: »

as I said before, no religion until you are 18

I decided to become a Christian when I was 17. Should the State have clamped down on my freethought?

Delirium

philologos wrote: »

I go to an evangelical CofE church in central London right now.

What I have said is that I rarely give myself the title as being "religious". I don't put a lot of trust in ritualism. I believe in Jesus, and I strive to follow Him with God's help. That's pretty much what I say. I also don't identify strongly with any one denomination. I argue for Biblically sound Christianity. That's what I try to do. It doesn't particularly matter to me what church it is, as long as it teaches the truth faithfully.

but Christianity is a religion, even if you don't tie yourself to any particular branch of Christianity.

I decided to become a Christian when I was 17. Should the State have clamped down on my freethought?

I imagine the comment was about indoctrinating children into religion, and not someone freely choosing to join a religion.

philologos

koth: I agree, that Christianity is a religion.

The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods.

I don't really define myself as "religious" though. I find that as a label, that doesn't particularly match who I am. It sounds Pharasaic to me. That religion is about a strict observance of rituals. My faith couldn't be any further from this. It is simply about trying to live in response to Jesus' saving death on the cross for me. I also wouldn't call myself "devout" or "pious", as I'm neither of those things. I'm simply a sinner saved by Jesus' death and resurrection.

So, simply put, I find it better just to refer to myself as a Christian, rather than having a load of other connotations that I don't feel are the most accurate being added on in the process.

By the by, it's a fundamental denial of liberty to deny parents the right to share their values with their children. Every parent does it and every parent will do it. I don't see why parents teaching their children about Christianity is somehow a bad thing that should be illegal. If I was a Christian parent and that was the law, I would have to disobey it as that would be wrong. This isn't "indoctrination" as far as I can tell.

philologos

philologos wrote: »

I don't really define myself as "religious" though.

well the rest of us would

joseph brand

philologos wrote: »

I decided to become a Christian when I was 17. Should the State have clamped down on my freethought?

I agree with Koth's comment on this. But I'm wondering what a 17 year old is doing getting involved in religion.

The stuff that my friends and I were doing at 17 would make baby jebus cry. Some of us even stayed up late, like half past the eleven. Tony Lynch knows what I'm talking about. Tony Lynch was wild!

Here's a photo of him from my old phone.
http://www.wearysloth.com/Gallery/ActorsG/tve44284-00000304-897.gif

philologos

bluewolf wrote: »

well the rest of us would

That's fine, but I guess the authority in terms of forming my identity lies at my door, not yours

Delirium

philologos wrote: »

koth: I agree, that Christianity is a religion.

I don't really define myself as "religious" though. I find that as a label, that doesn't particularly match who I am. It sounds Pharasaic to me. That religion is about a strict observance of rituals. My faith couldn't be any further from this. It is simply about trying to live in response to Jesus' saving death on the cross for me. I also wouldn't call myself "devout" or "pious", as I'm neither of those things. I'm simply a sinner saved by Jesus' death and resurrection.

So, simply put, I find it better just to refer to myself as a Christian, rather than having a load of other connotations that I don't feel are the most accurate being added on in the process.

just so you know, most people wouldn't see a difference between Christian or religious especially here in Ireland. You say you're Christian, 99.99999999999999% of people will think you're religious.

By the by, it's a fundamental denial of liberty to deny parents the right to share their values with their children. Every parent does it and every parent will do it. I don't see why parents teaching their children about Christianity is somehow a bad thing that should be illegal. If I was a Christian parent and that was the law, I would have to disobey it as that would be wrong. This isn't "indoctrination" as far as I can tell.

Sharing your values is fine, but imposing those values on them is indoctrination, i.e. choosing their religion for them.

Delirium

philologos wrote: »

That's fine, but I guess the authority in terms of forming my identity lies at my door, not yours

that's fine, but you don't get to redefine the English language to suit yourself.

Zombrex

philologos wrote: »

That's fine, but I guess the authority in terms of forming my identity lies at my door, not yours

You seem to define religion as ritualistic religion. While heavily ritualistic religion is certain still religion, it isn't really a case that to be religious you must be ritualistic. That wouldn't be a particular common notion. Religion would encompass the following of commonly held established beliefs and doctrines, whether they involve ritual or not.

The thing that makes you religious is that you share commonly held and passed on supernatural beliefs that are structured and organised by your religion (which is to say by members of the religion that came before you).

A Christian here will share very similar (relatively speaking) notions to a Christian there, precisely because the religion has gathered its commonly held beliefs and structured them into books like the Bible, that are then shared as any author sources for what it means to be a member of this religion.

How ritualistic you are in that pursuit is rather secondary.

philologos

koth wrote: »

just so you know, most people wouldn't see a difference between Christian or religious especially here in Ireland. You say you're Christian, 99.99999999999999% of people will think you're religious.

That's fine, but I wouldn't agree with them.

koth wrote: »

Sharing your values is fine, but imposing those values on them is indoctrination, i.e. choosing their religion for them.

Ultimately whether or not parents like it. They will never choose their children's faith. That works both ways. Although Christian parent's can share their faith with their children throughout their lives, and through church and so on. Ultimately there will hit a point in their lives when they have to decide for themselves.

Likewise, in the case of other parents. I have heard of quite a few parents who don't approve of their children's faith in Christianity. Quite a few more since moving here, but there are cases pretty much everywhere. So it does work two ways. There will be a point when people will decide things which are different to what their parents expect. That's a part of growing up.

Delirium

philologos wrote: »

Ultimately whether or not parents like it. They will never choose their children's faith. That works both ways. Although Christian parent's can share their faith with their children throughout their lives, and through church and so on. Ultimately there will hit a point in their lives when they have to decide for themselves.

For the first 12-16 years (as an average) the parents raise their kids as Catholic (using Ireland as an example) thus choosing the religion for the kids. The kids eventually decide whether to remain a member of the religion or to look elsewhere, be it a different religion or none.

Likewise, in the case of other parents. I have heard of quite a few parents who don't approve of their children's faith in Christianity. Quite a few more since moving here, but there are cases pretty much everywhere. So it does work two ways. There will be a point when people will decide things which are different to what their parents expect. That's a part of growing up.

and I'd say the same thing there, parents shouldn't indoctrinate their kids. Educate them and let them decide for themselves.

robindch

philologos wrote: »

What I have said is that I rarely give myself the title as being "religious". I don't put a lot of trust in ritualism.

A religion isn't a "ritual" - it's a far wider concept than that and will typically include a belief in a distant utopia, a shining path to reach it, a set of infallible ideas often referred to simply as Truth with a capital-T, a sealed-worldview which typically includes just one book or just one leader (or both), a clear demarcation between a blessed Us and a heathen Them, a belief that oneself is inspired above and beyond the greater portion of the population. And so on. In these, much more specific senses which tend to be used by psychologists and sociologists, yes, I believe you are intensely religious.

philologos wrote: »

It doesn't particularly matter to me what church it is, as long as it teaches the truth faithfully.

I think it would be more accurate to say that it doesn't matter what the church claims, so long as you believe its claims -- that's the nature of religion: the subject matter is irrelevant, the belief and its propagation is everything.

philologos

koth wrote: »

For the first 12-16 years (as an average) the parents raise their kids as Catholic (using Ireland as an example) thus choosing the religion for the kids. The kids eventually decide whether to remain a member of the religion or to look elsewhere, be it a different religion or none.

I don't agree. Telling your child about Jesus, or bringing your child to church is not "deciding" anything for them. They will make that decision for themselves at a later stage.

koth wrote: »

and I'd say the same thing there, parents shouldn't indoctrinate their kids. Educate them and let them decide for themselves.

I don't think it is indoctrination for parents to naturally tell their children about their values and encourage them to know God. Ultimately, it is their decision, in between is preparing them for the road of life. Atheists can complain all they like, but simply put, they will do very much the same for their own children, they will encourage them to do what they perceive is best. It's called caring about ones kids.

robindch wrote: »

I think it would be more accurate to say that it doesn't matter what the church claims, so long as you believe its claims -- that's the nature of religion: the subject matter is irrelevant, the belief and its propagation is everything.

That's where I think you're wrong. The subject matter is fundamentally important. Institutions which deny or compromise the subject matter are not worthy of being followed as far as I can tell. Churches irrespective of which they are, if they honour the Gospel (the subject matter) are crucially important.

As for any demarcation. There is no demarcation, as far as I can tell other than what you've decided to do. According to the Gospel, I'm a sinner like everyone else is.

robindch

philologos wrote: »

That's where I think you're wrong. The subject matter is fundamentally important. Institutions which deny or compromise the subject matter are not worthy of being followed as far as I can tell.

You missed the point I was making.

Religions are there because people find them convincing and religions are especially excellent at convincing people of complete nonsense. To a religion, the ideas don't really matter all that much, as you can see from the bland, superficial nonsense that's put out by the largest and most successful religious outlets these days (the megachurches).

What is vital to these religions is the belief that the words mean something, hopefully profound. As is the replication of the religion to the next human host.

Delirium

philologos wrote: »

I don't agree. Telling your child about Jesus, or bringing your child to church is not "deciding" anything for them. They will make that decision for themselves at a later stage.

You don't agree with something I didn't say?

Baptising an infant is choosing their religion for them, and I consider that to be indoctrination.

I don't think it is indoctrination for parents to naturally tell their children about their values and encourage them to know God. Ultimately, it is their decision, in between is preparing them for the road of life. Atheists can complain all they like, but simply put, they will do very much the same for their own children, they will encourage them to do what they perceive is best. It's called caring about ones kids.

And that's not discussing the point I made that choosing a religion, i.e. infant baptism is indoctrination. Now if you want to discuss something else, fine, but don't pretend that you're addressing what I've posted.

nozzferrahhtoo

philologos wrote: »

I argue for Biblically sound Christianity.

Really? Where? I have never seen you do it. I HAVE seen you declare there is a god and declare that atheism makes no sense to you. Other than declaring those two things, I have seen you argue nothing. And in fact the one time you even tried you ran for the hills when all your arguments were quashed.

Newaglish

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Really? Where? I have never seen you do it. I HAVE seen you declare there is a god and declare that atheism makes no sense to you. Other than declaring those two things, I have seen you argue nothing. And in fact the one time you even tried you ran for the hills when all your arguments were quashed.

Just quoting this because you are allegedly on ignore. (if I remember correctly)

oceanclub

Given that thread is rather important and informative, can I ask that anything relating to philologos' personal metaphysics be diverted somewhere else?

P.

joseph brand

philologos wrote: »

I don't agree. Telling your child about Jesus, or bringing your child to church is not "deciding" anything for them. They will make that decision for themselves at a later stage.

Are you serious? Apart from baptism, communion, confirmation, school prayers, school plays (involving 3 wise men etc), priest's visits to classrooms, prayers before lunch, prayers before bed and Sunday mass, yeah you're probably right. It's not exactly 'pushing' it on the little kids. Although, it's best to brainwash them when they are young. Kids are notoriously bad at forming articulate, well thought out, reasoned arguments. Suckers.

If some muslim told your kids all about how great Allah is or Muhammad, you would be fine? What about a gang of mormons trying to convert your kids? No big deal I suppose.

philologos wrote: »

I don't think it is indoctrination for parents to naturally tell their children about their values and encourage them to know God. It's called caring about ones kids.

I'm sure you could teach them values without having to dig out a 2,000 year old book. Without it, you wouldn't know right from wrong? You have little 'faith' in yourself.

philologos wrote: »

According to the Gospel, I'm a sinner like everyone else is.

How is everyone a sinner? Just because we were born? Or did we all commit crimes?

According to the Gospel some goat herders living in the desert, in the Middle East, thousands of years ago, I'm a sinner like everyone else is.
FYP.

robindch

Spun off from here.

vicwatson

robindch wrote: »

Spun off from here.

What is Religion?

For me it's one of life's optional extras and should not be compulsory

Penn

philologos wrote: »

I don't agree. Telling your child about Jesus, or bringing your child to church is not "deciding" anything for them. They will make that decision for themselves at a later stage.

Then how come parents don't teach their children about all religions? If you baptise your child into the Christian faith and only ever have them in situations where they'll be told that that faith is the correct one (bringing them to Mass, religious schools etc) then you are deciding their faith. They can make their own decision when they're an adult, but until then, they are whatever religion the parents choose for them.

As for "what is religion?", this is a post I made last week on the Christianity forum which explains my thinking on it:

In my opinion, religion is hope. Hope that death is not the end. Hope that there is a reason for bad things. Hope that living a good life will lead to good things.

To me, the number one advantage to following a religion (namely Christianity/Catholicism as that's the faith I was raised in and know the most about), is the concept of Heaven. To know that if you live a good life, follow the religion and just generally be a good person, that when it comes to the darkest period of your life and you are faced with death, leaving behind wife/children/brothers/sisters etc, the comfort of knowing that you will go to this amazing place, where you will experience eternal happiness... I'm sure it's an extremely comforting thought, and would certainly help people to somewhat accept death and that they would find peace in their final moments.

I'm sure it's also very comforting where, in times of great personal struggle, knowing that God has a plan for you and that there is a reason for everything God does, even if we can't yet see it. Whether it be the death of a relative, financial troubles, health problems etc., the idea of there being light at the end of the tunnel and that everything will be okay if you have faith in God... Well, who wouldn't want that?

However, to me, religion is also oppression. It is a system with such arbitrary rules where so much is open to interpretation. It is an excuse to discriminate against others for believing differently, or living their life in a different way.

Then we come to Hell. Why is there such a place, with everlasting torment for those who sin? Why not have it where if you die a sinner, you simply die. You don't get to have everlasting happiness in Heaven, but you simply just die. Fear, that's why. The fear of going to Hell is used to keep people following the faith, because if they don't, they will suffer everlasting torture and torment.

Why is it not enough to just live a good, moral life? Why do you have to worship God? Praise him, thank him, go to church, follow these rules which can somehow change in accordance with the times. Why?

Fair enough, God created the Earth, he gave us life, he looks after us, loves us etc. Maybe we should worship him. Maybe we should praise his name. But according to the religion, it's not a choice. You HAVE to worship him. You HAVE to praise him. Religion means worshipping a deity, and yet to me, religion means HAVING to worship a deity. Perfect example, the first three commandments are all about worshipping God, and these commandments came directly from God. Why? Why place these rules? Why is it not enough to just be a kind, caring, selfless person?

what is religion

baby dont hurt me no more

RichieC

It is the manifestation of the human fear of death. Organised religion is the manifestation of the elites need to control the proles.

joseph brand

RichieC wrote: »

It is the manifestation of the human fear of death. Organised religion is the manifestation of the elites need to control the proles.

Religion is a MASSIVE distraction. It stops many people looking for real answers. It's a handicap. A flaw.

According to the followers, god is responsible for all the beauty in the world. On the topic of disasters, disease, world hunger and evil, well, he works in mysterious ways. Don't worry about it. In fact, try not to think.

wonderfulname

Last time I checked "no religion" included "spiritual"?

So no religion is pretty self explanatory except you can't be sure how many of those without religion still believe in a higher something.

JonPierson

koth wrote: »

that's fine, but you don't get to redefine the English language to suit yourself.

"`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.'"

Through the Looking-Glass and What Alice Found There, Lewis Carroll, 1871

Ellis Dee

I believe Nietzsche answers the OP question rather well in a chapter of "Also sprach Zarathustra" headed "Über die religion" (On religion):

"Ihrem Elende wollten sie entlaufen, und die Sterne waren ihnen zu
weit. Da seufzten sie: "Oh dass es doch himmlische Wege gäbe, sich in
ein andres Sein und Glück zu schleichen!" - da erfanden sie sich ihre
Schliche und blutigen Tränklein!"

My (approximate) translation: They wished to flee their misery, and the stars were too remote for them. Then they sighed: "Oh, if only there were celestial pathways through which to creep into another existence and happiness!" - then they invented their creepway and their bloody little drink for themselves!"

In other words, religion is escapism, and it probably began when people first realised that they were mortal. At the time, I suppose you couldn't blame them, but in this day and age ---:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Zombrex

Humans are biologically prone to magical thinking, superstition and agency detection.

They are also prone to forming shared cultural notions, putting more weight in ideas and stories that are shared amongst the culture than simply originate with the individual.

Religion is simply the combination of both these things. It is the structuring, organizing and passing on of shared notions of magical thinking, superstition and agency detection.

philologos

koth wrote: »

You don't agree with something I didn't say?

Baptising an infant is choosing their religion for them, and I consider that to be indoctrination.

And that's not discussing the point I made that choosing a religion, i.e. infant baptism is indoctrination. Now if you want to discuss something else, fine, but don't pretend that you're addressing what I've posted.

I actually agree with you on this issue, so I don't need to take it any further on that front. Apologies for my misunderstanding

Penn: Simply put, parents want their children to know the truth, and to seek the very best for them. Christians regard Christianity as the truth, and they regard God's standards are being the best for their children. As a result they share about Jesus with their children.

At a later point the child might think that Christianity is a load of twaddle and do something else. Ultimately, they make the decision, not their parents. Even in the case that they do decide to follow Christianity for themselves at a later stage, they will more than likely do so on the basis of their own thought. Or some, might have grown up in a Christian home whether that's more nominal or more practising, reject Christianity for a period of time, and then think about following it for themselves.

As for your point about having to worship God, and acknowledge him. Simply put what that means for me is I acknowledge what God has done for me and what measures that He went through to bring me to know Him. I am thankful for that, so as a result, I praise Him, and I try to live for Him as best as I can and as much as a struggle that can be at times. I want to live as He wants me to not because that I am saved that way (I am only saved through the death and resurrection of Jesus), but because I love Him and I know that His ways are ultimately good.

joseph brand: Personally, I think adult baptism is better than infant baptism. I'm here to argue for what is Biblical Christianity, that's my main aim when I post here.

Also, I think Islam is a lie, but I respect the liberty of Muslims as much as parents of any creed to bring up their own children as they deem fit.

As for right and wrong, I believe that most people do have a sense of right and wrong. I'm discussing that at the moment over on the Atheist / Christian debate thread on the Christianity forum.

As for how we're all sinners. Simply in so far as we've all done wrong. I.E disobeyed God's standards. As a result we rightfully deserve God's judgement. God brought His Son Jesus into the world to pay the penalty for our sin on our behalf, so that we can be forgiven and we can enter into a new relationship with God living as He desires us to. God is just, and merciful. God satisfied the just punishment for our sin through Jesus' death and resurrection. God as a result showed us mercy.

If God just simply forgave us, He wouldn't be just in the same way that a judge wouldn't be just for allowing a serial murderer to walk.

Newaglish: I'm currently posting about some of my reasons in the Christianity forum on the Atheism / Christianity debate thread - you can join in there if you want. I'm happy to discuss it with people who are willing to do so with respect. There's only 3 people of the countless people that I have spoken to on my ignore list. Simply put, this is because I feel that discussing with them will more than likely be fruitless, and more than likely will become very negative very quickly. I really don't want to be a part of any kind of discussion which isn't done with grace and respect. Sometimes, it's simply better not to respond.

I'm more than happy to respond to as much as I can, in as respectful a manner as I can.

krudler

As for how we're all sinners. Simply in so far as we've all done wrong. I.E disobeyed God's standards. As a result we rightfully deserve God's judgement. God brought His Son Jesus into the world to pay the penalty for our sin on our behalf, so that we can be forgiven and we can enter into a new relationship with God living as He desires us to. God is just, and merciful. God satisfied the just punishment for our sin through Jesus' death and resurrection. God as a result showed us mercy.

If God just simply forgave us, He wouldn't be just in the same way that a judge wouldn't be just for allowing a serial murderer to walk.

And therein lies the ridiculousness of Christianity. If god was so unhappy why not just wipe out the entire human race and start over with new people, he's god, he can do what he wants, better to have people who do obey his laws than give people the choice not to and spend eternity judging them?

If God just simply forgave us, He wouldn't be just in the same way that a judge wouldn't be just for allowing a serial murderer to walk.

if god defines good & anything else god wants, then god defines justice, and if god can define justice, god can say "i'm so just i'm simply forgiving you [for doing something i pre-programmed you to do in the first place since i knew what was going to happen] "

krudler

Ellis Dee

Thanks, krudler. When you see the nonsense that those who believe in the sky fairy come out with sometimes, it's really a matter of either laughing or crying. The former is better for one's sanity.



My wife is going to New York in a couple of weeks' time and I'll ask her to get a DVD of the brilliant Bill Maher's "Religulous" for me. From the bits of it I've seen on the Internet, it's a hilarious exposition of the ridiculousness of religion. In fact, it's a composite of the words "religion" and "ridiculous".


This is a book I'd recommend those who still find any credibility in religion really ought to read:

krudler

Religulous is worth a watch whether you agree with Bill Maher or not, some of the stuff in it is hilarious, sure he quickly dismisses pretty much anything religious people say in it but you cant help but see how crazy it all is, and at least its biased against all religions :pac: its on netflix if you have it.

wonderfulname

I'm going to give that a watch, found it on CDWow for anyone else who's not a netfilx person.

krudler

wonderfulname wrote: »

I'm going to give that a watch, found it on CDWow for anyone else who's not a netfilx person.

the whole movie is on youtube btw, its backwards though, dunno if I can post the link here but just do a search for it it should be right there

JonPierson

philologos wrote: »

Also, I think Islam is a lie, but I respect the liberty of Muslims as much as parents of any creed to bring up their own children as they deem fit.

I would be grateful if you would explain why you believe that Islam is a lie.

JonPierson

Ellis Dee wrote: »

My wife is going to New York in a couple of weeks' time and I'll ask her to get a DVD of the brilliant Bill Maher's "Religulous" for me. From the bits of it I've seen on the Internet, it's a hilarious exposition of the ridiculousness of religion. In fact, it's a composite of the words "religion" and "ridiculous".

I really don't want to rain on your parade but, dragging science kicking and screaming into this debate, unless you have already done so, I would confirm that your DVD player of choice can play Region 1 discs. The Region 2 version is actually only £3.97 from Amazon (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Religulous-DVD/dp/B0027Z83V4/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1331406082&sr=8-1).

P.S. Sounds so good I've just ordered it myself!

krudler

JonPierson wrote: »

I would be grateful if you would explain why you believe that Islam is a lie.

probably the same reason Islam thinks/knows all other religions are a lie

JonPierson

krudler wrote: »

the whole movie is on youtube btw, its backwards though, dunno if I can post the link here but just do a search for it it should be right there

Being a teenager in the 1960s, there were stories about paying 'Revolution No. 9' (White Album) backwards and getting all sorts of weird messages.

Could this be a similar concept?

(Just why would anyone play something backwards? Couldn't one do something more useful with one's time?)

wonderfulname

Unfortunately I think the picture's just mirrored, it's not actually backwards, as fun as that would be.

There are other versions on youtube though, if a mod were to give the go ahead I'd link a decent one, we are allowed link youtube but full films seem a bit much to me.

Galvasean

philologos wrote: »

I don't really define myself as "religious" though.

I define myself as Dolph Lundgren.

Ellis Dee wrote: »

My wife is going to New York in a couple of weeks' time and I'll ask her to get a DVD of the brilliant Bill Maher's "Religulous" for me.

You can buy it for €10 in Tower Records on O' Connell St.

Daftendirekt

krudler wrote: »

the whole movie is on youtube btw, its backwards though, dunno if I can post the link here but just do a search for it it should be right there

Backwards?

Knasher

Daftendirekt wrote: »

Backwards?

As wonderfulname said, its mirrored. People do this to get around the software Google uses to automatically detect copyrighted videos and take them down. Doesn't really matter except when there is text in the video.