Bill Maher called people's gods silly last night. I just watched his movie

"Religilous" two nights ago and thought it was well done, especially his comments at the end. He is right to say that it is not ok to just say believe what you will when those beliefs cause death and destruction sadness and pain. If people believed it was ok to murder your neighbor's first born for religious reasons we wouldn't allow it so some religious belief are just as dangerous and should be challenged instead of excepted as oh well believe what you will.

Some actions are not acceptable in society. Some actions are caused from some peoples beliefs.

But you still can't change what someone believes by telling them what they have to believe.

You can contain them from doing harm by stopping the actions prescribed by such beliefs. You can protect those that their 'beliefs' might harm, and you can even explain why you believe what you believe.

But it rarely changes a belief by telling people what they have to believe.


If saying everyone else's beliefs are silly, is part of your belief, I can't just tell you that you have to believe, that you should not believe that.

But I could explain that it could be phrased in another way, or explain why I don't think it is silly. And if you took thinking religion as silly to the level of actually harming others, society could stop you from doing harm. But directly changing a belief is a persons own choice.

Im a big Bill Maher fan, but I didnt really care for his appearance at the Oscars. One, he came out right after Heath Ledger's family accepted his award, and he kind of made a small joke saying how they made him come out after every one was crying. It was kind of tacky. Second, I dont think his comment was called for. I dont really care for people going on their soapbox about their issues, that is unless it is as it was for Sean Penn, that what they are being recognized for deals with that issue.

Sorry Bill, wasnt impressed.

There's more than a little narcissism going on with him.

With Maher it's always got to be about him.

He's a little too self-satisfied for my tastes, a little too smug, and that perception of him can water down whatever valid points he has to make.

and in it only for him.

Besides, he dated Ann Coulter--yikes!

He can be really clever, but to me there's always an undercurrent
that gives me the feeling he's not a very nice person.

Sounded like sour grapes for him not being nominated.

I shut off the TV right after Heath's family accepted his award. If I had seen Bill Maher after that, I would have gone to bed pissed.

:eyes:

Sounds like you just don't agree with Maher and that's really your beef with him.

Bill Maher was there as a presenter. That doesnt give him the right to go on his soapbox. It isnt his moment. Its the moment for whoever wins. For Penn, it was his moment because he won, and what he talked about had to do with his movie.

Live TV is the perfect time to speak truth to power on airwaves controlled by the corporate media bastards who want to control us all.

Go Bill! :applause:

Religious tolerance ultimately only allows religion to grow and fester. No, it's not okay to just "believe what you will." It's not okay to believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old and that Jesus lived with dinosaurs. That kind of sheer (and tolerated) stupidity sets a dangerous precedent. Nor is it okay to believe (and tolerate) that it's okay to treat women as subhuman filth because your god says so - that sets an even more dangerous precedent.

But then you'll say "Well what about the religious moderates? They don't believe in that crazy stuff." The point is, that by even associating with the same religion as the "fundamentalists" only serves to allow said fundamentalists to grow and fester. Both sides are equally detrimental.

What I hear you guys saying is that nothing less than prohibition of ALL religious belief will stop the stupid and cruel things SOME people do in the name of their religious belief.

In other words, you want to take away one of the rights enshrined in the First Amendment--freedom of religion--rather than expanding its interpretation to include freedom FROM religion (as in, freedom to personally believe in no religion).

How is that any different from wanting to take away the freedom of speech (because sometimes people use it to say stupid things or to help stupid ideas grow and fester) or assembly (because mobs can do terrible things) or of the press (because someone could publish an article claiming that it's OK to treat women as subhuman, etc.)?

I don't get it.

Either you want to live in America, where people are free to speak, publish, assemble and worship--or not worship--as they please, or you want to live in a totalitarian state where anything determined to be "not okay" or "dangerous" or "silly" is prohibited.

By claiming a belief in the same God. Period.

I'm not saying that religion needs to be stopped by force. Violence in religon is the problem - why respond to it with violence? On the contrary, logic, science and common sense need to stop religion. Nothing else can.

How many wars are started over scientific debate? How much violence is caused by logic?

Your argument about taking away freedom of speech is also moot. If someone says that Jupiter is made of cotton candy, they are exercising their first amendment right. But they're still wrong, and can be proven wrong. Same as if someone says they believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old.

Like I said, there's no need for a totalitarian state. Logic and common-sense will either save humanity, or religion will continue to destroy it.

People who see all religion as evil cannot be argued with.

Well lets see both world wars, the cold war and most genocides last century.

People who blame religion for war seem strangly myopic of recent history.

No, scientific debate had nothing to do with either world war. It was politics and nationalism. And, no, genocides, and the cold war weren't from scientific debate either. You might say Mutually Assured Destruction was arrived at via 'logic' - but, then again, it wasn't actually violence.

It can be worked even unconsiously. It has been used by dictators to dehumanize those they want to oppress by the state. Take Hitler's Germany for instance, religion was a tool. Here follows some quotes:

I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator.

- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 2

Even today I am not ashamed to say that, overpowered by stormy enthusiasm, I fell down on my knees and thanked Heaven from an overflowing heart for granting me the good fortune of being permitted to live at this time.

- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 5

Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise.

- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Vol. 2 Chapter 1

"We demand freedom for all religious confessions in the state, insofar as they do not endanger its existence or conflict with the customs and moral sentiments of the Germanic race. The party as such represents the standpoint of a positive Christianity, without owing itself to a particular confession...."


- Article 20 of the program of the German Workers' Party (later named the National Socialist German Workers' Party, NSDAP)


As long as leadership from above was not lacking, the people fulfilled their duty and obligation overwhelmingly. Whether Protestant pastor or Catholic priest, both together and particularly at the first flare, there really existed in both camps but a single holy German Reich, for whose existence and future each man turned to his own heaven.

- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 3


And the founder of Christianity made no secret indeed of his estimation of the Jewish people. When He found it necessary, He drove those enemies of the human race out of the Temple of God; because then, as always, they used religion as a means of advancing their commercial interests. But at that time Christ was nailed to the Cross for his attitude towards the Jews; whereas our modern Christians enter into party politics and when elections are being held they debase themselves to beg for Jewish votes. They even enter into political intrigues with the atheistic Jewish parties against the interests of their own Christian nation.

- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 11


My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. ...Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. ...

- Adolf Hitler, speech on April 12, 1922

The fact that the Curia is now making its peace with Fascism shows that the Vatican trusts the new political realities far more than did the former liberal democracy with which it could not come to terms. ...The fact that the Catholic Church has come to an agreement with Fascist Italy ...proves beyond doubt that the Fascist world of ideas is closer to Christianity than those of Jewish liberalism or even atheistic Marxism...

- Adolf Hitler in an article in the Völkischer Beobachter, February 29, 1929, on the new Lateran Treaty between Mussolini's fascist government and the Vatican

By its decision to carry out the political and moral cleansing of our public life, the Government is creating and securing the conditions for a really deep and inner religious life. The advantages for the individual which may be derived from compromises with atheistic organizations do not compare in any way with the consequences which are visible in the destruction of our common religious and ethical values. The national Government sees in both Christian denominations the most important factor for the maintenance of our society. ...

- Adolf Hitler, speech before the Reichstag, March 23, 1933, just before the Enabling Act is passed.


Shall I keep going? There are plenty more. I'm not blaming religion, just showing how it can used to create a following with tyranny.

The point is that the war wasn't religious in nature at all. It was about very non-religious goals and power grabs.

People love to blame religion for wars yet the reality is with the exception of a few smaller conflicts religious wars fell out of favor around the time the Spanish Armada sunk.

Unless, of course, you meant to say "people who call themselves Christian, but I'm a TRUE Christian, so they must NOT be Christians after all!" :eyes:

Anti Christan Nazi's like Rosenberg were prominent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Rosenberg

Alfred Rosenberg (help·info) (12 January 1893 – 16 October 1946) was an early and intellectually influential member of the Nazi Party. Rosenberg was first introduced to Adolf Hitler by Dietrich Eckart; he later held several important posts in the Nazi government. He is considered one of the main authors of key Nazi ideological creeds, including its racial theory, persecution of the Jews, Lebensraum, abrogation of the Treaty of Versailles, and opposition to "degenerate" modern art. He is also known for his rejection of Christianity.<1> He also played an important role in the development of Positive Christianity.<2> At Nuremberg he was tried, sentenced to death and executed by hanging as a war criminal

You do understand that Anti-Christianity != Paganism, right?

You do understand that Nudists, Nazis, Satanists, Atheists, Anti-Christians, etc., are not Pagan, right?

Rosenberg argued for a new "religion of the blood," based on the supposed innate promptings of the Nordic soul to defend its noble character against racial and cultural degeneration. He believed that this had been embodied in early Indo-European religions, notably ancient European (Celtic, Germanic, Baltic, Roman) paganism, Zoroastrianism and Vedic Hinduism. Unlike Heinrich Himmler, he had less attachment to Buddhism.<12> Following Chamberlain's ideas, he condemned what he called "negative Christianity," the orthodox beliefs of Protestant and Catholic churches, arguing instead for a so-called "positive" Christianity based on Chamberlain's claim that Jesus was a member of a Nordic enclave resident in ancient Galilee who struggled against Judaism. For Rosenberg religious doctrine was not important; what mattered was that a belief should serve the interests of the Nordic race, connecting the individual to his racial nature. Rosenberg stated that "The general ideas of the Roman and of the Protestant churches are negative Christianity and do not, therefore, accord with our (German) soul."

This doesn't mean all nazies were pagans but they did adopt many pagan cermonies and beliefs.

They changed Christmas to the Winter Solace for example.

"During Third Reich Germany, Heinrich Himmler, founder and commander of the SS, who placed great interest in Ariosophy, gave the Julleuchter as a presentation piece for SS soldiers to celebrate the winter solstice."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julleuchter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariosophy

...And I'll leave you to it.

"or religion will continue to destroy it...."

And philosophy, and politics, and art, and literature, and all the rest of the man-made constructs which exists no where but our own imagination. And they all have one thing in common-- the person who adheres to a philosophy more often than not believes himself to be right at the expense of all the other "stupid" people..

But once they get out of their church, synagogue, or mosque tell them that they can't act on some of their bullshit beliefs. No, you can't go around slicing newborn boys' tallywhackers, that's child abuse. No, you can't get your driver's license picture taken with a curtain over your face, that defeats the whole purpose of an identification. No, you can't whine about the services offered at a women's clinic, that's up to public health officials to decide.

I don't care if they want to handle snakes, snort peyote, or fart the Star-Spangled Banner at their worship service as long as they keep the damn door shut. Once they declare the service is over and they go back out into the world, they are just going to have to hold back on their beliefs and let reality, science, and facts hold sway over their behavior.

Who wants to do this?

Anymore than there is freedom from speech.

You know what freedom from speech is? It is censorship.

People who claim that they want freedom from religion are simply saying they are intolerant of others that are different than themselves.

And an intolerant bigot, no matter how you dress him up, is still a bigot.

I call them 2nd hand atheists cause they view religion the way anti-smoking forces view cigarettes.


They want to ban religious freedom from public spaces for the sake of the general good. They feel they have the right to never hear another mans opinion and are offended when they do.

They are no less fundamentalist and no more tolerant than the worst religious whackjob.

Who gets to decide? You?

The comparison is complete bullshit. If religious people would learn to keep their irrational bs to themselves in the public sphere, you wouldn't hear ONE PEEP from any atheist I know, myself included. I feel no particular urge to point out the stupidity and dangerousness of religion to anyone. Never have.

But as a REACTION to having it thrown in my face every single fucking day? To having a pastor tell my mother I am an unfit parent because I failed to let my children partake in Bronze Age water magic ritual ceremonies? How about the literal dozens of times I have had to get up on arthritic knees to get the door when it was some asshole asking me about Jesus?

I also notice it is never Buddha, or Allah, or The Lord and Lady, or Odin, they are asking about. Just Jesus. Fun little factoid.

Sure, people tend to get snarky. Boo fucking hoo. YOU'RE the ones telling everyone they are going to hell unless they believe what you do. Get over it.

:wtf:

I don't know where you live but I admit I am relatively unaccosted by door to door types.

I don't care if they are selling magazines or Jesus get of my fucking lawn.

As for your mother... if you ask a priest his opinion he will tell you.

What that has to do with the price of tea in China is beyond me.

I don't believe in hell and I am not sure why you would assume I do.

Seriously why would you think I believe in hell?

About every 3 weeks somebody comes peddling their mythical bullshit...

On Saturday I was outside wetting my weeds :) and throwing some Scott's down getting ready for Spring, and two ladies stop their car in front of the mailbox. No, they were not walking door to door, just came down the street and stopped at only my house. ( I saw Other neighbors outside jacking around in yard as well as I looked down the street. )

I saw the bible and said here we go.... :rofl:

After a couple snarky comments ( If Gawd itself comes on over to tell me about the light I'll think about it :rofl: ) I told them my girfriend was inside if they want to chat with her. ( Yes, I am evil :evilgrin: )

Apparently they told me girlfriend about all the different evils in the World while Max, our Bichon Frise, was going nuts behind the door :rofl:

Then they waved and said by as they walked by back to their car and then left down the street not stopping.


Don't know why they only come just to my house- Maybe it's a sign :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Not sure how I would feel if my SO did that to me. I'd probably feel a bit of both and then plan my counter attack....

In my laptop bag :)

Reminds me of the time my brother filled out an 'army' card for me that said 'Yes I want the free pair of tube socks and more info about the army'.

Jerk. They never stopped calling. He laughed his a$$ off everytime the phone rang. Hmmm.... maybe I'll call some church's and beg that they go save his soul..... I do owe him.

but I must point out that it is YOU and the likes of you who constantly get in MY face every time something vaguely religious or spiritual comes up.

Soviet regime. Pure atheism in action.

No one gets a pass, cowboy.

because they are practicing "freedom of religion".

Yet when atheists put up a billboard saying what they believe, the fundies lose it and work to get the billboard removed.

Fundies don't want freedom of religion. They want freedom to spew fundie bullshit as much as possible while they silence everyone else. :puke:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4514680

We have a winner...Bravo Bill Maher.

i've never met, heard, seen, or read another atheist who proposed that private citizens don't have the right to express their religious views in public spaces. now, i'm sure there are a few out there... somewhere. but they would have to be pretty rare, and would represent atheism about as accurately as branch davidians represent christianity. not to say they aren't "real" atheists. just that, they wouldn't be taking a legally defensible position on this particular subject.

on the other hand, many, *MANY* of us want to see the separation of church and state being strictly upheld. in that sense, government entities and employees very much *should* be prohibited from advocating for a religion, or indeed religion *at all* in the public sphere. that isn't to protect us all from second-hand theism. it's to make sure the state abides by it's fucking duty under the first amendment to the constitution of the united states of america.

and by the way, there is no real difference between freedom *of* religion, and freedom *from* religion. though that doesn't even really matter here, since what we're arguing is about the establishment clause (which is explicitly about freedom *from* religion) as much or more as it's about the free exercise clause (where you get the freedom *of* religion).

finally, lay off the "fundamentalist atheist" bullshit. it's nonsensical. furthermore, it is contrary to the point you seem to be attempting to make. if atheism were a religion (or even an true ideology) with the potential to be "fundamentalist" it would most likely fall under your own "freedom of, not from religion" rubric in any case.

That makes me a "whackjob?"

and cleanse our streets of religious symbols and of course eliminate Federal holidays with religious connotations like Christmas and MLK day so you possible couldn't run into anything offensive.

:sarcasm:

Making jokes about the silliness of religion is not prohibition of religion.

Do you think freedom of religion requires freedom from ever hearing anyone make fun of your religion?

Do you think hoping for more people to give up the superstition of religion, and voicing that hope, equate to rallying for the prohibition of religion?

That makes no absolutely no sense.

Honestly it is this kind of thinking that gives fundamentalist atheists a bad name.

In the case of religion, that conflict is incredibly bloody.

The argument that there can be no coexistence has been tried before, go and Google the 30 years war if you doubt me.

It is better to tolerate and live, than embrace intolerance and court destruction.

to religious feelings today. Anymore than the dietary habits of the Aztecs reflect on modern Mexican cuisine.

Religious tolerance followed the 1648 Peace of Westphalia in part at least due to the fact that militant intolerance was tantamount to national suicide. Religious feelings may not be exactly the same today, but they are exacerbated by political ideology. (after all there was no Marx, or Rushdoony in 1618 either.)

Push the envelope of conflict too far and we risk an ideological civil war that none of us is prepared for, and which will leave us much like Germany in 1648, a blackened, famine-wracked ruin.

Yes people do change all that much. It's called the enlightenment and civilization. and scientific method and about a hundred other things that puts us ahead of the barbarians.

The fact that you use the term shows how little we have actually progressed. No we do not own people as chattel property anymore. We own their debt, their labor, their futures. As to enlightenment and civilization, the "enlightened" and "civilized" nations of the earth went to war twice last century, using all the marvelous weapons that the scientific method allowed them to design and managed to slaughter 60-70 million people, leave vast swathes of our planet in ruins, and developed weapons capable of ending all life on earth.

Barbarism is barbarism, whether done with a stone club, or precision guided weaponry, slaughter looks about the same from the receiving end.

forefront of the peace movement not the war movement.

And there is no comparison between owning investment grade securities and owning slaves.

I think Mr. Harris' argument that conflict needs to be ratcheted up between believers and non-believers is stupid, and plays into the hands of the extremists he so thoroughly despises. In advocating such a strategy, I see Mr. Harris as a conflict junkie who is baiting a bear far larger and more dangerous than he can even imagine, for sectarian hatred is not to be trifled with.

I agree with your argument that religion was not the central issue in WWI and WWII, (Unless you consider Nazism a religion, an argument which is fascinating and somewhat compelling, I agree) I was using it as an example of enlightened and civilized nations acting barbaric.

from the viewpoint that I would title the Atheist Taliban...

His views are just as extremist as some of the groups he criticizes...

I am not saying that he doesn't make valid points (me, I am an atheist)... However...

I don't think his views are extremist. His positions are immutable, but not exreme. I noticed no proselytizing or any attempt to convert. Sure, if one is a religious person, his ridicule could be interpreted as "think my way instead", but somehow i doubt Maher made this movie for the truly religious. I think he made it more for people like you (atheist) and me (abjectly disinterested either way). Extremists try to convert or forceably push their "way" onto others. I didn't notice that in Maher's movie.
GAC

I consider myself a practicing NOTA...even athiests are too organized for me. I've always viewed religion with a sceptical eye similar to Mahrer and found he was bringing to the public a world many don't see. For example, the bible park in Florida...I had heard about it when it opened and was amused to see how successful it was. For most people, they don't know this place exists, but it's a must stop on the Armegeddon Express...and I think Mahrer showed the park for what it was...amusing, yet stupifying that such a thing could exist and be so popular.

There are many times I feel Mahrer steps out of his league but not in this case. I think he tweeked the nerves of many who look the other way to a lot of the lunacy that has sprouted in the fundamentalist world that led to 8 years of georgie boooosh. It was an extremism we paid with in blood in Iraq and a dumbing down of our society.

Cheers...

The first place he stops - the trucker's chapel - he has a very civil discussion. Asks his questions, they freely profess they don't know the answers, he thanks them for their time, they pray over him. And don't you remember what he says next?

"Thank you for being Christ-like".

Those guys showed exactly what Christians can be, they were respectful, tolerant, and in the end - faithful to their religion. Maher recognized that and thanked them. I found it fascinating the way he mirrored many of the peoples' attitudes back at them; the truckers were respectful, they got respect. The convo he had with the priest in the Vatican square vs. the pompous bloviating senator.....

I'm flabbergasted actually that anyone would believe he's an "extremist" for trying to discuss, analyze and question some of religion's sacred cows, with self-defined religious people. That even doing this much makes him, in your opinion, an "atheist taliban".

I'm really curious what "extremist" views he articulated in Religulus that you feel deserve him being labelled the "atheist taliban".

:shrug:

But obviously you missed that point, so forget it.

The ever elusive point.

:eyes:

However, as long as people are free to believe AND they don't push their beliefs on others (such as that first born), then I agree with "believe what you will".

The minute someone tries to sell their beliefs is where I draw the line. Whoa to the anti-abortionist, christian, PETA supporter, karma believer, muslim, woo-woo believer, etc that what's to push/sell their belief & moral system onto me.

Live and let live but only up to the second that they don't give me the same respect.

to fight the Jewish people before Jesus will have his second coming and then do everything in their power to make it happen. That's the kind of belief that must be challenged and questioned in public and debated logically often.

As long as a person's beliefs don't impact others, leave them be. As soon as their beliefs impact others then those beliefs & people should be STRONGLY challenged. It should be as socially unacceptable for a person to impose their beliefs/moral on others as it is to call someone a "nigger".

I take it even further, if a person wants to even talk about their beliefs, then they should expect comments like "Gods are silly". There is no need to be "respectful" once someone starts trying to share or convert others.

People can believe whatever they want, but they can't expect tolerance once they open their mouths.

When Revelations was written down there were NO Muslims. It doesn't even make sense on its face.

In the minds of millions of American religious extremists 'End Times' philosophy should determine our foreign policy. This is utter bullshit nonsense.

who have a belief in a higher power are the only people here that the mods and adminstrators allow to be raked over the coals, insulted, called ignorant and get blamed for every fucking bad thing that happens on earth. Of course, while they're pitching their latest fit and begging for understanding for their own cause or belief.

So, don't worry about it.

Believing that Muslims must fight the Jewish before Jesus returns and trying to make is happen is dangerous. Believing that God hates homosexuals because christian leaders say so is sick.

My 'God' hates no one.

And the so called anti-homosexual stuff is in Leviticus. You do realize that Colossians 2:13-14 "...he forgave us all our sins, having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross." is proof of Paul's antinomistic views.


Blame the Jews all you want but most modern literate Christians don't follow that hate homosexual crap.

As with any topic here, if you post your thoughts, you should expect them to be challenged.

If you make a poor argument supporting your thoughts, then people will point out any stupidity quickly.

If you don't want to be challenged or you can't support your thoughts, don't post.

Religion is too often considered an forbidden subject to challenge people on. It isn't.

fine with me the way things are. The hypocrisy has moved from being offensive and irritating to absolutely hilarious.

edit: *Except being banned for being offensive. Of course I'd have to work at it really really hard to be as offensive as those who are convinced they have it all figured out.

How is it any more offensive to challenge your post about a belief in a "higher power" than it is to challenge your post about, say, the Death Penalty?

Explain to me why is challenging one topic is considered "offensive" and challenging the other isn't.

obscenities and the really downright dispicable insults. I don't care what anyone here 'challenges'.

2nd Amendment, Death Penalty, PETA, Smoking, all these topics are FULL of the exact same behaviors. Hell, I'm surprised when any thread with over 100 posts in it here doesn't have obscenities and insults in it.

Again, why is only considered "offensive" if it occurs when discussing religious beliefs?

I can go take care of my grandkids and get the same type of behavior.

I figured you would either ignore the question or run away.

I was right, you can't make a case for religion getting special treatment without being a hypocrite yourself.

Thanks for playing & proving my point.

would post too.

Why is it only "offensive" to you when you insulted about your religious beliefs but not about your beliefs in the Death Penalty, eating animals, smoking, etc?

Don't worry, I know you can't answer without sounding like a hypocrite, so you'll continue to evade, change topics, insult. In fact, all the things you complain others to do you when you are discussing religion. :rofl:

it should be treated 'differently' at all. In fact, I think the same rules should hold for religion that holds for everything else.

No other topic here allows for the name calling and insults that thay topic does. The insults are personal and inflammatory. You cannot post nasty threads about the democratic party, GLBTers, or anyone else except those that have personal religious beliefs. AN opposite view point, discussion, debate, whatever, that is perfectly fine and as it should be.

The downright disgusting nastiness is not.


DID YOU CATCH THAT?

The day you can show me a PETA, smoking, SUV, Death Penalty, Gun Rights, or a dozen other hot topics that don't have the exact same level of "nastiness" is when you'll have a point.

Until then you come across as whining and wanting special treatment.

of your shit-stirring.

Why do your beliefs, or any beliefs for that matter, deserve to be immune from comment, criticism or even ridicule? What's so special about "belief" that it should be protected? Scientific ideas are challenged all the time. Art, movies, music are all critiqued. Economics, parenting, morality, politics - all are hotly debated. Why do religious beliefs deserve some special place, where they have to be "respected" and we all have to tread lightly, for fear of offending the believers?

Sid

Critics of religion have a problem telling the difference between beliefs and believers, or are incapable of avoiding personal attacks. The evidence is scattered across this site. But, unlike when posters say "Jews" instead of "Israel" when talking about a foreign country's politics, the comments about belieVERS are usually allowed to stand.

separating their beliefs from their identity.

Sid

but "respect" is hardly ever the word to use for discussions of religion here. It is always a very condescending, disdainful and insulting tone taken in the "discussions" (if you can call them that). The broad brush strokes of whole groups of people and the total ignorance of the religion that many people essentially harass and make fun of is the difference. When you call someone's deepest held beliefs a "fairy tale" (as happens all the time here), you are ridiculing them and trying to make them feel small. How the fuck does that have any place on this board? You can easily say that you don't believe what they do another way. No one would ever have a discussion like that with a person face to face, and if they did, then they're assholes.

Perhaps on no other issue is intolerance, broad brush generalizations and ignorant statements allowed such free rein. Let's just say that you will find little in the way of smart or engaging topics of religion here because of that.

It's the only group (with the obvious exception of Republicans) one can openly say all manner of hateful thing about here. If anything is said about it though, well you know what happens. Has the "persecution complex pie graph" been posted in response to your post yet? If not I'm sure it's coming.

There are few things more dangerous that the idea that certain things should not, under any circumstance be questioned. It is unscientific and irrational.
It damages us all.

We cannot be held accountable for the fact that some people choose to believe in illogical, ridiculous fairytales.
If someone told you there was a unicorn standing in front of them you'd have them committed. Why must we pretend that those that tell us they can talk to their personal incarnation of an amalgamation of tribal desert deities are any more sane?

Until believers can stand toe-to-toe against skeptics and provide proper evidence for their beliefs, religion will never be more than glorified make-believe on a massive scale. Just like unicorns and all the thousands of other gods, named and nameless, that humanity has believed on over the centuries since we've awakened onto this world.

Sorry to say this but your personal deity is no different than any other deity that has ever existed.

It's been documented.

The leadership are a bunch of snakeoil salesmen who work with politicians to manipulate people. And the sole purpose of both the politicians and "preachers" is to amass money and power for themselves.

I use the quotation marks because I do not recognize them as Christians or Jews.

Other than his jab last night, that entire movie was written to make fun of Scientologists.

"Chubby Rain" :rofl:

Sid

Neither is very funny, both have huge narcissistic egos, and both have a strong tendency to be assholes. Maher is allegedly a liberal, Miller a conservative.

and it really isn't about their political positions, it is really about about them personally.

People who live in glass houses and all that.

Wah, you had to come out after Heath. Shut the fuck up and do your bit.

His entire thing was all about him

I thought he got a chilly reception, but I expect him to be off script and I loved the movie!

I was a hostage expected to become a good little Catholic forced to go to Mass and classes on bull shit talked about in toilet paper stock known as a 'holy' bible.

Fortunately I escaped the trap and am very happily pagan. I support protecting the right of belief and worship in a religion of choice, but personally I find most religion absolute insanity and manipulative garbage meant to control and assimilate people, not help them.

My gut take on the religion inflicted on a young me: Jesus was fiction. I have nothing against many of things put in the mouth of this avatar, but I don't serious believe the bullshit he existed.

I think there's more ex-catholics than practicing Catholics in the US these days.

Religion(TM) as an enterprise is responsible for a great many terrible things.

The guy who wakes up and looks at the sunrises and things there might be something greater than himself out there isn't the problem. Even if he's wrong.

Its good for you.

99% of those who are passionate about their religion think their soul doesn't stink.

They think because their delusion gives them dopamine it will also be good for you, not realizing that you don't share the delusion, so see their faith as evidence of mental illness.

The teachings of Jesus can be summed up in about five minutes, and it's mainly about things Christian churches don't spend any time talking about. That whole "do it for the least of these among you" thing goes right over their heads. No, Jesus, you shut the hell up! We'll decide how to show you respect, and we think it requires big buildings, tall steeples, and ostentatious interior decorating!"

We seemed to have evolved religion right along with things like agriculture. How do you tell what a society would be like free of religious influence? You can't.

There are people who murder or commit atrocities who do so in the name of no religion. There are people who do incredible good who are atheists.

However, religion seems to have shaped much of our culture including the idea that religious violence or just plain violence is wrong. Including the idea of a God free universe.

I'm agnostic/atheist, God's are kind of silly to me as well, and I abhor religion in government and religion that promotes violence or patriarchy. (Which covers most of them I know about) I always wonder what would have replaced religion in humans? Would we be less violent? Why did we evolve religion? You know stupid stuff like that that generally covered in certain 101 courses.

Still, how do you separate religion and human behavior?