on religion, Sarah Palin, scientology...etc.

<embed FlashVars='videoId=186755' src='http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/video_player/view/default/swf.jhtml' quality='high' bgcolor='#cccccc' width='332' height='316' name='comedy_central_player' align='middle' allowScriptAccess='always' allownetworking='external' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' pluginspage='http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer'></embed>

<embed FlashVars='videoId=186756' src='http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/video_player/view/default/swf.jhtml' quality='high' bgcolor='#cccccc' width='332' height='316' name='comedy_central_player' align='middle' allowScriptAccess='always' allownetworking='external' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' pluginspage='http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer'></embed>

I thought this was worth sharing. The bit about Jesus coming down to die for the sins of the world was pretty good. Anyway, I didn't want this to get buried in one of the other threads.

"almost every war in history and suicide bombers, oppression of women and minorities and having sex with children"

really?

I would attribute all of those to greed and struggle for power. Also a witchdoctor doesn't cure people of witches.

Hope his movie bombs.

Newsflash - Bill Maher thinks people who believe in religion are stupid.

I would actually enjoy seeing him in a serious conversation about it some time. He tends to just belittle and mock things he doesn't agree with, but rarely have I seen him give reasons.

Hope his movie bombs.

That would just prove his point that people (religious people, especially) are to stubborn and ignorant to acknowledge the other side of things. That being said, God bless Bill Maher. My personal hero.

That would just prove his point that people (religious people, especially) are to stubborn and ignorant to acknowledge the other side of things.How many times did you go see The Passion or Expelled?

How many times did you go see The Passion or Expelled?:lol: :thumbsup:

Or VeggieTales!

Maher makes a very good point about Scientology/Christianity. That we call the Scientologists crazy because it's new, but we're okay with Christianity because it's been around awhile and because more people believe in it. Despite the fact that the stories in both would be considered ludicrous to anyone who had not heard them before.

Or VeggieTales!Know your roots!

Saw Ben Stein's Expelled once in theaters and I've seen Passion of the Christ twice, the first time I saw it when my parents dragged me into the movie theater, and then I saw it again on DVD a few weeks after the Mel Gibson controversy. I'm open to the other side of thinking, I just find Maher's side more rational and proven. I, like Maher and many other agnostics, will man up and say that I simply do not know, something Christians won't do.

Newsflash - Bill Maher thinks people who believe in religion are stupid.

I would actually enjoy seeing him in a serious conversation about it some time. He tends to just belittle and mock things he doesn't agree with, but rarely have I seen him give reasons.You didn't ask for it, but here's my opinion. I don't think that people who believe in religion are stupid. I think it's fine and harmless to believe in whatever you want to believe in. However, it's not fine and harmless when those beliefs are so strong in someone who gets put into a position of power, and when those beliefs are allowed to influence laws and policy. Especially in the area of foreign policy when you are often dealing with people of very different beliefs. This is why it's important to separate government and religion. Now, believe it or not, I actually don't think Bush or Cheney mixed a lot of religion into their jobs. However, that's because I don't think either of them are all that religious. They just got the religious people in this country to believe that they were.

Palin is a different story. She is VERY much religious and believes literally in the Bible. This worries me. And it will worry many other people as well. Because it makes us wonder how far she will take her beliefs. She does not strike me as a woman who is capable of separating her beliefs from setting policy that are in the best interests of the country.

And yet, this idiot probably believes in man made global warming.

That would just prove his point that people (religious people, especially) are to stubborn and ignorant to acknowledge the other side of things.
Yes the only possible reason the movie may fail is because people are ignorant and stubborn, not because the movie-going public doesn't usually flock to low-advertised documentaries. I'm sure it will still do better than Cannibal Women in the Avocado Jungle of Death, though, so that's a plus.

Palin is a different story. She is VERY much religious and believes literally in the Bible. This worries me. And it will worry many other people as well. Because it makes us wonder how far she will take her beliefs. She does not strike me as a woman who is capable of separating her beliefs from setting policy that are in the best interests of the country.
Has this been the case in Alaska?

Wow, Bill Maher is still getting air time? I had no idea. I figured his relevancy had pretty much gone away long, long ago.

the movie is directed by Larry Charles of Curb Your Enthusiasm/Borat fame, so I'd imagine it will, at least, be entertaining.

here's the trailer and two other clips:

http://www.lionsgate.com/religulous/index2.html

Religious people are so unreasonable.

/generalization

Newsflash - Bill Maher thinks people who believe in religion are stupid. He's very funny when he does it but it doesn't stop him from being a condescending ass.

You didn't ask for it, but here's my opinion. I don't think that people who believe in religion are stupid. I think it's fine and harmless to believe in whatever you want to believe in. However, it's not fine and harmless when those beliefs are so strong in someone who gets put into a position of power, and when those beliefs are allowed to influence laws and policy. Especially in the area of foreign policy when you are often dealing with people of very different beliefs. This is why it's important to separate government and religion. Now, believe it or not, I actually don't think Bush or Cheney mixed a lot of religion into their jobs. However, that's because I don't think either of them are all that religious. They just got the religious people in this country to believe that they were.

Palin is a different story. She is VERY much religious and believes literally in the Bible. This worries me. And it will worry many other people as well. Because it makes us wonder how far she will take her beliefs. She does not strike me as a woman who is capable of separating her beliefs from setting policy that are in the best interests of the country.

Bill Maher had exactly the same opinion of Bush rwt religion. Bush didn't believe in Evolution, or questioned it, or something. I remember that being a topic of discussion (or an off handed remark) on his show quite often.

I personally think Bush is very religious, but it's completely understandable when you consider that his faith got him off booze and (I assume) drugs. More power to him, I say.

(Just not political power) ;)

Maher makes a very good point about Scientology/Christianity. That we call the Scientologists crazy because it's new, but we're okay with Christianity because it's been around awhile and because more people believe in it. Despite the fact that the stories in both would be considered ludicrous to anyone who had not heard them before.

That is very simplistic. If Scientology could point point to actual historical events that are archeologically backed up, it would have much more power behind it. If Scientology had some of the greatest scientific minds that wrote extensively about it (like Kepler, Galileo, etc.) it would have more weight to it.

And the stories in each might look a whole lot different when taken in light of the insight of what those early people wrote on them. Certainly Alice in Wonderland grants new insight when you read about it rather than just read it. Why would one expect different from The Bible?

Additionally, I don't know that I could point to a Scientologist that comes across as having a great intellect. But could I so easily dismiss someone like Francis Collins who believes in it and was the head of the Human Genome Project? Might he know a little more about Christianity than Bill Maher?

Yes the only possible reason the movie may fail is because people are ignorant and stubborn, not because the movie-going public doesn't usually flock to low-advertised documentaries. I'm sure it will still do better than Cannibal Women in the Avocado Jungle of Death, though, so that's a plus.Cannibal Women in the Avocado Jungle of Death had Shannon Tweed, Adrienne Barbeau, and Karen Mistal... the only plusses it had going for it. :sad:

<b>Cannibal Women of the Avocado Jungle of Death</b> was a classic, and you clowns better damn well remember that. :grunt:

He's very funny when he does it but it doesn't stop him from being a condescending ass.

my sentiments exactly

I owned Cannibal Women on DVD at one point. :lol: Sold it awhile ago when I was clearing out my collection.

The forum awaited that news with bated breath. :)

Maher makes a very good point about Scientology/Christianity. That we call the Scientologists crazy because it's new, but we're okay with Christianity because it's been around awhile and because more people believe in it. Despite the fact that the stories in both would be considered ludicrous to anyone who had not heard them before.
Indeed. Scientology sounds freakin insane. But then, so does the idea of Christianity. I mean really - what's the difference besides Christianity having a 2000-year head start?

Indeed. Scientology sounds freakin insane. But then, so does the idea of Christianity. I mean really - what's the difference besides Christianity having a 2000-year head start?

At a minimum, 2000 years of scrutiny, I would think.

I suspect that the level of scrutiny 2000 years ago was not quite as robust as it is today. Send me back to that period with nothing but a cigarette lighter and an iPod, and today we'd all be worshiping at the Church of Groucho.

Bill Maher had exactly the same opinion of Bush rwt religion. Bush didn't believe in Evolution, or questioned it, or something. I remember that being a topic of discussion (or an off handed remark) on his show quite often.

Dammit.

What the hell does "rwt" mean?

I feel like Madison in the damn Odd Couple sometimes reading your stuff kvr.

What the hell does "rwt" mean?It's "with respect to" in Dyslexic. ;)

The Church of Groucho? Your ideas intrigue me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

I heard Maher on Fresh Air the other day (because I'm an NPR-listening elitisit), and he said that there is a real problem in giving political power to people who think that the world is going to end within their lifetimes and think that this is a good thing. I can't say I disagree with him.

Maher's justification for how he can support the very religious Senator Obama is always good for a laugh.

It's "with respect to" in Dyslexic. ;)

DAMMIT!!!

:lol:

Maher doesn't seem to have a problem with religion in and of it self, but with people who are absolutely certain of their belief, going so far as forcing it on others. And even as a Christian myself, I have to agree with him.

But what Maher doesn't seem to understand is that faith and certainty aren't the same thing. With faith comes varying degrees of doubt. And even I'm weary of religious people who are absolutely positive they are right. I only came to Christianity, not because it's 100% rock-solid, but it seems to make the most sense compared to other beliefs, including atheism. Heck, I'd be happy if 51% of just my theology was correct.

I wonder if he attacked Islam the way he attacks Christianity. I doubt it. Mahr's a pussy and would be too worried about what would happen to him if he did. I am sure this documentary is heavily weighted towards Christianity because it is safe to attack Christians. When has a group of Christians murdered anyone over a comic?

/i am not religious but I do believe in God.

I wonder if he attacked Islam the way he attacks Christianity. I doubt it.No, he pretty much blames 9/11 on the fact that there are a lot of Muslims who are idiots and do evil things because of religion. I would venture to say that he directs more of his anger towards religion for Islam than any other one.

Maher doesn't seem to have a problem with religion in and of it self, but with people who are absolutely certain of their belief, going so far as forcing it on others. And even as a Christian myself, I have to agree with him.



Semi agree. He has a -other- for religion. He is not nearly so fanatical in his beliefs when supporting other who believe non religious things just as strongly and want to force that belief on other people. Naturally, because he agrees with it. So he isn't just the "live and let live" person he pretends to be. Like JasonF points out, it is not really about religion, it is about political philosophy.

I forget the Evolutionary (atheist) biologist (he is quite popular and his name just slipped my mind) that wrote a review of Dawkins "The God Delusion" and it was obvious that he believed (and should be obvious to anyone who has read Dawkins) that it isn't just about what he believes, he has some deep seeded hatred of religion. Some people are just hate religion so blindly that I don't see them as much different (other than their side of the spectrum) from those they revile. That is Bill Maher.

No, he pretty much blames 9/11 on the fact that there are a lot of Muslims who are idiots and do evil things because of religion. I would venture to say that he directs more of his anger towards religion for Islam than any other one.

Then he does so privately. :lol:

When has a group of Christians murdered anyone over a comic?How about for printing a newspaper?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith,_Jr.

How about for printing a newspaper?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith,_Jr.

Oh man, that was just last week! :eek:



Oh wait. The actual answer is before slavery was abolished.

Then he does so privately. :lol:EKOw7VoRiog

Especially around 2:50 on.

Anyone catch him on The View earlier this week?

I was making a joke with a point. Take all of his rants on religion and which do you think gets the bulk of his attention and time?

I think he criticizes Christianity so much because he lives in a country that is predominantly Christian. It should be clear that he feels Islam is far more dangerous.

EKOw7VoRiog

Especially around 2:50 on.

I'll give Maher one thing, he 'gets' the Quran. He's smarter than most in that way at least.

"...in the Quran god keeps saying "if you're not one of us burning is too good for you""

I'll bet he would find the Hadith and Sira to be REAL eye openers.

Anyone catch him on The View earlier this week?

I did!
I liked when he asked about if Obama is the anti-christ.
I am a conservative and like Bill Maher, but don't like the other Hollywood liberals like the ones on THE VIEW.

Maher is still funny on occasion, but he's basically a kook. If you're applauding him because you like what he says about conservative Christians, you may want to find out more before signing on to the full agenda.

I did!
I liked when he asked about if Obama is the anti-christ.


Yeah here's some of the appearance. This segment is dealing more with Religion, Faith, and his new movie but Religion was sprinkled throughout the interview. He's pretty funny when he's coming down on Religion and Faith. He says the film isn't insulting or pointing a finger at people of faith.

There's more of the interview on Youtube.


<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/euafWnqidko&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/euafWnqidko&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Maher is still funny on occasion, but he's basically a kook. If you're applauding him because you like what he says about conservative Christians, you may want to find out more before signing on to the full agenda.


He reminds me (though opposite in view) of Dennis Miller. I keep thinking, "I liked you when you were just funny."

I would actually enjoy seeing him in a serious conversation about it some time. He tends to just belittle and mock things he doesn't agree with, but rarely have I seen him give reasons.

A "serious conversation" about religion is like discussing The Lord of the Rings as if it really happened. That's where the religious get it wrong. We don't think you are dumb, we just don't understand why you invest so much in something so obviously not true. I know that sounds like mocking but it's no different than Scientology or Wiccanism. Most scoff at those people.

How many times did you go see The Passion or Expelled?

Ask me how many times I've listened to, watched the film of or seen a stage production of Jesus Christ Superstar. :)

How many times?

That is very simplistic. If Scientology could point point to actual historical events that are archeologically backed up, it would have much more power behind it. If Scientology had some of the greatest scientific minds that wrote extensively about it (like Kepler, Galileo, etc.) it would have more weight to it.

But these events' archaeological evidence doesn't prove the existence of any god. By the way, how do you know Scientology won't be written about extensively over the next 500-1000 years? And how do you know there are no Scientlogists with great intellect?

A "serious conversation" about religion is like discussing The Lord of the Rings as if it really happened.
Uh, not even close. Do theologians not have serious conversations? Please.

Uh, not even close. Do theologians not have serious conversations? Please.

You're right. I probably should have limited my statement to Christianity since that was what I was brought up as and what I'm immersed in.

If a theologian conversed with an atheist, the atheist may find the theologian's philosophies interesting but would obviously not respect the core of the theologian's study, God.

what I'm immersed in.
Wow, no wonder you had to turn to horrible show tunes to help you cope. You should check out Modern Guilt -- I think the guy who made that has a great intellect. :up:

Ian Gillan: show tunes vocalist. :lol:

Pass the Beck thing on to kvrdave. I'll take Jeff Tweedy - I think he's a Christian-type. ;)

I suspect that the level of scrutiny 2000 years ago was not quite as robust as it is today. Send me back to that period with nothing but a cigarette lighter and an iPod, and today we'd all be worshiping at the Church of Groucho.

Would be worshipping at the Church of Groucho? Would be? Then tell me, why did I pay 14 easy payments of $599 plus shipping and handling for this all inclusive Groucho altar?

A "serious conversation" about religion is like discussing The Lord of the Rings as if it really happened. That's where the religious get it wrong. We don't think you are dumb, we just don't understand why you invest so much in something so obviously not true. I know that sounds like mocking but it's no different than Scientology or Wiccanism. Most scoff at those people.


When I posted about Dawkins having something against religion that goes far beyond simple reason, I actually made a reference to you. I then took it out because I thought that perhaps I went too far. :lol:

It sounds like the absolute height of arrogance to me. There are far smarter people than you (or me) in every sense of the word that believe in God. Yet here you are with perfect clarity that they believe something that is so obviously not true. It does sound a bit like mocking, but only because it seems impossible that arrogance could reach that level in an educated person.

But these events' archaeological evidence doesn't prove the existence of any god. By the way, how do you know Scientology won't be written about extensively over the next 500-1000 years? And how do you know there are no Scientlogists with great intellect?


I didn't claim they did, but to put something that has roots in history on the same level as what is claimed by scientology isn't even worthy of using brain cells. Without a bias that goes beyond just reason, any person can see that.

It sounds like the absolute height of arrogance to me. There are far smarter people than you (or me) in every sense of the word that believe in God. Yet here you are with perfect clarity that they believe something that is so obviously not true. It does sound a bit like mocking, but only because it seems impossible that arrogance could reach that level in an educated person.

There's the fallacy in your argument. These men may be more intelligent than we are (or, perhaps, have applied their intelligence more diligently), but at the core of it, it's still just belief. And I don't say "just belief" to belittle their faith (I'm one of those live and let live atheists), but to signify that this is not a conclusion based on fact. Would you be defending Scientology so fervently if several prominent scientists suddenly converted? I have my doubts about that.

Also, just because someone knows a lot about DNA, or physics, or evolution doesn't make them any more of an authority on God or gods than you or I. And I'm willing to bet that if you got all of these learned people together, their conceptions on what God is and what his purpose is (and what our purpose is) would vary greatly.

Truth to tell, I really don't understand the argument you're trying to make. If the argument is these really smart people must be right about God because they're so smart, then what is the flipside? Men who know a lot about God must be really smart? So we should start listening to all priests, bishops, and the Pope about what to do to fix our economic problems? Or get their opinions on the latest theories in nuclear physics? I'm sure some of them would have good answers, but I doubt those answers would have much to do about God or faith.

If you're going to defend religion, at least do it in a way that allows us to use our critical thinking skills, instead of saying, "Well, these guys are smarter than all of us, so why don't we shut up and listen to them?" Heck, I'll gladly engage in a friendly debate about several different religions or just the concept of God in general. It's a great subject to mull over and ponder. But arguments like that leave no room for debate.

There's the fallacy in your argument. These men may be more intelligent than we are (or, perhaps, have applied their intelligence more diligently), but at the core of it, it's still just belief. And I don't say "just belief" to belittle their faith (I'm one of those live and let live atheists), but to signify that this is not a conclusion based on fact. Would you be defending Scientology so fervently if several prominent scientists suddenly converted? I have my doubts about that.

Also, just because someone knows a lot about DNA, or physics, or evolution doesn't make them any more of an authority on God or gods than you or I. And I'm willing to bet that if you got all of these learned people together, their conceptions on what God is and what his purpose is (and what our purpose is) would vary greatly.

Truth to tell, I really don't understand the argument you're trying to make. If the argument is these really smart people must be right about God because they're so smart, then what is the flipside? Men who know a lot about God must be really smart? So we should start listening to all priests, bishops, and the Pope about what to do to fix our economic problems? Or get their opinions on the latest theories in nuclear physics? I'm sure some of them would have good answers, but I doubt those answers would have much to do about God or faith.

If you're going to defend religion, at least do it in a way that allows us to use our critical thinking skills, instead of saying, "Well, these guys are smarter than all of us, so why don't we shut up and listen to them?" Heck, I'll gladly engage in a friendly debate about several different religions or just the concept of God in general. It's a great subject to mull over and ponder. But arguments like that leave no room for debate.:clap: Thank you for saving me from typing pretty much the same thing.

Atheism is also a belief, like religion, where a true conclusion to it's accuracy cannot be reached based on existing facts.

A "serious conversation" about religion is like discussing The Lord of the Rings as if it really happened. That's where the religious get it wrong. We don't think you are dumb, we just don't understand why you invest so much in something so obviously not true. I know that sounds like mocking but it's no different than Scientology or Wiccanism. Most scoff at those people.

I've posted this before, but just in case you've missed it, here's a great, insightful article on 10 Things Christians and Atheists Can and Must Agree On (http://www.cracked.com/article_15759_10-things-christians-atheists-can-must-agree-on.html). I'd really like your take on it, as I feel it addresses you pretty well.

There's the fallacy in your argument. These men may be more intelligent than we are (or, perhaps, have applied their intelligence more diligently), but at the core of it, it's still just belief. And I don't say "just belief" to belittle their faith (I'm one of those live and let live atheists), but to signify that this is not a conclusion based on fact. Would you be defending Scientology so fervently if several prominent scientists suddenly converted? I have my doubts about that.

Also, just because someone knows a lot about DNA, or physics, or evolution doesn't make them any more of an authority on God or gods than you or I. And I'm willing to bet that if you got all of these learned people together, their conceptions on what God is and what his purpose is (and what our purpose is) would vary greatly.

Truth to tell, I really don't understand the argument you're trying to make. If the argument is these really smart people must be right about God because they're so smart, then what is the flipside? Men who know a lot about God must be really smart? So we should start listening to all priests, bishops, and the Pope about what to do to fix our economic problems? Or get their opinions on the latest theories in nuclear physics? I'm sure some of them would have good answers, but I doubt those answers would have much to do about God or faith.

If you're going to defend religion, at least do it in a way that allows us to use our critical thinking skills, instead of saying, "Well, these guys are smarter than all of us, so why don't we shut up and listen to them?" Heck, I'll gladly engage in a friendly debate about several different religions or just the concept of God in general. It's a great subject to mull over and ponder. But arguments like that leave no room for debate.


Then let me try to make the point more succinctly. Some, like CRM, don't just say that they don't see the rationale for belief in God, they say that they can't imagine how anyone does, that it is equivilent to belief in any science fiction. In short, that it is a position of a weak mind and equivilent to belief in Darth Vader, which would be historically inaccurate and condescending to any historian. My point is that there are far smarter people (and dumber) that both believe and don't believe, so to think that you can bring the idea of God down based on intelligence just doesn't hold water.

And of course it comes down to belief, but that doesn't mean it doesn't come down to a rational belief. I will leave you with that double negative. :)

It sounds like the absolute height of arrogance to me. There are far smarter people than you (or me) in every sense of the word that believe in God.

kvr is right.

I know that God lives.

see??? SEE???


"The fool has said in his heart - "there is no God""

Then let me try to make the point more succinctly. Some, like CRM, don't just say that they don't see the rationale for belief in God, they say that they can't imagine how anyone does, that it is equivilent to belief in any science fiction. In short, that it is a position of a weak mind and equivilent to belief in Darth Vader, which would be historically inaccurate and condescending to any historian. My point is that there are far smarter people (and dumber) that both believe and don't believe, so to think that you can bring the idea of God down based on intelligence just doesn't hold water.

And of course it comes down to belief, but that doesn't mean it doesn't come down to a rational belief. I will leave you with that double negative. :)

I wasn't agreeing with CRM's stance that only a fool can have a religious belief. If your purpose was solely to negate that argument, then I apologize for misunderstanding.

Yes the only possible reason the movie may fail is because people are ignorant and stubborn, not because the movie-going public doesn't usually flock to low-advertised documentaries. I'm sure it will still do better than Cannibal Women in the Avocado Jungle of Death, though, so that's a plus.

Yep, the ole sticks-in-the-mud who don't go to see it are staying at home, clinging to their guns & religion & antipathy toward people who aren't like them.

Not that Bill Maher has any antipathy toward religious people.

Which is odd given his belief that medicine is bad for people and should be avoided...which would make him a good candidate for several religious groups.

A "serious conversation" about religion is like discussing The Lord of the Rings as if it really happened. That's where the religious get it wrong. We don't think you are dumb, we just don't understand why you invest so much in something so obviously not true. I know that sounds like mocking but it's no different than Scientology or Wiccanism. Most scoff at those people.

"So obviously not true".

Um....could you provide your proof that God doesn't exist if it's "so obvious"?

Maybe you could provide testimony from a contemporary who's risen from the dead and can tell the rest of us where our consciousness goes when we die.

You're right. I probably should have limited my statement to Christianity since that was what I was brought up as and what I'm immersed in.

If a theologian conversed with an atheist, the atheist may find the theologian's philosophies interesting but would obviously not respect the core of the theologian's study, God.

Well, many theologians might find the atheist's philosophy interesting but would obviously not respect the core of the atheist's study, randomness (or nothing).

Palin is a different story. She is VERY much religious and believes literally in the Bible. This worries me. And it will worry many other people as well. Because it makes us wonder how far she will take her beliefs. She does not strike me as a woman who is capable of separating her beliefs from setting policy that are in the best interests of the country.

Yes, she has announced that she will personally travel around the country with a pair of scissors to take care of any uncircumsised males.

Maher is still funny on occasion, but he's basically a kook. If you're applauding him because you like what he says about conservative Christians, you may want to find out more before signing on to the full agenda. Why? I love what he's saying about this topic. I've always voted more conservative and will do so again, but I'd love to see more movies like this that make people take a closer look at their (strange) beliefs. Looking forward to the flick. I can agree with most of what Maher said in the John Stewart interview and not sign on to all of his agenda.

Atheism is also a belief, like religion, where a true conclusion to it's accuracy cannot be reached based on existing facts.

Agreed, I laugh when I hear atheists make fun of religious people. Seems to me theirs is the harder proof, proving a negative. And it requires just as much faith to believe there are no higher entities then us or on up the chain of command. If you are going to use factual arguements then you can only be a non-practicing agnostic. All else is faith.

Maher is still funny on occasion, but he's basically a kook. If you're applauding him because you like what he says about conservative Christians, you may want to find out more before signing on to the full agenda.Occasionally he lets some of his wacky views loose on his show. Last week he called milk "poison."

Agreed, I laugh when I hear atheists make fun of religious people. Seems to me theirs is the harder proof, proving a negative. And it requires just as much faith to believe there are no higher entities then us or on up the chain of command. If you are going to use factual arguements then you can only be a non-practicing agnostic. All else is faith.This. I have a sister who's an atheist, and her atheism is as much a religion as my Christianity. More so, actually, because I have long periods of doubt, but she's always sure there is no God.

The people who are having a hissy fit over Maher really don't listen to what he has to say, or are in complete denial. Maher never says he's certain there is no higher power, and that's the whole point.

The people who are having a hissy fit over Maher really don't listen to what he has to say, or are in complete denial. Maher never says he's certain there is no higher power, and that's the whole point.
Who is having a hissy fit over him? (in this thread--are there religious groups planning boycotts or something. I could see that happening). I think he can be pretty funny, but he's also a douche. I can't prove he's a douche, but that is my belief.

Actually you can prove your opinion, by giving examples of how you think he's a douche.

Who is having a hissy fit over him? (in this thread--are there religious groups planning boycotts or something. I could see that happening)

Way to take it too the extreme. People aren't listening to what Maher has to say, and simply calling him a douche. It's a very simple argument to make, but don't pretend like it doesn't have to do with him "bashing" religion.

The people who are having a hissy fit over Maher really don't listen to what he has to say, or are in complete denial. Maher never says he's certain there is no higher power, and that's the whole point.

But you miss the fact the Maher's "message" is often obscured by his condescending attitude towards people who happen to believe in some sort of higher power. He resorts to name calling and other negatives. It's disrespectful of people. You know how many here hate Bill O'Reilly? Sometimes listening to Maher going off on people who believe and talking over them the way he does seems a lot like O'Reilly and you know how many hate when O'Reilly does this sort of thing.

It's like how PETA turns people off to an otherwise reasonable "animal rights" issue by doing or saying over the top things. The message gets obscured and people get turned off.

Occasionally he lets some of his wacky views loose on his show. Last week he called milk "poison."
Yeah, he's as fanatical about animal rights as any religious fundamentalist is about his dogma. All while still an enthusiastic meat-eater, mind you.

But you miss the fact the Maher's "message" is often obscured by his condescending attitude towards people who happen to believe in some sort of higher power. He resorts to name calling and other negatives. It's disrespectful of people. You know how many here hate Bill O'Reilly? Sometimes listening to Maher going off on people who believe and talking over them the way he does seems a lot like O'Reilly and you know how many hate when O'Reilly does this sort of thing.

It's like how PETA turns people off to an otherwise reasonable "animal rights" issue by doing or saying over the top things. The message gets obscured and people get turned off.

Please, Maher isn't even comparable to Mr. "Shut Up" and the like, and you know it. He doesn't cut off his guests the way you are suggesting, and he gives his reasons for his views. It's not condescending, it's simply individuals not liking what he has to say about religion. If it comes off as condescending, then maybe their beliefs are really as silly as he is suggesting.

It's not condescending, it's simply individuals not liking what he has to say about religion. If it comes off as condescending, then maybe their beliefs are really as silly as he is suggesting.

I love that argument, "if you are mad, that proves I am right." (the same argument people use to defend the Hannitys and Moores of the world.)

He doesn't cut off his guests the way you are suggesting, and he gives his reasons for his views.He has a studio audience to do it for him, all the while feigning disapproval at them to give him the veneer of impartiality.

I love that argument, "if you are mad, that proves I am right." (the same argument people use to defend the Hannitys and Moores of the world.)

That's a simplification of a valid argument. These people won't even argue with Maher's points, because they can't. That's what they're so angry about.

He has a studio audience to do it for him, all the while feigning disapproval at them to give him the veneer of impartiality.

You must be watching a different show, because these people get to say whatever they want. So the audience chimes in every now and again, that's not exactly the same thing as cutting someone off.

He has a studio audience to do it for him, all the while feigning disapproval at them to give him the veneer of impartiality.

Bull. I'm pretty sure he's genuine in that he doesn't want the growd ganging up on members or simply applauding a point since it had a nice ring to it.

He has a studio audience to do it for him, all the while feigning disapproval at them to give him the veneer of impartiality.
Exactly.

Come on guys. Conservative panel members get booed down all the time on Maher's show.

That's a simplification of a valid argument. These people won't even argue with Maher's points, because they can't. That's what they're so angry about.

You don't find this condescending? You may think its the truth, but that doesn't mean it's not condescending. And again, is exactly my point.

Come on guys. Conservative panel members get booed down all the time on Maher's show.

So? Is the audience supposed to sit and be quiet? What should the audience be doing?

That's a simplification of a valid argument. These people won't even argue with Maher's points, because they can't. That's what they're so angry about.

That is because his "points" are often potshots laced with insults and name calling.

You don't find this condescending? You may think its the truth, but that doesn't mean it's not condescending. And again, is exactly my point.

How is someone getting angry over someone else making a point condescending? Are you suggesting that Maher is making his points simply to make people angry?

Come on guys. Conservative panel members get booed down all the time on Maher's show.

Huh? we talking Maher or his audience here?

http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/ff159/corysatori/Sammy-Stephens.jpg

That is because his "points" are often potshots laced with insults and name calling.

It's only insulting to people who don't understand that they're not rational. Just based on this conversation we're having, I believe you have listened to very little of what Maher has said. Do you even know his background? He was raised Catholic, and he clung to religion for a long time, so to say he just doesn't get religion is poppycock.

Who is saying he doesn't get religion?


btw, haven't we discussed Maher on here before?

Who is saying he doesn't get religion?

Not everything has to be blatantly stated in order to get a flow for the conversation.

Edit: Oh, there's a taa and tasha on here, confusing.

Just based on this conversation we're having, I believe you have listened to very little of what Maher has said.<i>You have demonstrated a tendency to question the knowledge and understanding of people with whom you disagree, and in doing so you make these discussions more personal than they should be. You should stop doing this.</i>

yeah, and you can make up arguements for the other side too so you can knock them down...what's taht called again?


Just watched wendersfan's clip. I guess he doesn't get religion completely. God didn't destroy the Jews and just save Noah...

I am not religious. I guess I would call myself agnostic. I still find Maher very condescending, but it seems that there is no room for calm rational arguments on TV. If you're not yelling or insulting, you're not being heard.

So? Is the audience supposed to sit and be quiet? What should the audience be doing?

Be respectful so that ideas can be exchanged? Crazy idea in today's TV programming climate, I know. It doesn't help that the "Real Time" panels themselves are usually stacked against conservatives.

I watched "Politically Incorrect" regularly when it was on Comedy Central, not so much when it was on ABC, but that was mostly because it was on too late. When he moved to HBO I started watching it again regularly, until about 2 seasons ago. I just got fed up with his smugness and the one-sidedness of the show.

That said, the "New Rules" segment is usually pretty funny.

How is someone getting angry over someone else making a point condescending? Are you suggesting that Maher is making his points simply to make people angry?

It's the thinking that other people have no valid argument against the point that is condescending. And yes, I'm sure his primary goal is to make people angry, why else would people watch his show?

And yes, I'm sure his primary goal is to make people angry, why else would people watch his show?It's primarily a comedy show. I don't think the purpose is to rile people up.

<i>You have demonstrated a tendency to question the knowledge and understanding of people with whom you disagree, and in doing so you make these discussions more personal than they should be. You should stop doing this.</i>

I'm not making anything personal. You take what people say, and if it doesn't really match what the subject has been saying, i.e. Maher, then I might feel inclined to point it out. The "based on the conversation" part is a disclaimer of sorts. I have in no way judged the intelligence of anyone in this thread, but simply the knowledge they have about the topic.

I am not religious. I guess I would call myself agnostic. I still find Maher very condescending, but it seems that there is no room for calm rational arguments on TV. If you're not yelling or insulting, you're not being heard.I love Maher's show; I think it's very entertaining and it's an opportunity to (a) find out about newsmakers with whom I'm unfamiliar and (b) see familiar politicians and journalists in a less formal environment than normal. It's occasionally even enlightening. Maher is a bright guy and he is knowledgeable about current events, but he is primarily an entertainer. His show is an entertainment show, not a news show, and he gets this. He plays to the audience, and he knows what he's doing when he gets a conservative on the show and the audience shouts them down. What is really great is when he will have someone espousing an unpopular opinion who will stand up to the audience. Chris Hitchens is a great example. There are a few Republican congressmen who are great guests because they can intelligently argue their side and don't get flustered by the audience. It makes for great TV. And ultimately, that's what it is - it's not <i>Washington Week in Review</i> and it's not <i>Firing Line</i>.

I am not religious. I guess I would call myself agnostic. I still find Maher very condescending, but it seems that there is no room for calm rational arguments on TV. If you're not yelling or insulting, you're not being heard.

I agree with you about religion, but I do think there is a place for rational discussion about religion on TV. I just don't think people go about it in a way that's conducive towards it because that wouldn't get the ratings argument does.

yeah, and you can make up arguements for the other side too so you can knock them down...what's taht called again?


Just watched wendersfan's clip. I guess he doesn't get religion completely. God didn't destroy the Jews and just save Noah...

Right, because that's what I was doing. I didn't make up any argument, I'm simply trying to figure out why people have a specific belief about him. Actually having a real discussion instead of people just saying "he's great" or "he's a douche." Ya dig?

Oh, he didn't get the "facts" exactly right about the Bible. His points are now invalid? Yeah, that's not making up arguments at all. :rolleyes:

Did I say his points are invalid? I simply stated that he doesn't "get religion" completely.

He was the one using the fact to make his point, the fact turned out to be wrong. His point is still valid, but he should try to use real facts next time

It's primarily a comedy show. I don't think the purpose is to rile people up.
Yeah, he's a comedian. I don't care that his show isn't fair and balanced, it doesn't have to be. It's a big circle jerk for people who agree with him, and that's fine. I don't have to watch it.
He's no more an expert on religion or anything else than any of us are.

He's no more an expert on religion or anything else than any of us are.

Isn't that exactly his point?

Isn't that exactly his point?
I don't know, is it? I don't claim to know more about religion than he does, either. I know more about my own personal beliefs and he knows more about his own. :shrug:

the whole point he's trying to make about religion is that no one knows for sure. his problem is with people who claim to know for certain things like Noah's Arc truly happened and so on. All he says is "I don't know" and neither does anyone else.....

the whole point he's trying to make about religion is that no one knows for sure. his problem is with people who claim to know for certain things like Noah's Arc truly happened and so on. All he says is "I don't know" and neither does anyone else.....

Rationality, what a concept!

the whole point he's trying to make about religion is that no one knows for sure. his problem is with people who claim to know for certain things like Noah's Arc truly happened and so on. All he says is "I don't know" and neither does anyone else.....
That's fine. I don't agree with people who claim to know for sure as well, including many atheists. I personally don't like him for some of the comments he's made that I've found offensive that I won't get into.

There are few people who claim to know for certain things happened...most say the believe it happened...faith, the thing he was ragging on.

That's fine. I don't agree with people who claim to know for sure as well, including many atheists. I personally don't like him for some of the comments he's made that I've found offensive that I won't get into.

That's fine and I totally understand. He also looks a lot like my dad, so maybe that's why I respect him so much. Either way, he'll be having T. Boone Pickins on tomorrow night. It should be interesting to see whether Maher calls him out for his energy plan idea as just a money maker for him.

I personally think the Daily Show should consider doing an occasional live show (I think they've done it on election night before).

I didn't claim they did, but to put something that has roots in history on the same level as what is claimed by scientology isn't even worthy of using brain cells. Without a bias that goes beyond just reason, any person can see that.

You keep using "reason" in your defense of religion. Isn't that ironic?

Because I find myth to be just that, I'm arrogant?

What is the Italian word for buffoon?

Then let me try to make the point more succinctly. Some, like CRM, don't just say that they don't see the rationale for belief in God, they say that they can't imagine how anyone does, that it is equivilent to belief in any science fiction. In short, that it is a position of a weak mind and equivilent to belief in Darth Vader, which would be historically inaccurate and condescending to any historian. My point is that there are far smarter people (and dumber) that both believe and don't believe, so to think that you can bring the idea of God down based on intelligence just doesn't hold water.

And of course it comes down to belief, but that doesn't mean it doesn't come down to a rational belief. I will leave you with that double negative. :)

Again, why do you keep boiling this down to intelligence? Because I cannot understand why someone would choose to invest their lives in something metaphysical does not mean I think they are not intelligent.

I wasn't agreeing with CRM's stance that only a fool can have a religious belief. If your purpose was solely to negate that argument, then I apologize for misunderstanding.

Whoa. Please stop attributing this "stance" to me.

"So obviously not true".

Um....could you provide your proof that God doesn't exist if it's "so obvious"?

Maybe you could provide testimony from a contemporary who's risen from the dead and can tell the rest of us where our consciousness goes when we die.

I was speaking of the myths found in the Christian bible. Not the existence of God.

Agreed, I laugh when I hear atheists make fun of religious people. Seems to me theirs is the harder proof, proving a negative. And it requires just as much faith to believe there are no higher entities then us or on up the chain of command. If you are going to use factual arguements then you can only be a non-practicing agnostic. All else is faith.

This post started off nonsensical but was saved in the last two sentences. Yes, even Richard Dawkins will not commit to being 100% atheist because it's impossible to do so. I think he wishes the religious people would make a similar statement on the reverse.

But you miss the fact the Maher's "message" is often obscured by his condescending attitude towards people who happen to believe in some sort of higher power. He resorts to name calling and other negatives. It's disrespectful of people. You know how many here hate Bill O'Reilly? Sometimes listening to Maher going off on people who believe and talking over them the way he does seems a lot like O'Reilly and you know how many hate when O'Reilly does this sort of thing.

It's like how PETA turns people off to an otherwise reasonable "animal rights" issue by doing or saying over the top things. The message gets obscured and people get turned off.

"Waah. Someone is challenging my core beliefs. I don't WANT to think about it." Some things spoken are shocking. Shock induces thought. It's a simple concept. The fact is that the indoctrinated won't listen to reasoned discourse opposing religion. Perhaps they will if something strikes a chord. THe agnostics and the atheists are the victims here. We are the ones who are subjected to the results of religious thought and all of the violence and intolerance that goes along with it. We are the ones not being heard.

Come on guys. Conservative panel members get booed down all the time on Maher's show.
They sure do.
The audiance does stay quiet when Bible prophcy is disscussed and Maher is usally the one who brings it up on his show.
That's why I like Maher. He sure gives plenty of pub to Jesus on his show.

Yeah, he's as fanatical about animal rights as any religious fundamentalist is about his dogma. All while still an enthusiastic meat-eater, mind you.

So one cannot be for animal rights and eat meat? Interesting.

I support closing puppy mills but I like cheesesteaks. :shrug:

THe agnostics and the atheists are the victims here. We are the ones who are subjected to the results of religious thought and all of the violence and intolerance that goes along with it. We are the ones not being heard.

really?

results of religious thought? Let's look at the last 100 years of human history and count how much violence was caused by religious thought and how much was caused by other reasons

CRM is the victim of intolerance. :lol:

Apparently the way to fight it is to become as intolerant as any religious person ever has been.

I agree with you about religion, but I do think there is a place for rational discussion about religion on TV. I just don't think people go about it in a way that's conducive towards it because that wouldn't get the ratings argument does.

Last week Bill had a great argument going with Andrew Sullivan over religion. The problem is that Maher completely dismantled Sullivan's argument so easily. Then the religious person, like Sullivan, sulks and the conversation is over. These people need to learn to make an intelligent argument.

CRM is the victim of intolerance. :lol:If he were running for office he's have a better chance of getting elected if his name were Mahmoud al-CRM114 than if he stated publicly he's an atheist. That's certainly intolerance.

Intelligence really has no bearing on this discussion. Yes, there are smart people who are religious. There are also idiots who are religious. There are smart people who aren't religious. There are idiots who aren't religious as well. I'm all for people believing in whatever they want to believe in, but you can't seriously expect to validate your belief simply because there are smart people who believe the same thing. Guess what? There are smart Muslims too. There are smart people in each of the religions of the world. There is absolutely no conclusive physical evidence of anything in any religion. If there were, it'd easily be the most popular religion in the world. And there shouldn't be. Religion is based on faith, which by definition can't have any evidence. If there were, it wouldn't be faith.

And if you want to base validity on outcomes of religions, well then I'd say pick Buddhism. Name a single war started in the name of Buddhism?

If he were running for office he's have a better chance of getting elected if his name were Mahmoud al-CRM114 than if he stated publicly he's an atheist. That's certainly intolerance.

Is all intolerance bad?

CRM is the victim of intolerance. :lol:

Apparently the way to fight it is to become as intolerant as any religious person ever has been.

How is anyone a victim of my "intolerance?" I merely have a personal opinion. I don't make laws or policy but if I did it would be based on the Constitution not the bible. Nice try though.

If he were running for office he's have a better chance of getting elected if his name were Mahmoud al-CRM114 than if he stated publicly he's an atheist. That's certainly intolerance.

Don't worry, this will help change all that. -wink-

Is all intolerance bad?

Are you saying intolerance of an agnostic or atheist is valid?

How is anyone a victim of my "intolerance?" I merely have a personal opinion. I don't make laws or policy but if I did it would be based on the Constitution not the bible. Nice try though.

But quite often on this forum you seem to be intolerant of those you also merely express a personal opinion.

Don't worry, this will help change all that. -wink-

You see. Religious people always get upset and end the argument and blame it on us snarky, condescending pricks. Stand up for yourself if you believe your opinion is more valid.

Are you saying intolerance of an agnostic or atheist is valid?

I'm saying is all intolerance bad.

But quite often on this forum you seem to be intolerant of those you also merely express a personal opinion.

You confuse the word "skepticism" for "intolerance."

And if you want to base validity on outcomes of religions, well then I'd say pick Buddhism. Name a single war started in the name of Buddhism?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/buddhism/buddhistethics/war.shtml


Buddhism and violence

But Buddhism, like the other great faiths, has not always lived up to its principles - there are numerous examples of Buddhists engaging in violence and even war.

* in the 14th century Buddhist fighters led the uprising that evicted the Mongols from China
* in Japan, Buddhist monks trained Samurai warriors in meditation that made them better fighters

In the twentieth century Japanese Zen masters wrote in support of Japan's wars of aggression. For example, Sawaki Kodo (1880–1965) wrote this in 1942:

It is just to punish those who disturb the public order. Whether one kills or does not kill, the precept forbidding killing [is preserved]. It is the precept forbidding killing that wields the sword. It is the precept that throws the bomb.Sawaki Kodo

In Sri Lanka the 20th century civil war between the mostly Buddhist Sinhalese majority and the Hindu Tamil minority has cost 50,000 lives.

I'm saying is all intolerance bad.

No.

You confuse the word "skepticism" for "intolerance."


No, I'm not.

No, I'm not.

Of course you are. If I was intolerant of religious people, I could not function in American society. Please.

In this forum, I'm *skeptical* of posters who use myth as an argument for political issues.

What is the Italian word for buffoon?
"Benigni"?

So one cannot be for animal rights and eat meat? Interesting.

I support closing puppy mills but I like cheesesteaks. :shrug:
Maher's beliefs go a bit beyond closing puppy mills. :lol:

You see. Religious people always get upset and end the argument and blame it on us snarky, condescending pricks. Stand up for yourself if you believe your opinion is more valid.


You see, when you look at a group and generalize about them rather than treat them as individuals, it is much easier to justify your own intolerance.

I'd rather not play the blame game or see any of it as "us/them." My best friend is an agnostic. He seems to be perfectly capable of judging people based on the content of their character rather than what group he believes they are a part of.

And if you want to base validity on outcomes of religions, well then I'd say pick Buddhism. Name a single war started in the name of Buddhism?
"In order to establish eternal peace in East Asia, arousing the great benevolence and compassion of Buddhism, we are sometimes accepting and sometimes forceful. We now have no choice but to exercise the benevolent forcefulness of 'killing one in order that many may live'... We believe it is time to effect a major change in the course of human history, which has been centered on Caucasians and inequality among humanity. To realize the true happiness of a peaceful humanity and construct a new civilization, it is necessary to redirect the path of world history's advances from this false path to the true path."

-- 1938 statement from the gathering of the leaders of every sect of Japanese Buddhism, in regard to the second Sino-Japanese war

You think I walk around arguing with religious people? No, I do it here in what is usually a thoughtful environment. Maher does the same on his show. The problem is that religious people don't want to have to defend their metaphysical beliefs. It has been just taken for granted for so long, they are taken aback when someone challenges it.

My best friend is an agnostic. He seems to be perfectly capable of judging people based on the content of their character
Clearly not.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/buddhism/buddhistethics/war.shtmlYou should quote the whole thing for context:
Non-violence is at the heart of Buddhist thinking and behaviour. The first of the five precepts that all Buddhists should follow is "Avoid killing, or harming any living thing."

Buddhism is essentially a peaceful tradition. Nothing in Buddhist scripture gives any support to the use of violence as a way to resolve conflict.

In times of war
Give rise in yourself to the mind of compassion,
Helping living beings
Abandon the will to fight.
One of Buddha's sermons puts this very clearly with a powerful example that stresses the need to love your enemy no matter how cruelly he treats you:

Even if thieves carve you limb from limb with a double-handed saw, if you make your mind hostile you are not following my teaching.
Kamcupamasutta, Majjhima-Nikkaya I ~ 28-29
Figures like the Dalai Lama (who won the Nobel Peace Prize) demonstrate in word and deed Buddhism's commitment to peace.

"Hatred will not cease by hatred, but by love alone.
This is the ancient law."
Many Buddhists have refused to take up arms under any circumstances, even knowing that they would be killed as a result. The Buddhist code that governs the life of monks permits them to defend themselves, but it forbids them to kill, even in self-defence.

For Buddhist countries this poses the difficult dilemma of how to protect the rights and lives of their citizens without breaking the principle of nonviolence.

The pure Buddhist attitude is shown in this story:

A Vietnam veteran was overheard rebuking the Vietnamese Buddhist monk, Thich Nhat Hanh, about his unswerving dedication to non-violence.
"You're a fool," said the veteran - "what if someone had wiped out all the Buddhists in the world and you were the last one left. Would you not try to kill the person who was trying to kill you, and in doing so save Buddhism?!"
Thich Nhat Hanh answered patiently "It would be better to let him kill me. If there is any truth to Buddhism and the Dharma it will not disappear from the face of the earth, but will reappear when seekers of truth are ready to rediscover it.
"In killing I would be betraying and abandoning the very teachings I would be seeking to preserve. So it would be better to let him kill me and remain true to the spirit of the Dharma."
Christian, Muslim and Buddhist contributors discuss religious pacifism (27:42 mins)
Beyond Belief, 20 January 2003
Buddhism and martial arts
Buddhist monks have been leaders in developing various forms of martial arts. The Shaolin Order is perhaps the best known of these, famed for their fighting prowess.

Martial arts would seem to be about as far from non-violence as you can get, but Buddhist forms of martial arts have very strict rules about how violence can be used.

The Shaolin teaching forbids the monk from ever being the aggressor, and instructs him to use only the minimum necessary defensive force. By becoming skilled in physical conflict the monk has a better understanding of violence and is able to use sophisticated techniques to avoid harm, ranging from simple parrying of clumsy blows to paralysing grips and knockout blows in the face of extreme violence - but always using only the amount of force needed to refuse the violence that is being offered to them.

Most martial arts traditions have strong spiritual and philosophical elements, and insist on a responsible and minimalist attitude to violence.

Buddhism and violence
But Buddhism, like the other great faiths, has not always lived up to its principles - there are numerous examples of Buddhists engaging in violence and even war.

in the 14th century Buddhist fighters led the uprising that evicted the Mongols from China
in Japan, Buddhist monks trained Samurai warriors in meditation that made them better fighters
In the twentieth century Japanese Zen masters wrote in support of Japan's wars of aggression. For example, Sawaki Kodo (1880–1965) wrote this in 1942:

It is just to punish those who disturb the public order. Whether one kills or does not kill, the precept forbidding killing [is preserved]. It is the precept forbidding killing that wields the sword. It is the precept that throws the bomb.
Sawaki Kodo
In Sri Lanka the 20th century civil war between the mostly Buddhist Sinhalese majority and the Hindu Tamil minority has cost 50,000 lives. And while they have been involved in wars, I will still maintain that no war has been initiated because other people weren't Buddhists, or because they wanted to "spread" Buddhism. One could also argue that the Japanese Buddhists of the early 1900's were very small minority of Buddhists who corrupted the direct tenets of Buddhism. "Extremists" even? All that is beside the point. I'm not advocating Buddhism. Just making a point about justification of belief.

"In order to establish eternal peace in East Asia, arousing the great benevolence and compassion of Buddhism, we are sometimes accepting and sometimes forceful. We now have no choice but to exercise the benevolent forcefulness of 'killing one in order that many may live'... We believe it is time to effect a major change in the course of human history, which has been centered on Caucasians and inequality among humanity. To realize the true happiness of a peaceful humanity and construct a new civilization, it is necessary to redirect the path of world history's advances from this false path to the true path."

-- 1938 statement from the gathering of the leaders of every sect of Japanese Buddhism, in regard to the second Sino-Japanese war

Was this war started in the name of Buddhism? Seems there were Buddhists fighting the war but the war was not because of Buddhism.

I'm going to go eat meat and mock people's religious beliefs as they walk down the street. :lol: In other words, time for lunch.

My best friend
http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/8523/bff4lf.jpg

Clearly not.

:lol: Touche'

If I was intolerant of religious people, I could not function in American society. Please.
Or you could just only display intolerance on the anonymity of the Internet, or in private, or even just in your own head. We all do it in some form or another, myself included. Go to any racist messageboard. I bet most of those people show no signs of their racism to anyone other than that board or their tight group of friends.

Go to any racist messageboard.Don't mind if I do!

Go to any racist messageboard.

Nah, you could just visit some threads in this forum.

Nah, you could just visit some threads in this forum.Rockmjd23 said racist not racing (http://forum.dvdtalk.com/sports-talk/536832-2008-horse-racing-discussion-thread.html).

I know, and you can find it on the first page.

The racists have invaded the forum? :eek:

I know, and you can find it on the first page.

Something racist? :confused:

You should quote the whole thing for context:


Nothing was meant to be taken "out of context" which is why the link was provided.



And while they have been involved in wars, I will still maintain that no war has been initiated because other people weren't Buddhists, or because they wanted to "spread" Buddhism.


I don't have time to dig through everything now but it seems that thing w/ the Mongols in the 14th century might have had some aspects of that
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080915061838AAzipbj & http://www.tengerism.org/lamaism.html



One could also argue that the Japanese Buddhists of the early 1900's were very small minority of Buddhists who corrupted the direct tenets of Buddhism. "Extremists" even? All that is beside the point. I'm not advocating Buddhism. Just making a point about justification of belief.

Personally I was just curious about it since you mentioned it and I'm just trying to fill in the gaps/provide some history. I really don't have a steak in this fire either aside from wanting to make sure people know/verify things...

Way to take it too the extreme. People aren't listening to what Maher has to say, and simply calling him a douche. It's a very simple argument to make, but don't pretend like it doesn't have to do with him "bashing" religion. Why would I pretend that? I think a lot of his douchebaggery has to do with the way he bashes religion and religious people. I didn't see him on the Daily Show, but I did on the View this week. I used to watch Politically Incorrect when it was still on Comedy Central.

The reason I can't give an example is that no one can agree on what makes someone a douche. He calls the bible the Jewish Book of Fairy Tales, which is funny or douchy depending on your position. I saw it as a little of both. I think that despite saying he doesn't know whether there's a god or not, he acts like people who do have faith must be idiots and mocks what they hold sacred. It can be kind of funny, but I think he's probably an overconfident douchebag in real life. Just my opinion.

Or you could just only display intolerance on the anonymity of the Internet, or in private, or even just in your own head. We all do it in some form or another, myself included. Go to any racist messageboard. I bet most of those people show no signs of their racism to anyone other than that board or their tight group of friends.

I would gladly interact with anyone on the street concerning religion. The problem is that religious people act irrationally and will either terminate the conversation early or lash out. It's the problem with having your position grounded in completely supernatural or mythical footings.

I would gladly interact with anyone on the street concerning religion. The problem is that religious people act irrationally and will either terminate the conversation early or lash out. It's the problem with having your position grounded in completely supernatural or mythical footings.
Perhaps they lash out because generalizing them all as irrational and constantly repeating terms like 'supernatural, mythical, sky fairies' etc. makes a person sound like a dick?

I would gladly interact with anyone on the street concerning religion. The problem is that religious people act irrationally and will either terminate the conversation early or lash out. It's the problem with having your position grounded in completely supernatural or mythical footings.

Same with the Jews! :grunt:

he acts like people who do have faith must be idiots and mocks what they hold sacred

You are right. Maher does lampoon religious thought. The use of satire has been around for quite a long time.

His overall point beneath the satire (or the mocking, depending on the audience) is used to point out the inanity of it all. He held up that USA Today on his show and pointed to the top headline, Credit, Markets In Crisis and then points to the one directly below it Most say they are touched by guardian angels. Do those people believe the guardian angels will fix the markets? Why do the religious people who believe a guardian angel has protected them from harm (55%) not believe they will also help them economic harm? OR do they? And what other policies or positions are guided by ideas such as guardian angels?

Same with the Jews! :grunt:

Jews are not "religious people?" I make no distinction between group unlike the religious.

Perhaps they lash out because generalizing them all as irrational and constantly repeating terms like 'supernatural, mythical, sky fairies' etc. makes a person sound like a dick?

I sound like a "dick" to you because you irrationally defend the supernatural. Please explain to me, without running away, how God is not supernatural or mythical. Then please indicate where I used the term "sky fairies."

This is what I mean. You get red-faced and either lash out or run away.

BTW, it is not generalizing to call a group irrational. Do you think Wiccans are irrational? How about Scientlogists? How about ghost hunters? What about people who believe God is talking to them? What about people who believe their dogs are sending them subliminal messages? See, without definitive evidence there is little difference.

If you can't see how your posts are ridiculously condescending then there's no point in arguing about it. If that's turning red and running away to you, that's fine. I honestly don't care. I don't irrationally defend the supernatural.
Time to update the ignore list.

This post started off nonsensical but was saved in the last two sentences. Yes, even Richard Dawkins will not commit to being 100% atheist because it's impossible to do so. I think he wishes the religious people would make a similar statement on the reverse.

No it didn't, maybe semi-sensical but not non. Atheism is as dogmatic a religion as any other.

What is the answer to the question?
Insufficient data for a meaningful response.

Jews are not "religious people?" I make no distinction between group unlike the religious.

:lol: Seriously, read this to yourself slowly until you get it.

So you are not going to answer the questions then? No one ever has. :lol:

Do you have that post referring to "sky fairies?"

:lol: Seriously, read this to yourself slowly until you get it.

The end result in any religious debate here in DVDTalk. Red-faced retreat or laughing smileys.

What I get is that you pulled "Jews" out as something separate to the debate. In my opinion, they are as irrational as the rest. Do you see Jews differently?

If you can't see how your posts are ridiculously condescending then......

dude, that's the same thing you're complaining he's doing about religion

Why would I pretend that? I think a lot of his douchebaggery has to do with the way he bashes religion and religious people. I didn't see him on the Daily Show, but I did on the View this week. I used to watch Politically Incorrect when it was still on Comedy Central.

The reason I can't give an example is that no one can agree on what makes someone a douche. He calls the bible the Jewish Book of Fairy Tales, which is funny or douchy depending on your position. I saw it as a little of both. I think that despite saying he doesn't know whether there's a god or not, he acts like people who do have faith must be idiots and mocks what they hold sacred. It can be kind of funny, but I think he's probably an overconfident douchebag in real life. Just my opinion.

So you're taking the "I know it (douchebaggery) when I see it" defense? Interesting.

People can be smart and idiotic (i.e. irrational) at the same time. It is possible.

this thread needs some Chocolate Rain

No it didn't, maybe semi-sensical but not non. Atheism is as dogmatic a religion as any other.

What is the answer to the question?
Insufficient data for a meaningful response.

Now this is a point worth debating. I'm not sure you are wrong but how can something who's premise is a lack of belief have a dogma which is based on beliefs?

If you can't see how your posts are ridiculously condescending then there's no point in arguing about it. If that's turning red and running away to you, that's fine. I honestly don't care. I don't irrationally defend the supernatural.
Time to update the ignore list.


Oh wait. Rockmjd23 updated his post after the fact. Not only did he retreat but he now will ignore people who challenge him. Sad.

The end result in any religious debate here in DVDTalk. Red-faced retreat or laughing smileys.

What I get is that you pulled "Jews" out as something separate to the debate. In my opinion, they are as irrational as the rest. Do you see Jews differently?


No, the point is that you talk about being rational and (frankly) not biggoted, but continually lump all of religious people into a group. I attempted (by using the Jews) to show you how it is exactly the same type of thing you do.

You say "I make no distinction between groups" to show how you don't have a prejudice, then finish it by saying, "unlike the religious" whereby you use a group of people you are prejudiced against to try to make a point that you aren't prejudiced. Is that only ironic to me? Certainly it won't be to you because you must defend what you said as valid. But does anyone else find that statement amusing?

I make no distinction among groups, unlike the Blacks. :lol:

[Breather ]So...uhhh...that Bill Maher has some opinions doesn't he? [/Breather ]

Everyone needs to calm down

So you are not going to answer the questions then? No one ever has. :lol: what are the questions?

Everyone needs to calm down

That's intolerant. :(


Carry on. :)

Everyone needs to calm down
I'll leave the thread, it