Child of God Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> God isn't laughing.

That's the problem.

Bill Maher is an example - maybe the example - of the worst of what America has to offer. He is liberal and an atheist without any respect for religious beliefs.

The great consolation for me here is that someday he will pass away, like all of us will, and will have to pay for his words and actions.

Child of God Wrote: God isn't laughing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's an interesting observation. Maher would ask "How do you know?"

You avoid the crux of Maher's criticism of organized religion (he's not really an atheist, he says, simply, "I just don't know"): the burden of proof is on the religionists to prove that their thousands years old desert religions hold up to the scrutiny of what we now know to be true--Maher scores countless points, scoring at will, at the pure lunacy of a lot of modern religions created so many years ago. I want thereto be a God, but nowadays, you have to prove it, don't you think? The burden is on those with faith and making claims in the name of that faith. Jesus? Tons of problems with the story.

Atheism requires as much faith as Christianity, Judaism or Islam--the faith that, as small as we are in the Universe, we could possibly make an assessment of what's real and what's not. Personally, I understand Maher's suspicion of religion (all faiths have tainted histories). I hope he also understands my skepticism of his faith in himself.

I demand a recount!

Actually, I saw this movie. I don't think Dr. Collins even got a chance to defend his beliefs in scientific terms. And, over all, he was the only heavyweight in the entire movie on the side of creation. The founding fathers were deists. That's defined as REASONED belief in the existence of a god. Certainly, Dr. Collins -- a brilliant scientist working to map human DNA -- could REASON from his scientific knowledge that a god exists. But he never got a chance. And I wish atheists would stop labelling all Christians as creationists. I, for one, do not believe the Bible teaches we were created in 6 24-hour days. I don't think his movie was fair.

What to do when your beliefs amount to nothing? First thing: Admit it.

Religion is the primitive no-effort no-thought make-stuff-up approach to the big questions- the adult way is moral philosophy: to search for absolute truths derived not from fables but from the facts of man's nature and his choice to live or die as a rational being.

I think there is no problem here. No one will see this movie anyway.

It is incredibly immature to suggest that believing in something (anything!), no matter how nonsensical is preferable to believing "big, fat nothing". It takes a mature adult to recognize religion for the mythology that it is and to admit that uncertainty is a fact of life no matter how much we may wish it were not so.

Miles T Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Actually, I saw this movie. I don't think Dr.
> Collins even got a chance to defend his beliefs in
> scientific terms. And, over all, he was the only
> heavyweight in the entire movie on the side of
> creation. The founding fathers were deists. That's
> defined as REASONED belief in the existence of a
> god.

Deism is a form of monism, rejecting Christian (and other) dualisms and depersonalizing/de-anthropomorphizing the divine. It's a lot more specific that way than "reasoned" belief. As Kant demonstrated to the satisfaction of all who read philosophy, there can be no reasoned belief, as the both proof and disproof of existence of god are beyond the power of reason. Hence, you get the moral postulate of god that brackets the question of his/her/its existence and directs you to live as if there were a god.

I feel for the atheist. He has no means of invisible support.

I saw the movie.

Most of you are missing the big, Hollywood point here. As much of a cynic as Bill Maher is, anybody going to see this movie with a pre-conceived notion that he is going to mock all religion equally or provide some grand solution to the mess of modern religion (which is man-made, and what Maher has the problem with) is looking for answers in the wrong places.

A couple points:

1). First and foremost, this is a Hollywood cinematic release. It's designed to make money. I harken it to the presidential debates - if they debate the finer points of policy (or the facts of religion), no one will listen; hence, the participants employ sensationalism.

2). Bill Maher grew up Catholic. Is it unfair of him to focus the majority of his sarcasm on this particular sect? Sure, if he was claiming to be an objective commentator of all religions. If you knew anything about him before seeing this movie, you would know he has a strong, self-admitted bias of Catholicism specifically and Christianity in general. Let's use all take a deep breath here.

3). For the true believers on this posting thread - Pretending to know what your God would think or say about this movie is just about the most blasphemous thing, according to your own belief set, that you could ever possibly do. That is precisely the notion that gets Maher (and myself) so fired up - using the particular tenets of religion that fit your current need and ignoring the rest that are inconvenient. Having read the Bible several times (not that it makes me an expert, but I am willing to bet it's more than most of zealots here), about 75% of the New Testament speaks to helping the poor, treating other how you would want to be treated, turn the other cheek, loving thy neighbor, etc. Great ideas! But the extreme fundamentalism of the American Evangelist instead chooses to focus on Old Testament ideas; homosexuality as an abomination (shellfish is too, according to the same passage, but I don't see anybody bombing Red Lobsters), justifying war as a vehicle for revenge, etc. It's bogus. You either buy in to the whole package, or you're just as filled with sin as those souls you claim to be saving.

4). Faith in a higher power is very important to the development of mankind. Religion is very important to the destruction of mankind. One has roots in Godliness, one has roots in mortal selfishness. Bill Maher's (and myself) problem is with the latter.

Let's all take a step back, take this movie for what it is, don't see it if you've already made a moral judgement about it.

But if you're going to get frantic on comment threads about it, at least see it first.

VespaGirl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Here's what we do:
>
> We get on with living life but without prejudice,
> intolerance or shoving our beliefs down others
> throats. We care for our fellow man without it
> being a fake effort to "get into heaven". True,
> we don't have religion to use as a bludgeon to
> beat others over the head or to help us feel
> superior but I guess we'll just have to make do.

Ironic that you say this since this is exactly what Maher attempts to do with his non religion. He sets up straw men from the other side and makes them look foolish. Wow, what an accomplishment. Maher has long annoyed me with his elitist attitude backed up by nothing. He seems like a dunce, but acts condescending to others. This movie proves it. If you are intelligent you can understand where other people are coming from and don't need to create a movie like this to make you feel better about yourself. There are unintelligent people of all kinds though. Those are the ones who do terrible things in the name of their religion or for whatever reason their small minds come up with.

If someone or a group of people does something in the name of God it doesn't speak bad about God, it speaks bad about them. What makes Islamic Terrorists different is that this is common enough to be considered a large sect of their religion. The other sects may feel that it is perverse and misguided of their Islamic brothers, but they need to come out and openly oppose them if that is the case. Just as Christians would oppose somebody doing something wrong in the name of Christianity.

Maher leaves out the brutality done by the non religious government regimes throughout the ages. From the Nazis to the various Communist groups hundreds of millions have died from the hands of the non religious. It is hard to ignore if you are being intellectually honest. Maher isn't bothered with it because he wants an easy target to knock down. It makes him feel smart to take on those that aren't and then edit the answers to make him look superior. The fact that he was able to sell this to a movie studio and get it into theatres is a bit suprising, but Hollywood was seemed pretty void of ideas of late.

Like I at least implied before, it takes intelligence to understand people who aren't like yourself. It takes very little intelligence to think you know why other people believe what they do and to knock down those simpleton arguments while being smug. People like Maher are dangerous in a sense because they promote a lack of understanding. If he had a small amount of understanding Maher would see the foolishness of mocking other people's ignorance while putting his own on display.

Miles T Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> cassamandra Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Miles T Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Actually, I saw this movie. I don't think Dr.
> > > Collins even got a chance to defend his
> beliefs
> > in
> > > scientific terms. And, over all, he was the
> > only
> > > heavyweight in the entire movie on the side
> of
> > > creation. The founding fathers were deists.
> > That's
> > > defined as REASONED belief in the existence
> of
> > a
> > > god.
> >
> > Deism is a form of monism, rejecting Christian
> > (and other) dualisms and
> > depersonalizing/de-anthropomorphizing the
> divine.
> > It's a lot more specific that way than
> "reasoned"
> > belief. As Kant demonstrated to the
> satisfaction
> > of all who read philosophy, there can be no
> > reasoned belief, as the both proof and disproof
> of
> > existence of god are beyond the power of
> reason.
> > Hence, you get the moral postulate of god that
> > brackets the question of his/her/its existence
> and
> > directs you to live as if there were a god.
>
>
> Okay, but I still think Dr. Collins didn't get a
> fair shot at defending his beliefs scientifically.
> He's a brilliant scientist mapping the human
> genome. It's unfair to dismiss his beliefs as a
> mere neurological disorder. You know, if you come
> across a house in the middle of the forest, it's
> reasonable to conclude it was designed and
> constructed for a purpose. To say it evolved just
> because you haven't met the designer wouldn't make
> sense.

That's an argument to infinite regression -- while causality is one of the forms in which the human mind apprehends reality, it doesn't lead you to a starting point at which the question can stop. As every five-year-old asks: if god made everything, who made god? within the rules of causality, there can be no first cause.

The guy who wrote this article doesn't appear to have taken the time to understand any of the points Maher was making; instead he wants to act indignant. For example, Maher has stated repeatedly (including in the movie) that he is not an atheist. He criticizes the atheist position for the same reason he criticizes theist positions: the lack of doubt. So, to criticize Maher for being "absolutist", frankly, smacks of a writer not taking the time to understand his subject.

Uncle Sam Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As we mature spiritually, I believe that we will
> begin to see religion more as a personal and
> intimate relationship with the Divine.

Along the lines of the imaginary friends kids invent to keep them company?

Yes, I heard this Maher guy on the "intellectual" liberal radio in my home town. He was dismissive of everything. About Rick Warren he said something to the effect: "So, you scale the heights of the Himilayas to meet the great guru, and what does he tell you about the meaning of life? He says, 'You've got to go to Long Beach, CA to hear from Rick Warren. Rick's got the answer." The audience responds with laughter (or was it a laugh machine?).

So, where does Maher live? The guru is really supposed to say to go to Maher's address because Maher knows that Rick Warren can't possibly be the guy who knows.

Isn't it possible, if there really is a God, that He wants to have the laugh on Maher ? Isn't it possible the He wants to make Maher go to Long Beach instead of the Himilayas in order to find out the meaning of life? The gospel according to Maher says that this can't be.

Bill Maher's whole argument against Christianity can be summed up as follows: "If I were God, then I wouldn't do things in the way that the Bible claims He did things. I think that the God of the Bible is silly, evil, etc... Therefore, there must not be a God." In other words, Bill Maher thinks he can tell God His business.

In reality, if Bill Maher (or me or any of us) were given the powers of God for even a month, he would have the whole world in a such a mess that it would make a Nazi concentration camp look like heaven.

I wouldn't go to the Himilayas, to Long Beach, or even around the corner to get any wisdom from sneering Bill Maher.

I don't understand people who need a belief in a higher power in order to act morally and be kind to others. Evangelists say it must be so sad not to believe anything. I'm agnostic on God, but I believe in people. I have seen us do the most amaziong things to help each other. And even though we also do horrible things, I believe that we will always redeem ourselves in the end. I don't need a book of rules written by some old white guys thousands of years ago to know that the right thing to do is to treat people with respect and kindness.

Maher is the typical liberal who wants to hate Moslems but is restrained by PC, so he trashes all religions to give him cover for his anti moslem bias. The real question is who produced this idiocy? I suggest the would-be audience go read David Hume, get a real education and ignore this fly-weight case of acid indigestion.

As a wise man said ...

Good people will always do good things
Bad people will always do bad things
It takes Religion to convince good people to do bad things

Maher isn't an athiest, he just says he doesn't know and there is no way to know when it comes to religion, there is a vast difference. Some people are too defensive and sensitive about their faith. I took no offense at his movie as a person of faith. Yes, there were serious points in it, but Murchison needs to lighten up and stop taking other people's personal beliefs personally or as some sort of assault on him.

Followers of revelationist religions always try to equate their beliefs to that of 'reason' even though fundamentally they are in direct opposition to reason.

Mark P. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, I heard this Maher guy on the "intellectual"
> liberal radio in my home town. He was dismissive
> of everything. About Rick Warren he said
> something to the effect: "So, you scale the
> heights of the Himilayas to meet the great guru,
> and what does he tell you about the meaning of
> life? He says, 'You've got to go to Long Beach,
> CA to hear from Rick Warren. Rick's got the
> answer." The audience responds with laughter (or
> was it a laugh machine?).
>
> So, where does Maher live? The guru is really
> supposed to say to go to Maher's address because
> Maher knows that Rick Warren can't possibly be the
> guy who knows.
>
> Isn't it possible, if there really is a God, that
> He wants to have the laugh on Maher ? Isn't it
> possible the He wants to make Maher go to Long
> Beach instead of the Himilayas in order to find
> out the meaning of life? The gospel according to
> Maher says that this can't be.
>
> Bill Maher's whole argument against Christianity
> can be summed up as follows: "If I were God, then
> I wouldn't do things in the way that the Bible
> claims He did things. I think that the God of the
> Bible is silly, evil, etc... Therefore, there
> must not be a God." In other words, Bill Maher
> thinks he can tell God His business.
>
> In reality, if Bill Maher (or me or any of us)
> were given the powers of God for even a month, he
> would have the whole world in a such a mess that
> it would make a Nazi concentration camp look like
> heaven.
>
> I wouldn't go to the Himilayas, to Long Beach, or
> even around the corner to get any wisdom from
> sneering Bill Maher.

Miles T Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> cassamandra Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > > Okay, but I still think Dr. Collins didn't
> get
> > a
> > > fair shot at defending his beliefs
> > scientifically.
> > > He's a brilliant scientist mapping the human
> > > genome. It's unfair to dismiss his beliefs as
> a
> > > mere neurological disorder. You know, if you
> > come
> > > across a house in the middle of the forest,
> > it's
> > > reasonable to conclude it was designed and
> > > constructed for a purpose. To say it evolved
> > just
> > > because you haven't met the designer wouldn't
> > make
> > > sense.
> >
> > That's an argument to infinite regression --
> while
> > causality is one of the forms in which the
> human
> > mind apprehends reality, it doesn't lead you to
> a
> > starting point at which the question can stop.
> As
> > every five-year-old asks: if god made
> everything,
> > who made god? within the rules of causality,
> there
> > can be no first cause.
>
>
> Causality's a problem whether you believe in
> Creation or the Big Bang. What was there before
> the Big Bang?? Look, let's just build a time
> machine, go back w/a digital camcorder and record
> it. All I'm saying is, the house gives evidence
> of design, the Mozart symphony gives evidence of
> design, the Mona Lisa gives evidence of design,
> the human body (mapped out by DNA) gives evidence
> of design. The Ultimate Causality of Everything --
> neither one of us was there.

The point is that your argument is ouroboric.

Miles T Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's all about human nature. We are inherently
> violent. Destroying religion solves nothing.
> There will still be wars. Despots have used
> religion and fear of religion to justify their
> atrocities. Human nature must change for mankind
> to continue to exist. The day humanity goes
> extinct then the Earth will have peace.


miles,I ask you to consider the word faith. In the end,faith is a mans ability to accept what he does not know and quite frankly is incapable of knowing. There is an inner need in humans to believe that a power exists (an all knowing mind) beyond themselves.This concept has been existed in every civilization since the beginning of the human species. We all realize that we are imperfect so there must be a "God" who is better than us. This belief is what powers progress.This is what we strive for.
I have not seen this movie,nor will I. I already know that maher is an arrogant@#$%&who believes himself to be more enlightened than us mere mortals.In a sense,he believes he is godlike for he knows the "truth". Well he can keep his "truth",I will rely on faith.

Here's a fairly convincing take on religion:

[www.youtube.com]

stonedape Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Even if the open windows of science at first make
> us shiver after the cosy indoor warmth of
> traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh
> air brings vigor, and the great spaces have a
> splendor all their own.
> -- Bertrand Russell
>
> You can still be highly moral without literally
> believing imaginary things. And I didn't see Bill
> Maher preaching anything but doubt...and not
> allowing anyone to hold nuclear or chemical
> weapons that fervently believe swe are living in
> the end times. We should all be a little more
> doubtful.


Amen, brother. Why do believers in the supernatural always project their own fears when contemplating a life without superstition onto those who live happily and purposeful without them?

Miles T Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The day humanity goes
> extinct then the Earth will have peace.

Thanks for reminding me, I forgot how kind and generous non-humans can be. Good thing they don't kill to defend their territory. Oh wait, what about lions, apes, hippos, crocs, bears, ants, kudzu, etc.

The notion that humans are the only species that define and defend hunting grounds is naive.

No Man In The sky Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Saw the movie this weekend-it's hilarious and
> reaffirms the many of the great wars stemmed from
> religious ideology. Bill does not judge or make
> fun of the many believers in this film; instead,
> they embarass themselves.


If there is nothing higher than ourselves, no moral template, then there is nothing wrong with war, murder, rape, theft, etc.. at all!

You are left with your personal whims as the ultimate law. If mine are bad for you - who cares.

No God = No reason for me to respect you, your life, or anything that is not immediately beneficial to me. Or is that what you were actualy going for?

this idiot doesn't even realize that Maher agrees with him on atheism. methinks he doesn't do much research before writing.

"The original explanations of Judaism, Christianity, Native American."

What does that mean? The original explanations of Native American?

Who originally explained Christianity? Are you talking about the part that God sent his only begotten Son to die for our sins so that we might live with Him in eternity? Is that the original explanation you're talking about? How has that "been shown to be flawed?"

I'm afraid you (and I suppose Bill Maher) are confusing religion with faith in God. It is a common mistake. Thing is, the two are often on opposing sides. After all, it was the religionists, abetted by the government, that conspired to kill the one true innocent.


Jim Quince Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Religion has tried to provide answers to questions
> regarding the universe & our relation to it. As
> humans have learned more about their world, we
> have found the explanations made by religion have
> had to be modified or junked. The original
> explanations of Judaism, Christianity, Native
> American ... have been shown to be flawed (wrong).
> Why should we have any faith in the modified
> precepts of these belief systems? If we choose
> to believe the precepts of any organized religion
> (have faith in it) because it makes us feel
> better, fine, but why must we force others to
> follow our ideas (superstitions)?

Quote:

William Murchison wrote:
What do you do when what you believe is a big fat nothing?

Quote:

MarlonSays Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
Love my family, show consideration to others, enjoy life but also help out those less fortunate than me. IOW much the same as religious folks, but without the mumbo-jumbo. And life feels better for being free instead of bound by someone else's code of conduct.

Well put Marlon, well put.


I would add as an agnostic, the defining moment in my transformation from Christianity to atheist to, finally, agnostic was when I realized that I didn't need to know if there was a God or not. Live your life as a good person and it wont matter either way.

I think for most people it's a case of needing to know. I look at it as the final piece of the puzzle that comes when you die (Whatever may or may not happen).

I saw this movie last weekend and as an agnostic and former evangelical Christian, I found the vast majority of it hilarious.

I do, however, feel like Maher dropped the ball at the end.

Invoking images of nuclear explosions and terrorist acts with this dark conclusion that the world will we destroyed due to our inability to move past religion is a shallow way of trying to instill into people. Honestly, it's reminiscent of Christian Sunday school lessons taught to 5 year olds that they will burn in a pit of fire for all eternity if they don't except Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. We're all adults here. Surely we can move past such melodramtic means of manipulating people's opinions.

I think a better conclusion to the film would have been turning on the point of "look how ridiculous these people are" to "look how ridiculous it is that we give them so many social and economic benefits." An economic and political reflection of religion would have been fascinating. Why are these people who believe in these fairy tales tax exempt? Sure Religion has charitable portions. But wouldn't all that money spent on buildings and preachers and buses and marketing for churches be better spent on our real lives or helping people who are really in need?

How much better could the world be if we weren't channeling money to these myth makers?

Hypocrisy is part of the human condition.

Christians understand it to be sin. Atheists understand it as an excuse. Christians fight for transformation that will take them beyond hypocrisy. Atheists, relying on hypocrisy to keep them off-the-hook for their non-belief, magnify it.

Christians and atheists see hypocrisy everywhere, but Christians see it merely as a symptom of a disease that there is a cure for. Atheists believe there is no cure and so are hopeless. This hopelessness is portrayed in spades by desperate attempts to identify the disease by looking in all the wrong places and then trying to cure the symptoms with humor, denial and hostility.

truecon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I'm afraid you (and I suppose Bill Maher) are
> confusing religion with faith in God. It is a
> common mistake. Thing is, the two are often on
> opposing sides. After all, it was the
> religionists, abetted by the government, that
> conspired to kill the one true innocent.

I not sure bill maher is as far of the point you are trying to make. He is trying to point out that these religion mix up spirituality with hog wash and tell people to believe.

Bill wouldn't have a problem with a spiritual person. Bill wouldn't be the one hang up Jesus on a cross. But a lot of the people in the video would be... I think that is Bill's point, very "The Grand Inquisitor"

Another problem is that lots of religious people don't allow for the possibility of a spiritual atheist which is to their detriment.

Interestingly, Bill Maher is more of an agnostic than an atheist, though admittedly it might not be clear if one's only exposure to his beliefs is from Religulous.

"Dr. Frances Collins, the Nobel laureate and Christian, gets only seconds to defend in scientific terms the truth of Christianity."

Remember, we're talking about a comedian's documentary, not an episode of Nova here, and Maher was under no more obligation to provide equal time than Pat Robertson is. Anyway, I've heard much more extensive interviews with Collins, and though he might be eloquent and moderate in explaining his faith, nevertheless I've never heard him defend it "in scientific terms". Perhaps that's because it's not possible to defend the "truth of Christianity" "in scientific terms".

One area where I was disappointed with Maher's movie (caveat: I *am* an atheist) is his repetition of the idea that the stories of the Egyptian deity Horus parallel the story of Jesus. Even some minor internet research leads me to believe that there is no real evidence of this, just some self-published books of dubious research quality. (I didn't check the parallels with other mythologies, though virgin birth of one form or another is a common theme throughout myth-- the reader is encouraged to check out Campbell's studies).

I do admit that Maher confused the theme of the film a bit- was it a humorous (if sarcastic and somewhat mocking) look on religious beliefs or an emergency call to the unfaithful to prevent an impending apocalypse? Maher is best at the former, and a bit too ham-fisted at the latter. Luckily, most of the movie was composed of the humorous side.

Thanks for the response, and your point is well taken. Not having seen the movie, I shouldn't have assumed what Maher was trying to convey using only the author's take on the movie.


Bananabike Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> truecon Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > I'm afraid you (and I suppose Bill Maher) are
> > confusing religion with faith in God. It is a
> > common mistake. Thing is, the two are often on
> > opposing sides. After all, it was the
> > religionists, abetted by the government, that
> > conspired to kill the one true innocent.
>
> I not sure bill maher is as far of the point you
> are trying to make. He is trying to point out that
> these religion mix up spirituality with hog wash
> and tell people to believe.
>
> Bill wouldn't have a problem with a spiritual
> person. Bill wouldn't be the one hang up Jesus on
> a cross. But a lot of the people in the video
> would be... I think that is Bill's point, very
> "The Grand Inquisitor"
>
> Another problem is that lots of religious people
> don't allow for the possibility of a spiritual
> atheist which is to their detriment.

Agnostic like Maher Wrote:

Woo-Hoo
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't understand people who need a belief in a
> higher power in order to act morally and be kind
> to others. Evangelists say it must be so sad not
> to believe anything. I'm agnostic on God, but I
> believe in people. I have seen us do the most
> amaziong things to help each other. And even
> though we also do horrible things, I believe that
> we will always redeem ourselves in the end. I
> don't need a book of rules written by some old
> white guys thousands of years ago to know that the
> right thing to do is to treat people with respect
> and kindness.

but why must we force others to
> follow our ideas (superstitions)?

Some investigation into the claims in the Bible might enlighten you as to why people would cling to the hope God promises and provides.

What you call 'superstition' is something a born-again Christian would die for. I'm not talking about Roman arenas . . . people today risk their lives to follow Jesus Christ, the only One through whom a relationship with God is possible. Did you know that Christians are at this moment being killed, beaten and driven from their homes which along with their churches are being burnt to the ground? (Orissa State in India.) This is one tiny piece of the current persecution picture, but here is a question worth pondering. Would you be willing to die for any cause, Jim? Could you place your faith in a God who keeps His promises?

The God of the Bible (the ONLY God) guarantees eternal life (yes, beyond the grave) to those who repent (turn away from their commandment-breaking life) and put their trust in Christ (God the Savior.) Heaven is a real place, and so is hell. The Bible is real clear on who goes where. Don't rely on what the culture (news media, college, movies) teaches you. If you truly seek Him, you will find Him; another one of His promises. If you unltimately find it impossible to believe . . . you too are still in the Bible! Romans 1:19-21 For what can be known about God is plain to them because God has shown it to them. For His invisible attributes, namely His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. For although they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks to Him, but they became FUTILE IN THEIR THINKING, AND THEIR FOOLISH HEARTS WERE DARKENED. (Emphasis mine.)

Finally, to your last point . . . a Believer cannot FORCE you to do anything. But Jim, if YOU knew that a blind person was heading for a cliff and did not say a word to stop him/her, I think you'd agree that you bear some resposibility for their demise, having failed to warn them. Eternal death is far worse than mere physical death. I shudder to think that part of the torment in hell will include memories of all the chances God gave you to come to Him. I just want the chance to greet you in heaven, where we can remember this 'exchange of comments.' But the choice is yours alone. All I can do is tell you what I know.

Wow.. such fragile morality..
You REQUIRE a God to feel compassion, or to practice respect? Is this because you fear HELLFIRE?

What kind of monster are you, inside, that you must be compelled so, by ancient tales, to act like a reasonable human being?

I don't get it. I don't believe in God, nor Santa Clause, nor do I think Jesus walked-on-water or was Raised from the Dead. I don't need ANY of that to love my kids or my wife, or to treat others with respect.

We MAKE the RIGHT that is in the world.. This is a liberating philosophy. God didn't CREATE America.. ENLIGHTENED folk of that time drafted it out of a collective vision, with wisdom and intelligence and compromise, and many across the world were inspired by this.

>
> No God = No reason for me to respect you, your
> life, or anything that is not immediately
> beneficial to me. Or is that what you were actualy
> going for?

"Just an observation - IF you call yourself a Christian (possibly not as applicable if another religion) and in spite of the admonition to care for and treat your fellow man as a brother you espouse 'great consolation' in another's damnation (by implication) - does this not support Mr. Maher's premise?
_________________
No, not on this earth, in this life it doesn't. It is simply an observation that each of us will at some time walk that valley alone. If our beliefs are right then we may feel consolation in having held to our beliefs even when challenged by a Comedian who called upon us to turn away from our beliefs.

It is the difference between having hope in the salvation of our souls and having no hope except for an eternal nothingness. I choose hope.

Ed Wrote:

> No, not on this earth, in this life it doesn't.
> It is simply an observation that each of us will
> at some time walk that valley alone. If our
> beliefs are right then we may feel consolation in
> having held to our beliefs even when challenged by
> a Comedian who called upon us to turn away from
> our beliefs.
>
> It is the difference between having hope in the
> salvation of our souls and having no hope except
> for an eternal nothingness. I choose hope.

My response was to a comment very near the bottom. But if you were to read it in it's entirety, I think you, too, would evaluate it as the commentator's celebrating (perhaps too strong a characterization) over Mr. Mahar's impending 'reward.' I merely suggest that attitude is inconsistent with a true belief in Christ and his teachings.

As for your choosing hope. Good for you. Stay positive. But also WORK for things to get better in your life.

Gee- an anti-American/anti-military leftist (oops- redundant) is also anti-religious.

Go figure!

Staggslaw Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Assuming for purposes of this post that this
> article is an accurate portrayal of his opinions
> and film, Mayer is an idiot to diss the majority
> of Americans and of humanity, but like many
> idiots, there's an important kernel of truth to
> what he says, extreme religion of any stripe,
> whose faithful believe theirs is the only real
> truth, that so believe their truth that no means
> are wrong in spreading that truth, are dangerous.
> What he fails to recognize is that he is just like
> them. "There is no absolute truth" disproves its
> own premise by claiming to be an absolute truth.
> One of the foundations of America is the right of
> us all to believe as each believes, and what, pray
> tell, can be wrong with a faith that has at its
> core brotherly love, feeding the hungry, caring
> for the sick, loving even one's enemies? All the
> world's religions have at their core some
> variation of these theme, seeking our better
> selves. In his absolutist views against those who
> believe, in whatever form, Mayer is an equal idiot
> to any believe and preach they are right and
> everyone else is wrong, because that is exactly
> what he preaches, assuming this article is an
> accurate portrayal of his opinions and film.


Sorry for mispelling Maher. I wasn't dissing.

This seems to be a popular modern theme--war is caused by religion. I would argue that ALL wars are fought over territory. And religion is often used to rile the dull and willing into becoming willing participants.


Born To Die Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Child of God Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > God isn't laughing.
>
> The problem with all of this is that Bill is
> right...Religion has been the cause of more death
> than probably any other ideology of any kind. And
> Child of God is right...God isn't laughing.

Technically, non. Without one to set morality, we are fine to set it. The problem with things like morality and justice is that they can only be true when all agree; and, as humans, we all try to create our own. However, we pervert them, not define them. Hence, the idea of one being over both, and defining them, and executing both likewise in perfect fashion, isn't really something that human. Call it a strange fact that humans even care for these two: no other animals certainly do.

alien Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wow.. such fragile morality..
> You REQUIRE a God to feel compassion, or to
> practice respect? Is this because you fear
> HELLFIRE?
>
> What kind of monster are you, inside, that you
> must be compelled so, by ancient tales, to act
> like a reasonable human being?
>
> I don't get it. I don't believe in God, nor Santa
> Clause, nor do I think Jesus walked-on-water or
> was Raised from the Dead. I don't need ANY of
> that to love my kids or my wife, or to treat
> others with respect.
>
> We MAKE the RIGHT that is in the world.. This is a
> liberating philosophy. God didn't CREATE
> America.. ENLIGHTENED folk of that time drafted
> it out of a collective vision, with wisdom and
> intelligence and compromise, and many across the
> world were inspired by this.
>
> >
> > No God = No reason for me to respect you, your
> > life, or anything that is not immediately
> > beneficial to me. Or is that what you were
> actualy
> > going for?

because since the dawn of civilization rulers have proclaimed themselves to be gods, sons of god(s), relatives of gods, or speakers of god. Religion has always been a tool of power to play upon the fears of man to feel pain or die. Ironically, religion has acually kept man from getting closer to understanding god.



> In their view as documented by their own words,
> the rights given to U.S. citizens were rights
> granted by God (our Creator)--not by man.
>
>
> alien Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Wow.. such fragile morality..
> > You REQUIRE a God to feel compassion, or to
> > practice respect? Is this because you fear
> > HELLFIRE?
> >
> > What kind of monster are you, inside, that you
> > must be compelled so, by ancient tales, to act
> > like a reasonable human being?
> >
> > I don't get it. I don't believe in God, nor
> Santa
> > Clause, nor do I think Jesus walked-on-water or
> > was Raised from the Dead. I don't need ANY of
> > that to love my kids or my wife, or to treat
> > others with respect.
> >
> > We MAKE the RIGHT that is in the world.. This is
> a
> > liberating philosophy. God didn't CREATE
> > America.. ENLIGHTENED folk of that time
> drafted
> > it out of a collective vision, with wisdom and
> > intelligence and compromise, and many across
> the
> > world were inspired by this.
> >
> > >
> > > No God = No reason for me to respect you,
> your
> > > life, or anything that is not immediately
> > > beneficial to me. Or is that what you were
> > actualy
> > > going for?

The Egg Man Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The movie was hilarious. Maher really didn't have
> to do much to make religious people look foolish
> other than just film them in their natural
> habitats. The author of this article needs to get
> a sense of humor.



Aren't we in such a state, though, that answering extremes with extremes isn't worth just a good laugh? Obama is doing so well, I think, just because he is proving so unwilling to preach extremes. As many of us as possible need to be more thoughtful in our words and deeds if we are to heal what we have all helped make ill.

@truecon
Fair enough. But that is a singular document (Declaration of Independence), lying outside the actual framework from which America's government is structured (that being the Constitution, which devotes NOTHING to God)

It is easy to find much skepticism in Jefferson's own writings, too, regarding Christianity, and outright hostility with respect to Religion. Just search on "diest quotes", or whatever.

These Founders were just as swayed by the emerging Science of the day, and the philosophies of Enlightenment, as they ever were by Judeo-Christian tradition. They saw themselves crafting something new out of the ashes of the medieval. We owe them much, for not simply creating another theocracy



truecon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I understand your negative reaction to the post
> you are responding to, and I don't agree with or
> condone what that poster is saying. However,
> something to remember when referencing the
> founding fathers and the rights they put to paper.
> In their view as documented by their own words,
> the rights given to U.S. citizens were rights
> granted by God (our Creator)--not by man.
>
>
> alien Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Wow.. such fragile morality..
> > You REQUIRE a God to feel compassion, or to
> > practice respect? Is this because you fear
> > HELLFIRE?

> > >
> > > No God = No reason for me to respect you,
> your
> > > life, or anything that is not immediately
> > > beneficial to me. Or is that what you were
> > actualy
> > > going for?

Anyone who believes that a two-celled fertilized egg is a human being worthy of Constitutional rights will believe anything, anything at all. They might even believe that everyone on Earth came from two people, or that people used to live to be hundreds of years old, or that God murdered all of humanity in a monstrous flood except for a few chosen people on an Ark (and that the Ark contained two of every animal, the logisitcs of which are, umm, unrealisitc). They might even believe that the Bible is inerrant, despite the myriad of contradictions within its pages. They might believe that the God that created the entire universe has a "chosen people", an insignificant tribe called the Israelites, and that no one around the world can get into heaven without accepting as their Savior a man who they may never have heard of.

Pealie, your argument is such an easy one to make. What is difficult is finding ways for us all to live together. I choose to do so by finding at the core of my religion, and of all others, the brotherly love that Christ lived and spoke, as opposed to the messages of hate and superiority that can also be found in all.

Pealie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Anyone who believes that a two-celled fertilized
> egg is a human being worthy of Constitutional
> rights will believe anything, anything at all.
> They might even believe that everyone on Earth
> came from two people, or that people used to live
> to be hundreds of years old, or that God murdered
> all of humanity in a monstrous flood except for a
> few chosen people on an Ark (and that the Ark
> contained two of every animal, the logisitcs of
> which are, umm, unrealisitc). They might even
> believe that the Bible is inerrant, despite the
> myriad of contradictions within its pages. They
> might believe that the God that created the entire
> universe has a "chosen people", an insignificant
> tribe called the Israelites, and that no one
> around the world can get into heaven without
> accepting as their Savior a man who they may never
> have heard of.

Pay attention because this is something easy that you overlooked, EVERYONE ALIVE TODAY WAS AT ONE POINT A 2 CELL FERTILIZED EGG. It is at that moment when a unique creature is created. Assigning "life" to start at any point after that is arbitrary.

As for all the stories in the Bible that you find hard to believe, most aren't all that significant to people's religious belief. Do any or all of them seem less likely than the scientific one? That life as intricate and delicate as it is is a coincidence? Our current level of scientific knowledge is vastly superior to even a hundred years ago, yet we are no closer on the question of what it is that started or created life. There are many observational theories, but they are just that, theories. Acting like you know about the origin of life from science is like a caveman thinking he knows about the great ball of fire that the Sun god drives across the sky.

Child of God Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> God isn't laughing.

You have one too many words at the end there.

AustinG Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pealie Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Anyone who believes that a two-celled
> fertilized
> > egg is a human being worthy of Constitutional
> > rights will believe anything, anything at all.
> > They might even believe that everyone on Earth
> > came from two people, or that people used to
> live
> > to be hundreds of years old, or that God
> murdered
> > all of humanity in a monstrous flood except for
> a
> > few chosen people on an Ark (and that the Ark
> > contained two of every animal, the logisitcs of
> > which are, umm, unrealisitc). They might even
> > believe that the Bible is inerrant, despite the
> > myriad of contradictions within its pages.
> They
> > might believe that the God that created the
> entire
> > universe has a "chosen people", an
> insignificant
> > tribe called the Israelites, and that no one
> > around the world can get into heaven without
> > accepting as their Savior a man who they may
> never
> > have heard of.
>
> Pay attention because this is something easy that
> you overlooked, EVERYONE ALIVE TODAY WAS AT ONE
> POINT A 2 CELL FERTILIZED EGG. It is at that
> moment when a unique creature is created.
> Assigning "life" to start at any point after that
> is arbitrary.
>

Assigning *life* to start at that point is also arbitrary. Look at a tetragametic chimerism.

> As for all the stories in the Bible that you find
> hard to believe, most aren't all that significant
> to people's religious belief.

OK, what is the main reason cited by opponents of homosexuality? Bet you it becomes significant in your answer if you cannot provide a non-religious reason.


> Do any or all of
> them seem less likely than the scientific one?

Yes. All of them.

> That life as intricate and delicate as it is is a
> coincidence?

Ah, the argument from incredulity


> Our current level of scientific
> knowledge is vastly superior to even a hundred
> years ago, yet we are no closer on the question of
> what it is that started or created life.

We know that approx. 4.7 billion years ago there was no life on the planet. We also know that there is life today.

So we know life on this planet came from non-life, or from extra-terrestrial sources.

The fact that we do not know something does not mean we make up answers without evidence to back it up.


> There
> are many observational theories, but they are just
> that, theories.

Yes, just like the Theory of Gravitation is just a theory.


> Acting like you know about the
> origin of life from science is like a caveman
> thinking he knows about the great ball of fire
> that the Sun god drives across the sky.

Which is why there is no scientific theory that claims to do so. Religion on the other hand is sure. Most Christians, for example, figure man came from mud, and woman from a rib.

Something you said about a caveman seems appropriate with those Christians.

Anyone who denies the rights of the most defenseless and fragile of humans will permit any atrocity for the sake of convenience.

Anyone who thinks that there is a clear-cut dividing line, sometime between conception and birth, after which "life" begins doesn't understand biology and is just "making it up as they go along" in order to justify abortion.

An embryo is alive (by every scientific characteristic of life) and distinctly human (as determined by DNA). That is the only definition of human life that makes any sense. Every other standard is entirely arbitrary.

Anyone who thinks human life begins at birth has their brain in the 15th millenium BC when humans didn't know what caused pregnancy.

You are confusing "creationism" with "Bible literalism" - a most common error. Few people believe the latter. Most Christians understand that the Bible communicates in metaphor, parables, and verbal history. It is no less the Word of God. If God literally showed Moses actual images of the creation of the universe and showed John of Patmos a vision of the Apocalypse, we should expect them to interpret what they saw according to their own intellect, education, experiences, knowledge, and understanding from 1200 BC and 1st century AD, respectively.

The Great Flood and the ark too, were metaphors.

Perhaps we'll decode the human genome to the point that we will see exactly how "chosen" some people are.

Pealie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Anyone who believes that a two-celled fertilized
> egg is a human being worthy of Constitutional
> rights will believe anything, anything at all.
> They might even believe that everyone on Earth
> came from two people, or that people used to live
> to be hundreds of years old, or that God murdered
> all of humanity in a monstrous flood except for a
> few chosen people on an Ark (and that the Ark
> contained two of every animal, the logisitcs of
> which are, umm, unrealisitc). They might even
> believe that the Bible is inerrant, despite the
> myriad of contradictions within its pages. They
> might believe that the God that created the entire
> universe has a "chosen people", an insignificant
> tribe called the Israelites, and that no one
> around the world can get into heaven without
> accepting as their Savior a man who they may never
> have heard of.

R. Miller Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Anyone who denies the rights of the most
> defenseless and fragile of humans will permit any
> atrocity for the sake of convenience.
>
> Anyone who thinks that there is a clear-cut
> dividing line, sometime between conception and
> birth, after which "life" begins doesn't
> understand biology and is just "making it up as
> they go along" in order to justify abortion.
>
> An embryo is alive (by every scientific
> characteristic of life) and distinctly human (as
> determined by DNA). That is the only definition of
> human life that makes any sense. Every other
> standard is entirely arbitrary.
>
> Anyone who thinks human life begins at birth has
> their brain in the 15th millenium BC when humans
> didn't know what caused pregnancy.
>
> You are confusing "creationism" with "Bible
> literalism" - a most common error. Few people
> believe the latter. Most Christians understand
> that the Bible communicates in metaphor, parables,
> and verbal history. It is no less the Word of God.
> If God literally showed Moses actual images of the
> creation of the universe and showed John of Patmos
> a vision of the Apocalypse, we should expect them
> to interpret what they saw according to their own
> intellect, education, experiences, knowledge, and
> understanding from 1200 BC and 1st century AD,
> respectively.
>
> The Great Flood and the ark too, were metaphors.
>
> Perhaps we'll decode the human genome to the point
> that we will see exactly how "chosen" some people
> are.
>
> Pealie Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Anyone who believes that a two-celled
> fertilized
> > egg is a human being worthy of Constitutional
> > rights will believe anything, anything at all.
> > They might even believe that everyone on Earth
> > came from two people, or that people used to
> live
> > to be hundreds of years old, or that God
> murdered
> > all of humanity in a monstrous flood except for
> a
> > few chosen people on an Ark (and that the Ark
> > contained two of every animal, the logisitcs of
> > which are, umm, unrealisitc). They might even
> > believe that the Bible is inerrant, despite the
> > myriad of contradictions within its pages.
> They
> > might believe that the God that created the
> entire
> > universe has a "chosen people", an
> insignificant
> > tribe called the Israelites, and that no one
> > around the world can get into heaven without
> > accepting as their Savior a man who they may
> never
> > have heard of.

Mr. R. Miller, you have my eyeballs at present. Please, explain to me and the throng of atheists how you know the bible is god's word.

ShripathiKamath Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> R. Miller Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Maher is another elitist, narcissist, faux
> > intellectual who loves nothing more than the
> sound
> > of his own voice.
>
> How do you know this?

Because I have eyes and ears. I see and hear him speaking. I know the definitions of those words and how to apply them.

>
> > Out of the right side of his
> > mouth, he'll say he's tolerant of religion
> while
> > out of the other side he's publicly ridiculing
> it.
>
> Nope, he is quite clear about his views on
> religion. He routinely criticizes religion as
> harmful. Not very tolerant of it.

Nope, you are quite wrong. On the Jon Stewart show last week he claimed to be tolerant of other people's religious beliefs.


>
> > His unstated beliefs are, "if you believe in
> God,
> > you're an idiot."
> >
>
> I do not think that it is unstated. He states it
> quite regularly in different verbiage.

Which is why we're having a conversation about this, why people are angry with him, and why we know that he and you are both idiots.

>
> > Maher's got the same low levels of intellectual
> > sophistication and honesty as Morgan Spurlock.
> No
> > kidding that if you overindulge in anything
> there
> > will be harmful results, yet when wisely
> > practiced, both eating and religion are
> healthy.
> >
>
> And who decides what is "overeating" in religion?

When you're in the Iron Maiden, I'll admit it's gone a bit too far...just a bit.

>
>
> > I haven't read "God is not Great", but if
> you're
> > an atheist or someone who wants to know how
> they
> > think, there is no better intellectual than
> > Christopher Hitchens.
>
> You should read it.

I will read it. I've read several other books from Hitchens. He is an intellectual. Maher is not.

Nevertheless, he is wrong too. The Universe is a testament to God's existence.


>
> > Maher, on the other hand,
> > is a piece of trash with an inflated ego who is
> > jealous of Michael Moore's exposure and bank
> > account. Maher is to the religion debate what
> > Leonardo DiCaprio was to Global Warming.
> >
>
> And your justification for this is?

Because he's a piece of trash with an inflated ego. His "comedy" and his commentary is nothing but low-brow rhetoric a mile wide and an angstrom thick. You can recognize his egotism from the witless, smug smirk on his pale, leftist face.

>
>
> > I'll bet we could make quite an eye-opening
> > documentary about the thoughts, behavior, and
> > actions of atheists/agnostics/spiritualists by
> > selectively editing out the respectable and
> > dramatizing the lunacy.
>
> Trouble is, when it comes to religion you do not
> have to do much editing, and the end results would
> be far more dramatic.

I've been a Christian my entire life and have attended two dozen churches in seven states, three countries, in at least 10 different denominations. I've never met people like the ones in his film. Even the Mormons, whose beliefs I consider bizarre, are some of the finest human beings I've ever known. My most blessed church-going friends are the salt of the Earth - people who came to America as destitute ethnic Indian immigrants fleeing oppression in South Africa. Even you could not fail to be touched by their loving kindness.

The trouble with atheists is that you haven't found God nor seen his presence in the spirits of others simply because you're not looking. It's difficult for you to see or hear the truth with your eyes shut, your thumbs in your ears, and chanting "blah blah blah" all the time.

You're afraid to find Him because it will involve responsible commitment to ideals and lifestyles which are inconvenient for your hedonistic lifestyle. In a universe without God, you are an accident - totally without purpose - and neither your existence nor your actions are of any consquence whatsoever. Without God, you cannot make a case for any code of moral values, any standards of behavior, or even the preservation of mankind. Without God, there is no existential preference between monasticism, enterprise, or genocide. The universe would be indifferent to you serving in the peace corps, raping a 3 year old boy, or hiding in your closet in a catatonic state.

You would be no more important than any other randomly assembled collection of atoms and energy in the entire universe and would share a similar lack of purpose for being.

hmmmm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As a mormon with a firm faith in Jesus, I'm just
> curious about what evidence Mr. Maher has that
> there is no God. I'm sorry, but Bill cannot
> produce one shred of evidence God doesn't exist
> (or that Jesus was never on the earth), where all
> natural things on earth are evidence to me that
> this could never have happened by chance. Even
> with the challenges we face through wars and tough
> economic times, it's all a part of our experience
> on earth to learn to love each other even with
> evils out there that influence people to hurt
> others. Let Bill believe what he wants...we all
> have that prerogative in this great country...but
> as for me and my house, we will believe the Lord.
>
> It is kind of funny (not in a good way) how often
> people who are disturbed by the beliefs of others
> can't just let them be, but have to do all in
> their power to tear down other people's beliefs.
> My personal opinion is that the only reason Bill
> is doing this is for attention and money. So be
> it...his choice. He can go ahead and gain his own
> disciples and they will unfortunately see where it
> leades them. The Lord will judge his heart and
> whoever else's he "converts" to his religion of
> non-belief.


So, let me see if I understand the logic of this. It is wrong to be disturbed by other people's beliefs, and yet it is perfectly just for god to eternally punish people for beliefs. What is immoral for us, is completely moral for god. His "supposed" word can say things like this:
"Happy is he who seizes your babes and dashes them against a rock." Psalm 137:9

God is clearly beyond reproach, b/c he is god.

R. Miller Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> The trouble with atheists is that you haven't
> found God nor seen his presence in the spirits of
> others simply because you're not looking.

The trouble with ye faithful is your belief that "kindness" springs only from God. You, apparently, do not possess it innately. Thus, you cannot see it borne in others.

What demons would inhabit you, otherwise? I tremble at the thought..


> You're afraid to find Him because it will involve
> responsible commitment to ideals and lifestyles
> which are inconvenient for your hedonistic
> lifestyle.

We already commit to "ideals and lifestyles", and require no assistance from mystical beings. I do not lead a "hedonistic" lifestyle: I have children whom I would die for, go to work everyday, and contribute $ to various charitable causes. Who are you to question this because your Israelite Yahweh is not in my family portrait?

>In a universe without God, you are an
> accident - totally without purpose - and neither
> your existence nor your actions are of any
> consquence whatsoever.

This must be where you articulate your own fear. While you do this, I will continue to fashion "purpose", and measure "consequence".. I find myself allied with many enlightened folk across the planet in this regard. You may continue to huddle with your fellows in worship.

>Without God, you cannot
> make a case for any code of moral values, any
> standards of behavior, or even the preservation of
> mankind.

No. YOU cannot make the case. We can, we have, and you simply ignore it.

>Without God, there is no existential
> preference between monasticism, enterprise, or
> genocide. The universe would be indifferent to you
> serving in the peace corps, raping a 3 year old
> boy, or hiding in your closet in a catatonic
> state.

One of my sons is 3 years of age. Consider the fate of one who would visit such a crime against his flesh, and dare call my VENGEANCE "indifference"..! As a Creature of this Universe, I challenge your every utterance regarding my motivations or intentions. I invite your God to visit my thoughts. Consider, elsewhere, His INDIFFERENCE to the suffering in Darfur, as limbs are hacked from the screaming, mothers ravaged, villages burned..

>
> You would be no more important than any other
> randomly assembled collection of atoms and energy
> in the entire universe and would share a similar
> lack of purpose for being.

Do you crave "importance" so deeply? More to the point, must that itself derive only from On High?

If I must state it to avoid being discounted in spiritual circles, I consider the Universe, with all its Immensity and Vasty Awesomeness, is the very thing that is Divine, and We have Emerged out of it, in possession of Mind, and that is a stupefying thought which fills me with Awe. I revere the Science which Seeks to unravel this mystery.

This has very little to do, in my mind, with ancient tales out of the Middle East, as a desert tribe struggled for existence on the fringes of Empires. No more would I look to the frigid northlands, with its sagas of buxom Valkrie bearing the fallen to raucous Valhalla, but certainly that's what some of my ancestors believed, with all their hearts, before the Romans and the Christians came with their Word, and their Fire, their inquisitions and their witchhunts.. When have you last thought to consider the pagans of your ancestry?

alien Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> R. Miller Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------<

The trouble with atheists is that you haven't found God nor seen his presence in the spirits others simply because you're not looking.

> --------------------------------------------------<

or, not looking in the right place i.e. inward


The trouble with ye faithful is your belief that "kindness" springs only from God.

You, apparently, do not possess it innately. Thus, you cannot see it borne in others.
humbug


The faithful choose to have faith in man-made 'visions' Is not The Absolute the key, and therefore no dogma etc.

R. Miller Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

If there is no why, you have no purpose. You have no why unless there is a God.

alien Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> R. Miller Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > The trouble with atheists is that you haven't
> > found God nor seen his presence in the spirits
> of
> > others simply because you're not looking.
>
> The trouble with ye faithful is your belief that
> "kindness" springs only from God. You,
> apparently, do not possess it innately. Thus, you
> cannot see it borne in others.

Uh, no. We do not believe that. Kindness can be found in anyone. Evil can be found in anyone. We were all created with the knowledge of good and evil and the free will to choose among them.

>
> What demons would inhabit you, otherwise? I
> tremble at the thought..
>
> We already commit to "ideals and lifestyles", and
> require no assistance from mystical beings. I do
> not lead a "hedonistic" lifestyle: I have
> children whom I would die for, go to work
> everyday, and contribute $ to various charitable
> causes. Who are you to question this because your
> Israelite Yahweh is not in my family portrait?

Your family, your work, your charitable contributions are meaningless without God, because in your world view all of humanity was the result of a grand, cosmic accident.

If you slaughtered your family, shirked in your work, and stole from the poor your actions would have no effect on an indifferent universe which doesn't care what you do.

Every breath you take to assert that your life has purpose, your love has meaning, and your good works are worthwhile asserts the existence of a Creator.

>
> >In a universe without God, you are an
> > accident - totally without purpose - and
> neither
> > your existence nor your actions are of any
> > consequence whatsoever.
>
> This must be where you articulate your own fear.
> While you do this, I will continue to fashion
> "purpose", and measure "consequence".. I find
> myself allied with many enlightened folk across
> the planet in this regard. You may continue to
> huddle with your fellows in worship.

I have no fear. You are no more the creator of your own purpose than you are the creator of yourself. You are not enlightened - you walk in darkness and ignorance.

We don't huddle - we embrace in joy.
>
> >Without God, you cannot
> > make a case for any code of moral values, any
> > standards of behavior, or even the preservation
> of
> > mankind.
>
> No. YOU cannot make the case. We can, we have,
> and you simply ignore it.

I've already made the case. In your world, morality is meaningless. Your next thought or action is no more meaningful than a pebble rolling down a hill because a gust of wind blew it that way. As a collection of organized molecules resulting from a great cosmic accident, you are driven merely by chemical and physiological reactions. There is no "reason" to love and protect your child any more than there is reason to carve him up for tonight's meal. Johnny...it's what's for dinner!

>
> >Without God, there is no existential
> > preference between monasticism, enterprise, or
> > genocide. The universe would be indifferent to
> you
> > serving in the peace corps, raping a 3 year old
> > boy, or hiding in your closet in a catatonic
> > state.
>
> One of my sons is 3 years of age. Consider the
> fate of one who would visit such a crime against
> his flesh, and dare call my VENGEANCE
> "indifference"..! As a Creature of this Universe,
> I challenge your every utterance regarding my
> motivations or intentions. I invite your God to
> visit my thoughts. Consider, elsewhere, His
> INDIFFERENCE to the suffering in Darfur, as limbs
> are hacked from the screaming, mothers ravaged,
> villages burned..

God is not "indifferent" to suffering. He created mankind with free will and an uncertain earthly fate as a GIFT. If is our duty to seek peace and love despite a world which rewards depravity. It is by overcoming such evil that we earn the Kingdom of Heaven.

Again, in YOUR world view the Universe was created in an explosion. Gravity, energy, and magnetism caused particles to form atoms. Atoms combined to make molecules. Molecules combined to form organic matter. From that, life was formed. Life was a self-sustaining equillibrium which created more life. Life evolved.

But in that theory your entire existence was an accident. Your shape, your form, your thoughts were all derived from random forces operating on predictable ones. That we survived to evolve and develop intelligence was infinitessimally improbable. And what is that intellect? Merely chemical reactions in your brain that responds to stimulus. Your sense of love is just a hormonal response to stimulus. Your empathy for a starving African you never met is just a mind trick you play on yourself.

If you love your child, the Universe doesn't care. If you eat your child for dinner, the Universe doesn't care. In fact, since some living creatures actually eat their children for dinner, one wonders why you shouldn't follow their example of survival. You can marry several dozen wives and have a tasty meal at regular birthing intervals until you all die of old age. The human race will die out, but so what?

What is the duty of a random confluence of matter and energy to sustain its own kind? Does the sun care that another star just went supernova? Does the sun fear it's death? Does the sun take pleasure in providing warmth for us?

No, the sun just does what the sun does. And you just do what you do. And there's no reason or purpose for either you or the sun to do anything other than what you are inclined to do. The sun has no reason, so its choices are limited. You have reason, so your choices are many. But NONE of your choices have purpose or meaningful consequence because they are all just responses to and causes of stimulus.

>
> >
> > You would be no more important than any other
> > randomly assembled collection of atoms and
> energy
> > in the entire universe and would share a
> similar
> > lack of purpose for being.
>
> Do you crave "importance" so deeply? More to the
> point, must that itself derive only from On High?

If I have no importance, then nothing I do or choose matters. It MUST be derived from "on high" because there is no where else from which it could be obtained.

An accidental creation imbues you with no sense of purpose.

>
>
> If I must state it to avoid being discounted in
> spiritual circles, I consider the Universe, with
> all its Immensity and Vasty Awesomeness, is the
> very thing that is Divine, and We have Emerged out
> of it, in possession of Mind, and that is a
> stupefying thought which fills me with Awe. I
> revere the Science which Seeks to unravel this
> mystery.

You revere a science which relies upon limited human senses and limited human understanding which will NEVER reveal to you the full extent of knowledge. Ironically, it is the biggest and most important question to our existence which science will NEVER answer - WHY ARE WE HERE?

Science can answer what, where, when, and how. It can NEVER answer why.

>
> This has very little to do, in my mind, with
> ancient tales out of the Middle East, as a desert
> tribe struggled for existence on the fringes of
> Empires. No more would I look to the frigid
> northlands, with its sagas of buxom Valkrie
> bearing the fallen to raucous Valhalla, but
> certainly that's what some of my ancestors
> believed, with all their hearts, before the Romans
> and the Christians came with their Word, and their
> Fire, their inquisitions and their witchhunts..
> When have you last thought to consider the pagans
> of your ancestry?

Man exists within time and comes to learn the truth within time, though it may take millenia. Apparently, your time has not come. What will you say and think if your 3 year old grows up to be a Roman Catholic priest or a Mormon, I wonder? Would you call him an idiot believing in invisible mystic creatures?

You prefer to seek your "truth" from far more dubious sources. Einstein went to his death denying the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle which is generally regarded as scientific fact. Your "science" is no more infallible than my religion.

BTW, I'm a scientist...an Economist...and I reckon you would have none of that truth because that doesn't suit you either.

No Man In The sky Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Saw the movie this weekend-it's hilarious and
> reaffirms the many of the great wars stemmed from
> religious ideology. Bill does not judge or make
> fun of the many believers in this film; instead,
> they embarass themselves.

Yep, 100+ million people were murdered in the 20th Century by socialist and communist religious fanatics!

The Weather Underground, Black Panthers, Hells Angels, gangs, and drug cartels were all commanded by Jesus to slay the infidel!

R. Miller Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------


Knowing God's "form" is not necessary for knowing of his existence.agreed

Quit imposing your agnostic ignorance upon me. You can only speak for yourself not knowing. You cannot speak for me.
there is no you or me of any substance,that we perceive ordinarily

Hey, if you want to believe what some dead guy said about the afterlife thousands of years ago, with nothing to back him up but the Stone Age-level "science" that they had back then, be my guest. You'll be sticking with a myth structure that was created when people thought the Sun WAS God, that he slept under the Earth every night until he rose again to watch over everyone all day. That or, going by today's images, that he's some old bearded white dude who's idea of exercising omnipotent power and knowledge is to sit around and watch people eat and drink and live and die all day, with some kind of vague "plan" that may or may not mean that you get killed by a murderer or maimed in an accident or struck with some genetic disease that will end your life years before your time.

The truth is that no matter how much anyone tries to couch Jesus' message in the religion of Christianity, the religion itself goes against his teachings of living a simple life, free from corruptible influences (i.e. Pharisees and Bishops), helping each other live good, long lives. And the worst part about it is that people are confusing "faith" with "something I've been told all my life and choose not to try to prove in any way".

People who interpret Genesis literally are the prime worst example. Some human wrote a book that says God created the Earth in seven days. Well, not only does the story never mention Adam or Eve chronicling the event as it happened, it also ascribes the human definition of a "day" to an otherwise all-powerful being. What's a day to God, a being who apparently has and will live forever? Science can estimate the age of the universe, our sun, and our planet, but people will choose to believe that the Almighty God works on a 24 hour schedule, just because we do?

Bill Maher is right, and a lot of people have some growing up to do.

@R. Miller

I cannot write much at the moment, as I must head home. Clearly, you are quick to presume to know my Mind, and attribute to me both statements and beliefs which I have not yet made. Perhaps you envision waging battle against an atheistic horde (and what a fascinating picture that might be?)

e.g., I have neither characterized the Universe as an "accident", nor called anyone an "idiot".

My belief in the timeless Inevitability of this existence, and my unending Faith in Science, only further my disinterest in the Gospels surrounding this Nazarene, who would call himself the offspring of a Diety, like some Hercules leading a charge of doves.

I don't know the answers yet. You presume to know, even as you would deign speak my thoughts for me. Yet, in mine eyes, you do little more than repeat what you have been told, as your ancestors were told, as slaves were told, as children barely speaking were told by men in robes, relentlessly over eons of imagining, bound in this strange mythical chain to Ages long past we know to be seeped in ignorance and barbarity..

And you do it, as you say, with Joy

Between those who believe and those who do not, the major difference is simply this: believers hold as certain that the answers revelation has given to them are absolutely true. Non-believers recognize that "Certainty is the surest sign of Ignorance".

The scary thing is we have a president that thinks god talks to him yet conceived the horrific blunder in Iraq causing thousands of deaths. Now we have a VP candidate that make the current President look like an athiest. My fear is that the religious right won't be satisfied until they turn the USA into a theocracy run by Christian taliban, forcing prayer in schools and throwing women and doctors in jail for abortion. Don't think it couldn't happen. Look at the Palin rallies. As she incites the crowd, they say awful things. Those folks will be sitting in thier usual pew on Sunday.

Since there is no proof that there is a "god", since no one can define that notion without astonishing contradictions, any sentence that includes that word in it, as though something real were thereby named, is a sentence devoid of meaning. Might as well use the utterance "unie" instead.

Paul Beaird
"Your life belongs to you and the good is to live it." Ayn Rand

inanetranshuman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's disappointing the lack of respect that people
> are bestowing upon each other. Perhaps the
> general tone of this thread suggested to you that
> I was an intolerant, decrying all devouts as
> comically stupid. I re-read my post many times
> trying to determine why you would have immediately
> started out with a derogatory remark. You must
> understand that I included the word "supposed",
> b/c I obviously don't maintain its veracity. It
> was not meant to be pejorative.
> It appears readily obvious to me that your
> intelligent, please don't assume that I'm an
> ignoramus. While I'm not a biblical scholar, I've
> actually read the bible multiple times. I have
> also invested a lot of time reading the works of
> both biblical scholars and historians. My
> understanding of Psalm 137:9
> is its referring to the killing of Babylonian
> children in the vengeful justice sense. You seem
> to be suggesting that the Israelites are referring
> to sparing their own children a life of
> subservience in death. Obviously, I could be
> misunderstanding your point of view. My original
> point was based upon a reflection I've had about
> some of the more sticky verses in the bible. I've
> often wondered if those stories were translated
> into the parlance of our culture would we find
> them moral. I remember reading about a study where
> biblical stories were read to devouts with the
> names substituted for some other civilizations
> rulers. The devouts all agreed that those stories
> were morally reprehensible.
> Ultimately, I commend your tolerance for other
> people beliefs. My retort was aimed at
> philosophical dialogue. I would not presume to
> fully grasp your conception of god. However, I
> imagine your conception of god and my conception
> of the wondrous and mysterious universe have some
> overlap. If you like to engage in dialogue for
> both entertainment and mutual enlightenment, feel
> free to respond with any additional counterpoints
> or perspectives.
>
I appreciate your post, and am sorry I insulted you. Thanks for your kind thoughts and your tolerance as well. You make a good point about that verse, as it could probably be taken either way. If it was written with a sense of vengeance, I don't think we can chalk it up to the Lord, but to imperfect humans taking the law of Moses "eye for an eye" to an extreme instead of the better way the Lord said in the New Testament of praying for your enemies.

In any event, I have no additional counterpoints at the moment. It's too bad some of what we say comes across less kind over the internet than it would in person due to the anonymity of this medium. For that, I again apologize. I am convinced most religions and concepts of God have an immense amount of overlap, and that there is some good in all. I don't believe things from many, but I think they originally all sparng from a single source of truth before being corrupted because the Lord allows people an immense amount of leeway in making their own choices...even when they negatively affext others. In any event, friend, I have enjoyed this discussion. Have a great night.

Miles T Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> cassamandra Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > > Okay, but I still think Dr. Collins didn't
> get
> > a
> > > fair shot at defending his beliefs
> > scientifically.
> > > He's a brilliant scientist mapping the human
> > > genome. It's unfair to dismiss his beliefs as
> a
> > > mere neurological disorder. You know, if you
> > come
> > > across a house in the middle of the forest,
> > it's
> > > reasonable to conclude it was designed and
> > > constructed for a purpose. To say it evolved
> > just
> > > because you haven't met the designer wouldn't
> > make
> > > sense.
> >
> > That's an argument to infinite regression --
> while
> > causality is one of the forms in which the
> human
> > mind apprehends reality, it doesn't lead you to
> a
> > starting point at which the question can stop.
> As
> > every five-year-old asks: if god made
> everything,
> > who made god? within the rules of causality,
> there
> > can be no first cause.
>
>
> Causality's a problem whether you believe in
> Creation or the Big Bang. What was there before
> the Big Bang?? Look, let's just build a time
> machine, go back w/a digital camcorder and record
> it. All I'm saying is, the house gives evidence
> of design, the Mozart symphony gives evidence of
> design, the Mona Lisa gives evidence of design,
> the human body (mapped out by DNA) gives evidence
> of design. The Ultimate Causality of Everything --
> neither one of us was there.

Miles, this sort of reasoning is the ultimate example of a dog chasing its tail, or "ouroboric," if you want to be a bit more poetic. Creation myths, and they are just that, have been so discredited by modern knowledge and skeptical investigation (these myths, were, after all, nothing more than a way to explain the unknown) that it seems infantile to cling to a belief system just because it cannot be disproven. You don't see a problem with this sort of logic? Really? I can understand farmers and sheepherders believing this stuff thousands of years ago when germs didn't exist because you couldn't see them, the earth was flat because it sure looked like it, and the sun circled the earth because it made more sense that way, but we don't have the luxury of ignorance any more. I wish you would update your centuries-old thinking, even if it takes a toll on your worldview. I promise it's worth the intellectual exercise.

guitargirl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> but why must we force others to
> > follow our ideas (superstitions)?
>
> Some investigation into the claims in the Bible
> might enlighten you as to why people would cling
> to the hope God promises and provides.
>
> What you call 'superstition' is something a
> born-again Christian would die for. I'm not
> talking about Roman arenas . . . people today risk
> their lives to follow Jesus Christ, the only One
> through whom a relationship with God is possible.
> Did you know that Christians are at this moment
> being killed, beaten and driven from their homes
> which along with their churches are being burnt to
> the ground? (Orissa State in India.) This is one
> tiny piece of the current persecution picture, but
> here is a question worth pondering. Would you be
> willing to die for any cause, Jim? Could you place
> your faith in a God who keeps His promises?
>
> The God of the Bible (the ONLY God) guarantees
> eternal life (yes, beyond the grave) to those who
> repent (turn away from their commandment-breaking
> life) and put their trust in Christ (God the
> Savior.) Heaven is a real place, and so is hell.
> The Bible is real clear on who goes where. Don't
> rely on what the culture (news media, college,
> movies) teaches you. If you truly seek Him, you
> will find Him; another one of His promises. If you
> unltimately find it impossible to believe . . .
> you too are still in the Bible! Romans 1:19-21 For
> what can be known about God is plain to them
> because God has shown it to them. For His
> invisible attributes, namely His eternal power and
> divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever
> since the creation of the world, in the things
> that have been made. For although they knew God,
> they did not honor Him as God or give thanks to
> Him, but they became FUTILE IN THEIR THINKING, AND
> THEIR FOOLISH HEARTS WERE DARKENED. (Emphasis
> mine.)
>
> Finally, to your last point . . . a Believer
> cannot FORCE you to do anything. But Jim, if YOU
> knew that a blind person was heading for a cliff
> and did not say a word to stop him/her, I think
> you'd agree that you bear some resposibility for
> their demise, having failed to warn them. Eternal
> death is far worse than mere physical death. I
> shudder to think that part of the torment in hell
> will include memories of all the chances God gave
> you to come to Him. I just want the chance to
> greet you in heaven, where we can remember this
> 'exchange of comments.' But the choice is yours
> alone. All I can do is tell you what I know.


It must be pretty satisfying to imagine all of those people who use arguments you can't understand to discredit your silly supersititious worldview burning in eternal torment. If you really want to make a positive difference, get down off the cross, honestly and ruthlessly examine your own beliefs, and realize that most agnostics have given the issue WAY more thought and consideration than their religious-minded brethren. In fact, I can guarantee it. Eternal ignorance is far worse than mere physical death.

At alien 01:00 PM on Oct 8, alien wrote:

Posted by: alien

"Wow.. such fragile morality..
You REQUIRE a God to feel compassion, or to practice respect? Is this because you fear HELLFIRE?"

What kind of monster are you, inside, that you must be compelled so, by ancient tales, to act like a reasonable human being?

I don't get it. I don't believe in God, nor Santa Clause, nor do I think Jesus walked-on-water or was Raised from the Dead. I don't need ANY of that to love my kids or my wife, or to treat others with respect.

We MAKE the RIGHT that is in the world.. This is a liberating philosophy. God didn't CREATE America.. ENLIGHTENED folk of that time drafted it out of a collective vision, with wisdom and intelligence and compromise, and many across the world were inspired by this.

>
> No God = No reason for me to respect you, your
> life, or anything that is not immediately
> beneficial to me. Or is that what you were actualy
> going for?

I respond as follows:

I must say that I was surprised at how appalled you appear to be at this statement.
Your rage and indignation is palpable. I find myself wondering why my humble observation is so threatening to you.

Please consider the complete context of my original reply to No Man In The sky:

>Saw the movie this weekend-it's hilarious and
> reaffirms the many of the great wars stemmed from
> religious ideology. Bill does not judge or make
> fun of the many believers in this film; instead,
> they embarass themselves.

My response was:

“If there is nothing higher than ourselves, no moral template, then there is nothing wrong with war, murder, rape, theft, etc.. at all!”

”You are left with your personal whims as the ultimate law. If mine are bad for you - who cares.

”No God = No reason for me to respect you, your life, or anything that is not immediately beneficial to me. Or is that what you were actualy going for?”

My point is that there is no particular reason to view war, or any other incursion, as immoral if we, as a species, are simply making up the rules as we go along. If there is no creator, then we are left as the ultimate authority and may be as subjective as we wish in our authorship of “right and wrong.” The only judicial factor is who has the most power, support, or control.

When I saw the post from No Man In The sky, I found myself annoyed by what I read as yet another itteration of the ancient argument “More have died in the name of God ……” argument. Almost invariably, this leads to some form of the sophomoric conclusion that belief in God leads to murder, rape and pillage. You may as well say that agriculture ultimately leads to famine, riot, and barbarism. Should we abandon our crops if they can be misused? Should we abandon language if it can be used to lie? Should we abandon any form of government if some forms are oppressive? Is an idea or belief to be rejected if it can be warped or twisted?

None can deny that religion has been USED to wage war, but to say that religion CAUSES war is a bit asinine. In the end, wars are ultimately fought over some form of “You have it – and I want it” or “I have it – and you are trying to take it.” If you wish, you can paint the shell with religion or ideology, but inside there is still the nut that embodies “give it to me” and “I must keep it.” By the same token, I cannot think of any personal crime or assault that does not finally reduce to this.

Please consider that every organism on the planet, as either an individual or part of a collective, is driven by the same basic principles of acquisition and retention. If there is no creator, then we need no further justification or basis for our laws. Every animal on the planet obeys these laws, and you and I will be just another two animals. The affection that we feel for our mates, offspring, and tribe would simply be an instinct that promotes our continued personal existence and / or the continuation of a line.

I, for one, believe that you and I are not just another two animals on the planet.
(Please note that I do not insist that you share this belief.)

I believe that I have been given free will, and thus liberty from my instincts and the opportunity to grow beyond them.

I believe that God has created us, and that to “create” is the ultimate and most positive manifestation of the verb “Choose.” Thus, God has already “chosen” us. What remains is for us to choose God. Since only the most counterfeit form of association can be gained though intimidation, it is necessary for us to choose God via “faith.”

What could be more intimidating than direct and unambiguous proof of a divine being? It would certainly cause one to fall back upon the basic survival instinct. Belief would be forced. If God were to force belief, or provide proof of divine existence, then my free will would be forfeit and my alliance would be synthetic. God’s relationship to me would be that of creator and robot. I believe that the desired relationship is more akin to parent / child. That is the reason that we have free will.

As for your questions: “You REQUIRE a God to feel compassion, or to practice respect? Is this because you fear HELLFIRE?” and “What kind of monster are you, inside, that you must be compelled so, by ancient tales, to act like a reasonable human being?”

I do not believe that God will reject me to either eternal death or torture. If there is hell, it would be eternal separation from God. If my fate falls thus, then it will be because I have rejected God – to his dismay. If I am to truly have free will, it is necessary that I must enjoy or suffer the results thereof. To reject God may simply result in not living beyond corporeal death. I don’t know yet.

So, my respect or compassion for you is not dependent upon the threat of torture or compelled by ancient tales. It results from my confidence that God created you as he did all. Though I may not posses the vision or wisdom to see why, you must be valued by God as a potentially eternal being. I will trust that. You are protected from my base instincts. If you are indeed the highest authority for your own moral code, then I am fully aware that I am protected from your instincts only as far as it suits you.