Bill Maher's Anti-Religion Movie

[Straw Man]

Another one of those atheists who can't stop talking about something he doesn't believe in.   

Bill Maher's Anti-Religion Movie
Friday, August 22, 2008

By Roger Friedman
AP

Bill Maher's Anti-Religion Movie

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,408782,00.html

Another fundie who can't stop talking about something that he doesn't believe in (and posting it on GB too) and also not getting the irony of your own statement

[big L dawg]

I don't believe Athiest have a supreme goal (or even a cohesive group that compares in any way to any organized religion).

From my perspective, the recent increase in movies/books like the kind from Maher and Dawkins is necessary response to the infiltration of radical religious agenda in our society and government.   The Bush administration is filled with people who filter their regligious beliefs into social policy.   An example is the massive amount of tax payer $$$ spent of faith based initiatives such as the patently worthless abstinence programs or pushing to teach a Christian creation myth as if it's the "other side of the coin" to the theory of evolution.   If we're going to teach a creation myth in school then it should be taught in a class about mythology and it should be taught alongside the creation stories of other religions.  This would be a more of a 200 sided die rather than a 2 sided coin.

Bottom line - I'm for freedom of all religious thought and that includes the freedom to reject all religious doctrine and keep all religious doctrine out of the running of our government. 

well said

[Dos Equis]

Another fundie who can't stop talking about something that he doesn't believe in (and posting it on GB too) and also not getting the irony of your own statement

This is really funny.  The paranoid anti-religious extremist who doesn't understand irony talking about an alleged inability of another to understand irony. 

sorry, sometimes I have a hard time picking up on irony in written form (seriously), and especially late at night.   

[Dos Equis]

Maher is an idiot.

Maher Mocks Palin's Down Syndrome Child

Friday, September 5, 2008 1:44 PM

By: Jim Meyers 

Comedian Bill Maher cracked a tasteless “joke” involving Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin’s Down syndrome child — and referred to the Alaska governor as a “stewardess.”

In the monologue of his most recent HBO show, Maher noted that Palin has five children including an infant “that has Down syndrome. She had it when she was 43 years old. And it looks a lot like John Edwards.”

He also said: “McCain has been running this campaign based on ‘we’re at war. I, John McCain, am the only one standing between the bloodthirsty al-Qaidas and you. But if I die, the stewardess can handle it.’”
 
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/maher_mocks_palin/2008/09/05/128099.html

[Straw Man]

This is really funny.  The paranoid anti-religious extremist who doesn't understand irony talking about an alleged inability of another to understand irony. 

I'm neither paranoid nor anti-religious (I'm pro-freedom of belief)

so you're saying your comment about Maher was meant to be ironic?

Another one of those atheists who can't stop talking about something he doesn't believe in.   

if not irony - then you're suggesting that if Maher is not a "believer" then he can't comment on religion?  That's pretty convenient

[MCWAY]

I don't believe Athiest have a supreme goal (or even a cohesive group that compares in any way to any organized religion).

It appears that they do. Maher spoke about moving forward. Again, to what are he and others like him trying to move? There's something he wants to accomplish, and for some strange reason, he can't get it done without religion being gone.

According to atheists.org, "Your petitioners are Atheists and they define their beliefs as follows. An Atheist loves his fellow man instead of god. An Atheist believes that heaven is something for which we should work now – here on earth for all men together to enjoy.

Is this the lofty goal which Maher wants to reach?



An Atheist believes that he can get no help through prayer but that he must find in himself the inner conviction, and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue it and enjoy it.

Is it this?



An Atheist believes that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow mancan he find the understanding that will help to a life of fulfillment.

Or it is that?

From my perspective, the recent increase in movies/books like the kind from Maher and Dawkins is necessary response to the infiltration of radical religious agenda in our society and government.   The Bush administration is filled with people who filter their regligious beliefs into social policy.   An example is the massive amount of tax payer $$$ spent of faith based initiatives such as the patently worthless abstinence programs or pushing to teach a Christian creation myth as if it's the "other side of the coin" to the theory of evolution.   If we're going to teach a creation myth in school then it should be taught in a class about mythology and it should be taught alongside the creation stories of other religions.  This would be a more of a 200 sided die rather than a 2 sided coin.

First of all, faith-based initiatives are PRIMARILY of a humanitarian nature. There's no need to build shelters or food banks in a community if several of those already exist with local churches.

Second, exactly what's so "worthless" about abstinence education? People have been yapping about condoms for ages, yet STDs among teens have gone UP. That makes the point of, regardless of which type of sex education is touted, these kids aren't using it. They ain't abstaing; they ain't using rubbers. But, I suppose since too many teens aren't using contraception and condoms, we should scrap sex education altogether, by your logic.


Thirdly, with regards to your comments, if these other folks have the scientific data to support their claims (as Creationists do), then let them have at it. Of course, that isn't the issue here.

It is rather strange, though, that despite the virtual monopoly evolutionists have had, with regards to science classes, they still struggle to get their message across, which frustrate a number of "enlightened" folks to no end.

Bottom line - I'm for freedom of all religious thought and that includes the freedom to reject all religious doctrine and keep all religious doctrine out of the running of our government. 

Does that include the "religious doctrine" of humanism/atheism, or is that some sort of exemption?

People's beliefs shape how they form policy. So, no matter how you slice it, you will have religious doctrine (to some degree) running the government.

[big L dawg]

It appears that they do. Maher spoke about moving forward. Again, to what are he and others like him trying to move? There's something he wants to accomplish, and for some strange reason, he can't get it done without religion being gone.

According to atheists.org, "Your petitioners are Atheists and they define their beliefs as follows. An Atheist loves his fellow man instead of god. An Atheist believes that heaven is something for which we should work now – here on earth for all men together to enjoy.

Is this the lofty goal which Maher wants to reach?



An Atheist believes that he can get no help through prayer but that he must find in himself the inner conviction, and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue it and enjoy it.

Is it this?



An Atheist believes that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow mancan he find the understanding that will help to a life of fulfillment.

Or it is that?



First of all, faith-based initiatives are PRIMARILY of a humanitarian nature. There's no need to build shelters or food banks in a community if several of those already exist with local churches.

Second, exactly what's so "worthless" about abstinence education? People have been yapping about condoms for ages, yet STDs among teens have gone UP. That makes the point of, regardless of which type of sex education is touted, these kids aren't using it. They ain't abstaing; they ain't using rubbers. But, I suppose since too many teens aren't using contraception and condoms, we should scrap sex education altogether, by your logic.


Thirdly, with regards to your comments, if these other folks have the scientific data to support their claims (as Creationists do), then let them have at it. Of course, that isn't the issue here.

It is rather strange, though, that despite the virtual monopoly evolutionists have had, with regards to science classes, they still struggle to get their message across, which frustrate a number of "enlightened" folks to no end.

Does that include the "religious doctrine" of humanism/atheism, or is that some sort of exemption?

People's beliefs shape how they form policy. So, no matter how you slice it, you will have religious doctrine (to some degree) running the government.

you want there to be a goal.and even if there is some goal (which i doubt) why r u so worried about it.if you believe in the bible then its all good 4 u god fearing folks.

[MCWAY]

you want there to be a goal.and even if there is some goal (which i doubt) why r u so worried about it.if you believe in the bible then its all good 4 u god fearing folks.

My wanting there to be a goal has no bearing on the matter. Maher claims that religion must be gone in order to "move forward". Where is he (and others like him) trying to go? What are they trying to do?

[Decker]

.....and that's exactly how certain atheists feel about religious people. And, Maher echoes that sentiment in no uncertain terms.

Again, I ask what is this lofty goal that folks like Maher want to achieve and why do they feel they CANNOT get it done, unless religion/belief in God is gone.

The lofty goal appears to be living a very difficult existence without the dogmatic nonsense of righteous religious folks mucking up the way.  Life's tough enough without throwing in non-existent data like God, the Devil, angels, demons or the afterlife to interfere with very real and profound issues.  Fear of death is a strong fear and religion is there to fill the void.

"Work like a dog, live the way we think you should live and after you are dead, you will get your reward!"

What a sweet deal.

[MCWAY]

The lofty goal appears to be living a very difficult existence without the dogmatic nonsense of righteous religious folks mucking up the way.  Life's tough enough without throwing in non-existent data like God, the Devil, angels, demons or the afterlife to interfere with very real and profound issues.  Fear of death is a strong fear and religion is there to fill the void.

"Work like a dog, live the way we think you should live and after you are dead, you will get your reward!"

What a sweet deal.

If life is so tough and fear of death isn't an issue, why aren't more atheists blowing their brains out? Furthermore, religion (Christianity, at least) has hardly interfered with "real and profound issues". More often than not, it has addressed those issues.

[Decker]

If life is so tough and fear of death isn't an issue, why aren't more atheists blowing their brains out? Furthermore, religion (Christianity, at least) has hardly interfered with "real and profound issues". More often than not, it has addressed those issues.

Only the confused or cowardly kill themselves.  We are born to die.  That's an absurdity of life.  Things fall apart.  But life is an extraordinary experience.  The myriad of wonders are matched only by the many horrors and those that are made of the right stuff know that.

Christianity at its base is decadent.  It decays the here and now of this wonderful/terrible life b/c the afterlife is what counts.  Heaven and hell are forever and this world is only a transitory step.

I say, "no this life is it and its many splendors/terrors are worth the price of admission" (birth).  Heaven and Hell are for starry-eyed dreamers.

 

[Deicide]

Only the confused or cowardly kill themselves.  We are born to die.  That's an absurdity of life.  Things fall apart.  But life is an extraordinary experience.  The myriad of wonders are matched only by the many horrors and those that are made of the right stuff know that.

Christianity at its base is decadent.  It decays the here and now of this wonderful/terrible life b/c the afterlife is what counts.  Heaven and hell are forever and this world is only a transitory step.

I say, "no this life is it and its many splendors/terrors are worth the price of admission" (birth).  Heaven and Hell are for starry-eyed dreamers.

 

You are a truly eloquent exponent of secular values Decker; it's an honour to be on board with you.

[Deicide]

My wanting there to be a goal has no bearing on the matter. Maher claims that religion must be gone in order to "move forward". Where is he (and others like him) trying to go? What are they trying to do?

Kneel before the Lord of Lightning, Zeus!

[wavelength]

Christianity at its base is decadent.  It decays the here and now of this wonderful/terrible life b/c the afterlife is what counts.  Heaven and hell are forever and this world is only a transitory step.

This only applies to a perverted version of Christianity.
The here and now in God is all that matters in real Christianity.

[Deicide]

This only applies to a perverted version of Christianity.
The here and now in God is all that matters in real Christianity.

Real Christianity doesn't exist...there are only a million different versions.

[Straw Man]

It appears that they do. Maher spoke about moving forward. Again, to what are he and others like him trying to move? There's something he wants to accomplish, and for some strange reason, he can't get it done without religion being gone.

According to atheists.org, "Your petitioners are Atheists and they define their beliefs as follows. An Atheist loves his fellow man instead of god. An Atheist believes that heaven is something for which we should work now – here on earth for all men together to enjoy.

Is this the lofty goal which Maher wants to reach?



An Atheist believes that he can get no help through prayer but that he must find in himself the inner conviction, and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue it and enjoy it.

Is it this?



An Atheist believes that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow mancan he find the understanding that will help to a life of fulfillment.

Or it is that?



First of all, faith-based initiatives are PRIMARILY of a humanitarian nature. There's no need to build shelters or food banks in a community if several of those already exist with local churches.

Second, exactly what's so "worthless" about abstinence education? People have been yapping about condoms for ages, yet STDs among teens have gone UP. That makes the point of, regardless of which type of sex education is touted, these kids aren't using it. They ain't abstaing; they ain't using rubbers. But, I suppose since too many teens aren't using contraception and condoms, we should scrap sex education altogether, by your logic.


Thirdly, with regards to your comments, if these other folks have the scientific data to support their claims (as Creationists do), then let them have at it. Of course, that isn't the issue here.

It is rather strange, though, that despite the virtual monopoly evolutionists have had, with regards to science classes, they still struggle to get their message across, which frustrate a number of "enlightened" folks to no end.

Does that include the "religious doctrine" of humanism/atheism, or is that some sort of exemption?

People's beliefs shape how they form policy. So, no matter how you slice it, you will have religious doctrine (to some degree) running the government.

I'm have no problem with comprehensive sex education (I already told you this on another thred) so don't assign your flawed logic to me.   The problem with abstinence trainging is that it's usually "abstinence only" and nothing else

Regarding the actual topic I would like to see the right of no belief given the exact same respect that we're supposed to give to religious belief.  So if you want to define athiests as humanism then the answer to your questions is yes.  Put it right along side Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc. and give it equal respect. 

[MCWAY]

Only the confused or cowardly kill themselves.  We are born to die.  That's an absurdity of life.  Things fall apart.  But life is an extraordinary experience.  The myriad of wonders are matched only by the many horrors and those that are made of the right stuff know that.

Christianity at its base is decadent.  It decays the here and now of this wonderful/terrible life b/c the afterlife is what counts.  Heaven and hell are forever and this world is only a transitory step.

Who says that Christianity decays the here and now, especially when Christ's words talk of His followers having life and having it more abundantly?

John states to his fellow believers that he wish that they prosper and be in good health, even as their souls prosper (3 John 2).

That's hardly decaying the here and now.

I say, "no this life is it and its many splendors/terrors are worth the price of admission" (birth).  Heaven and Hell are for starry-eyed dreamers.

Scripture says "This is the day that the Lord hath made. We will rejoice and be glad in it." (Psalm 118:24).

[MCWAY]

I'm have no problem with comprehensive sex education (I already told you this on another thred) so don't assign your flawed logic to me.   The problem with abstinence trainging is that it's usually "abstinence only" and nothing else

That's because I was under the silly notion that parents want (or should want) the best for their children. The best way for teens not to get pregnant is for them to avoid that activity that makes babies, that being sexual intercourse.

Humping around and later getting upset, because the reproductive process actually does what it's supposed to so is rather foolish.

Regarding the actual topic I would like to see the right of no belief given the exact same respect that we're supposed to give to religious belief.  So if you want to define athiests as humanism then the answer to your questions is yes.  Put it right along side Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc. and give it equal respect. 

The atheists define themselves in such matter, whether I want to do so or not. My question remains about this goal, this moving forward, this so-called progress.

What is it, and why can't such be achieved WITHOUT the presence of religion?

[Straw Man]

That's because I was under the silly notion that parents want (or should want) the best for their children. The best way for teens not to get pregnant is for them to avoid that activity that makes babies, that being sexual intercourse.

Humping around and later getting upset, because the reproductive process actually does what it's supposed to so is rather foolish.

WTF are you even talking about.  Yeah - the best way to avoied getting pregant is to avoid sex.....but just in case willpower doesn't work how about a back up plan.  What's the problem?

The atheists define themselves in such matter, whether I want to do so or not. My question remains about this goal, this moving forward, this so-called progress.

What is it, and why can't such be achieved WITHOUT the presence of religion?

You sound paranoid. 

[Decker]

You are a truly eloquent exponent of secular values Decker; it's an honour to be on board with you.

Thanks.

[Decker]

This only applies to a perverted version of Christianity.
The here and now in God is all that matters in real Christianity.

Could you please elaborate on the one true form of Christianity for me.  I think I captured some its essence with my 'other-worldly' characterization...or is God, heaven and hell just not that important to Christianity?

[Decker]

Who says that Christianity decays the here and now, especially when Christ's words talk of His followers having life and having it more abundantly?

John states to his fellow believers that he wish that they prosper and be in good health, even as their souls prosper (3 John 2).

That's hardly decaying the here and now.

Scripture says "This is the day that the Lord hath made. We will rejoice and be glad in it." (Psalm 118:24).

Now you are going to force me to use the "N" word--nihilism.  Christianity repudiates nature....especially human nature.  If your eye offends you then pluck it out.  Paul was an expert in denying the carnal callings of his flesh.  Soren Kierkegaard turned away from marriage b/c of the demands of his christianity.  The body is a source of sin that must be subdued.  What's one way of doing that?  Fasting.  What's another?  conditioning through prayer.

Look at the 7 most "deadly" sins: pride, envy, greed, gluttony, sloth, lust and anger...these are expressions of natural instincts in their most ugly form.  Instead of dealing with them in some sort of way that lends itself to control or sublimation, Christianity wants them obliterated.  We are at combat with and attempt to destroy our most fundamental instincts.

Of course you cannot destroy your instincts without destroying yourself.  This leads to self hatred or loathing b/c that which could be our greatest strength--the natural state and performance of our bodies--is the source of our spiritual foibles.

Once you buy that line of reasoning, then along comes the church to help 'fix' you.  The Christian Church offers to set things right in the supernatural world of heaven for you.

Now that I've condemned, I'll praise as well.  Christianity does foster an inner conflict that can lead to progress.  Christianity's emphasis on honesty in evaluation is something to be lauded.

It's a very complex topic but on the whole it is nihilistic b/c Heaven and God are more important than this real life.

And don't insult me with facile quotes chosen to prove your point.  The John quote says nothing to me.

[wavelength]

Could you please elaborate on the one true form of Christianity for me.  I think I captured some its essence with my 'other-worldly' characterization...or is God, heaven and hell just not that important to Christianity?

Maybe I should have said "pure form". Words can always only be a bad translation of spiritual truth. All they can do is act as pointers to the truth, the devine can never be captured directly. Furthermore, the words can be perverted into ideologies, which in the worst cases can lead to violence and murder in the name of God. We have seen it all in christianity and other religions. Today's methods of the ideologists are more subtle of course, at least in the more civilized parts of the world. Still their egos are mislead by their false interpretation of scripture. Your criticism is valid of course if applied to those false ideologies.

[MCWAY]

Now you are going to force me to use the "N" word--nihilism.  Christianity repudiates nature....especially human nature.  If your eye offends you then pluck it out.  Paul was an expert in denying the carnal callings of his flesh.  Soren Kierkegaard turned away from marriage b/c of the demands of his christianity.  The body is a source of sin that must be subdued.  What's one way of doing that?  Fasting.  What's another?  conditioning through prayer.

Paul denied the carnal callings of his flesh for one reason: He knew it would 1) be a hindrance to his service to the Lord; and 2) the pleasures of sin for a season would be nullified by the negative consequences therein.

Soren Kierkegarrd turned away from marriage......so what? Billy Graham has preached the Gospel to the ends of the earth and he's been married for over 50 years.

Look at the 7 most "deadly" sins: pride, envy, greed, gluttony, sloth, lust and anger...these are expressions of natural instincts in their most ugly form.  Instead of dealing with them in some sort of way that lends itself to control or sublimation, Christianity wants them obliterated.  We are at combat with and attempt to destroy our most fundamental instincts.

Of course you cannot destroy your instincts without destroying yourself.  This leads to self hatred or loathing b/c that which could be our greatest strength--the natural state and performance of our bodies--is the source of our spiritual foibles.

Survival? On the contrary, such has led more to man's DOWNFALL than anything else, especially pride, greed, lust, and anger.

Once you buy that line of reasoning, then along comes the church to help 'fix' you.  The Christian Church offers to set things right in the supernatural world of heaven for you.

The Church doesn't "fix" anybody. In fact, it is subject to those very same things.

Now that I've condemned, I'll praise as well.  Christianity does foster an inner conflict that can lead to progress.  Christianity's emphasis on honesty in evaluation is something to be lauded.

It's a very complex topic but on the whole it is nihilistic b/c Heaven and God are more important than this real life.

And don't insult me with facile quotes chosen to prove your point.  The John quote says nothing to me.

Your feeling insulted is no fault of mine. The simple fact is your claim that Christianity "decays the here and now" is utterly false. It's simply a matter of priority. The kingdom of God comes FIRST; the earthly stuff (which, as Jesus said, the moth can corrupt, rust can corrode, thieves can steal, etc.) comes second. But, both are important and an abundant life is to be had in the "here and now" and (as the hymn goes) "in the sweet by and by". 

There's no "either/or" for a believer in Christ.

[MCWAY]

WTF are you even talking about.  Yeah - the best way to avoied getting pregant is to avoid sex.....but just in case willpower doesn't work how about a back up plan.  What's the problem?

The problem is that teenagers have no business having sex. They aren't ready for the responsibility of caring for a baby; nor are they ready to handle an STD.

You sound paranoid. 

You need Q-tips.