Ain't It Cool News: The best in movie, TV, DVD, and comic book news.

Quint has seen Bill Maher and Larry Charles' RELIGULOUS!!

good for maher by j2talk	Sep 6th, 2008 05:35:32 PM
if mankind ever gets off this planet, I pray to God that we leave religion behind....faith is good religion, not so much
Talkback starts now by WildcatWildcat	Sep 6th, 2008 05:36:11 PM
I'm very curious to see this. You seem to imply that it's fairly balanced, and I didn't quite expect that, which is nice.
I dunno... by Neil_the_Sheep	Sep 6th, 2008 05:37:51 PM
I think faith is good...and I think religion can be good...but blind faith in your/any religion (or anything) is not really a good thing. I'm excited for this movie, even tho I find Bill Maher to be kind of irritating...
Amen, Quint! Preach on by Thrillho77	Sep 6th, 2008 05:38:03 PM
Pun intended. Maybe we don't "need" religion as our moral compass anymore. But the individuals you speak of that are wonderful people and also religious aren't hurting anyone by using it as a moral compass. But it's a double-edged sword, because religion must exist for them to use it - and by that fact, others will inevitably abuse it.
great job quint by The InSneider	Sep 6th, 2008 05:38:05 PM
hell of a review. looking forward to seeing this one and im curious to your thoughts on how maher handled the judaism part of the film.
The InSneider by Thrillho77	Sep 6th, 2008 05:40:57 PM
I'll bet he handled it like a real mensch.
Oh and for the record by Thrillho77	Sep 6th, 2008 05:43:36 PM
Interestingly, I find Bill Maher can be hilarious and insightful in the same five minutes that he is mean-spirited and smarmy.
Why Disney.. by MetalMickey	Sep 6th, 2008 05:46:46 PM
..would never hire AICN writers like Quint & Mori to replace Ebert & Roeper is a shame.
Metal by Quint	Sep 6th, 2008 05:54:34 PM
Because I have a face for the internet. hehe. Moriarty could kickass on TV, though. He's hawt. I'm a much better writer than a speaker, that's for sure. Mira, Maher is about the same with the Jewish interviewees. The only time I thought he was overly harsh was during the Muslim interviews, but when faced with the extremist interviews Maher always hits at them, including a rather ridiculous Jewish man he interviews, but I won't spoil that one for you. Thrill, you're absolutely right about Maher, which is why I was so curious about this movie, to see which side was going to be represented. And it's both, of course, but he saved the biting stuff for the extremists who you shouldn't mind seeing challenged a bit anyway.
"I see how religion can be used to benefit society and the peopl by O_Goncho	Sep 6th, 2008 05:56:22 PM
Personally I don't believe that if we did leave religion behind society and those people couldn't still reap the benefits of preaching tolerance and generocity without it having to be attributed to the benevolence of a big guy in the sky.
As an atheiest I'm interested in seeing this flick... by Gabba-UK	Sep 6th, 2008 05:58:29 PM
My atheisim came about by my studying religions and finding them flawed especially in regards to the historial levels of death and pain they've caused. I also don't care for the way that those in power have used religion as a way of control over the masses. My main problem however is how religion is used as a smokescreen to justify personal predjudices be it anti-homosexual, sexism or anything you don't happen to agree with. People do say that you should respect other peoples religion. I say respect the person, their belief's have nothing to do with it.
Evolved? Us? by Inframan76	Sep 6th, 2008 06:05:33 PM
I watch the evening news and I see plenty of Godless people who are less evolved than rabid animals. We're like children. When left without guidance we do whatever we want. Most often the bad stuff. I'm (trying to be) a Christian and it's always amazed me how some worship their preacher and blindly follow his beliefs, never fact check anything against the book they carry in their hands and apparently have never read and ignore that whole "wolf in sheep's clothing" part. READ THE DANG BOOK PEOPLE!
Great review Quint by DarthJedi	Sep 6th, 2008 06:14:40 PM
I'm more than surprised at it however, knowing Maher. He's actually going the legitimate route as opposed to all out making fun of. Regardless of what he finds in the film, I already know what he finds. People who can't back up what they say with any type of proof whatsoever. The priest in front of the Vatican is perfect example of this. He admits that his religion is flawed and has contradictions in it, but still professes a faith in it. Now, is it just me, or does everyone else think that type of behavior to be not only childish, but completely insane? It's like he has a book that says 2+2=5, when everything and everyone else that is an expert on the subject says it equals 4. This is one reason why I have nothing but contempt for people of religion. They will not listen to reason or fact if it contradicts their faith. Which makes perfect sense because faith is defined as belief without knowledge. Once knowledge is obtained, you no longer believe, you KNOW.
Sorry, Quint, can't agree with ya there by uppercanuck	Sep 6th, 2008 06:17:59 PM
Not everyone deep down is agnostic. I'm absolutely certain god is a myth. That said, I'm looking forward to the discourse in this flick.
My God can kick your god's ass by WickedJester	Sep 6th, 2008 06:18:33 PM

No seriously by WickedJester	Sep 6th, 2008 06:19:40 PM
I enjoyed the review and actually might see this movie now. Never thought of faith and religion that way, that if you KNOW then it's not FAITH. Good stuff Quint.
I'm a Hedonistic Nondenominational Heathan by DOGSOUP	Sep 6th, 2008 06:22:01 PM
But Jesus Christ was a very nice man. If more people who wore the image of him dying around their necks were more like him, perhaps I'd reach out to that faith a little more. But as it is, Women are the Devil. In Christianity women are responsible for the expulsion out of the garden of Eden and have to suffer for it henceforth. The Muslim believe that the power of women are so great, that merely looking at one will drive any sane and sensible man into a rape-frenzy and thus must be "protected" by being controlled and invisible. I think that from how they act both religions believe the female libido is the most destructive force on the planet. Heh, what a way to go though...In conclusion Bill Maher's Politically Incorrect was awesome. Where else can you see an advocate for women's rights agreeing with Marilyn Manson against a fundamentalist baptist author and a republican pundit?
by lavaboat	Sep 6th, 2008 06:27:43 PM
The real problem is in a widespread exoteric view of God -- the idea that God exists out there and I exist in here(behind my face,looking out) This contributes to an immature view of God, which is accompanied by the vague belief that if I do good things I will get to hang out at God's side for an eternity. As a child, these views are helpful, an essential steppingstone in one's spiritual evolution. But to retain these views well into adulthood is merely an immortality project, a detriment to true spiritual growth.
Bill is a far left wackjob by brobdingnag	Sep 6th, 2008 06:27:53 PM
I'm agnostic but I had a vision of what this will be....an attack on Christianity's failings while Islam will not be mentioned at all, or if it is, their failings will be excused.
Upper by Quint	Sep 6th, 2008 06:28:21 PM
But you don't know. You believe it's a myth just as much the Christians believe it's the truth, but you don't know for sure. See my point? Wicked, I wish I could take full credit for that, but that's one of the things that have come up in my conversations with my friend about his religion. That's why I love those conversations because it forces him to examine his religion while at the same time enlightening me to the basic belief structure. It's amazing what can happen when two open-minded people have a level-headed conversation.
bro by Quint	Sep 6th, 2008 06:29:39 PM
did you read the review? Your vision was wrong, at least in this case.
Women are the devil? by skani	Sep 6th, 2008 06:33:24 PM
Galatians 5:26-28 You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Well done, Quint by Fireball XL-5	Sep 6th, 2008 06:33:35 PM
Your fair-minded, intellectually-curious approach to this was refreshing to say the least. And I really liked the personal candor re your friend, family, etc. Again, well done.
Atheists are way under-represented by WerePlatypus	Sep 6th, 2008 06:34:42 PM
As an atheist, it's good to see someone relatively popular and mainstream actually be vocal about their views regarding the non-God. I'd like to see this.
Quint is technically correct by WerePlatypus	Sep 6th, 2008 06:37:50 PM
You can't philosophically prove or disprove God. But he's not actually correct, because Agnosticism is a specific skeptical stance on what is metaphysically knowable.
Maher is a smug, jerk by Ingeld	Sep 6th, 2008 06:38:36 PM
Do you know what is as bad as a a self righteous fundamentalist? --A self righteous atheist. They are like two peas in a pod that deserve each other. They live off each other's disgust and contempt. Maher is of the worst of the atheist kind.
As humans, rational reasoning is all we've got by bullet3	Sep 6th, 2008 06:39:22 PM
I can't understand how people can overlook blatent contradiction and scientific theory out the window to believe in any religion. Hopefully the next 100 years will see religion begin to die out as science and technology continue to expand.
Good review Quint by TerryMalloy	Sep 6th, 2008 06:39:41 PM
I've had the "everyone's an agnostic at heart" conversation with my father after I left the church, but he remained persistent in his "knowledge" of the truth. There was no talking sense into him on that particular issue, which can be frustrating.
Ingled by bullet3	Sep 6th, 2008 06:41:31 PM
You know what, maybe he is, but its about damn time someone was speaking out for the other side. The religous fundamentalists have been doing the exact same thing as him for hundreds of years, its about time we got our shot
For some reason it's scary for those of faith by TerryMalloy	Sep 6th, 2008 06:41:34 PM
to admit that their religion is just faith. And the truth is: we have no idea what the fuck the truth is.
I will see this AND An American Carol by blue1622	Sep 6th, 2008 06:43:43 PM
fu:k "Milk", though.
Extremism by skani	Sep 6th, 2008 06:44:58 PM
Folks, extremism doesn't require a religion, all it requires is the right mix of ideology and disgruntlement. Hitler is the classic example of somebody who used Christianity, Darwinism, or whatever else he could find to justify his crazy agenda. Columbine and the school shootings--not motivated by religion. Christians build hospitals and schools, take medicine to the sick, bring hope to the hopeless, sponsor children in impoverished and war-torn regions, help people break free from addictions, send relief to places like Burma, fight sex traffic in places like Cambodia (and here), and so forth. The Christian teachings about the value of women were revolutionary in the Jewish and Greek culture of their time, where women were often viewed as fungible property. That said, there are so-called Christians and even preachers who are racist, homophobic, misogynist, jingoistic, pedophiles--but that isn't a uniquely Christian phenomenon.
Quint by DarthBodie	Sep 6th, 2008 06:45:17 PM
Great review. I'm a Christian and totally agree with what you were saying about extremism. Look forward to seeing this documentry.
re: Bullet by Ingeld	Sep 6th, 2008 06:48:11 PM
Most people don't want to become what they despise.
Quint... by uppercanuck	Sep 6th, 2008 06:49:04 PM
Yep, I see what you're saying. Thanks for clarifying. I wouldn't use 'agnostic' in that context, though, since agnostics are open to the idea of god existing and I can't in good conscience even consider it.
fuck bill maher by nalapou	Sep 6th, 2008 06:50:29 PM
anyone that left wing or that right wing should be shot for being so closed minded.
Well said Skani by TerryMalloy	Sep 6th, 2008 06:50:58 PM
But why should we need religion or any other ideology in order to do those charitable activities? Why can't we simply find within ourselves the compassion and humanity necessary to fulfill these tasks without needing to resort to inspiration in religion or elsewhere? Why can't it be our duty as humans and not just our duty as Christians, Muslims, etc.?
I agree with the reviewer and with Maher by dr sauch	Sep 6th, 2008 06:51:49 PM
Everyone needs to relax and think
True believers don't have faith??? by speed	Sep 6th, 2008 07:04:51 PM
It is called, BLIND FAITH. And I'm kinda thinking that your feeling for and understanding of the word "faith" is a personal one Quint. Which I guess could be a valid interpretation considering the way it's used but... 1 a: allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1): fidelity to one's promises (2): sincerity of intentions 2 a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2): complete trust 3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs synonyms see belief — on faith : without question -- took everything he said on faith. I'm just waiting for Aliens to come along. That will throw an almighty spanner into the wheels of religion. I think I could worship an alien as long as it looked like something Captain Kirk would shag!
Jesus Built My Hotrod by Damage_Inc	Sep 6th, 2008 07:08:56 PM
Soon I discovered that this rock thing was true. Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil. Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet. All of a sudden, I found myself in love with the world. So there was only one thing that I could do. Was ding a ding dang my dang a long ling long.
I think the thing with religion is... by C0ns	Sep 6th, 2008 07:09:36 PM
Other than the fact that it's been scientifically proven bullshit, of course. (sorry for the messy post, don't know how to use paragraphs here, so i opted for underscores to try make it a bit better, hope that works out) ______________________________ _____ What benefits does it bestow upon the human race, benefits that absolutely require religion to function properly? In my opinion, it's a fact that there are none. A newborn baby boy with a fresh and unwrapped mind does not need religious doctrine force feed to him, even at an age before he has the capability of true critical thought and reasoning power, in order to lead a virtuous and good life. quite to the contrary, in fact. If you preach to him the rigid and uncompromising text and principals of damn near any religious doctrine, you will be enforcing upon him the negatives of which ever fantastical story you have arbitrarily chosen to believe in (or more likely, your parents arbitrarily chose to believe in, effectively removing any sort of semblance to choice and free though from the equation), and that in turn not only plants the seeds for the extremism that is so harmful to humanity, but it hampers his ability to think for himself, to see the world for what it truly is. He will never ask questions, because god did. Often, he will look away from suffering, because though it is strange and mysterious, god has a plan, and he wills it. He will not recognize the rights of specific groups of people, because god doesn't like them. And on Sunday's when he goes to church, he will listen to that preacher and take to heart what was spoken because the preacher would never tell the boy something that wasn't absolutely true, that didn't come right from His mouth, and He wants me to tell you, right? (great nin song, btw). ______________________________ _____________ Now let's look at the bad, the possible evil that is inherent in being religious? Let's start with the aforementioned extremism that leads to suffering and segregation and oppression and corruption and hate and death and a hundred other horrible, horrible things. Sure, obliterate religion and countless shitty situations will still exist, but at least now there will be no more atrocities done is his, her, it's name. After all, we've had religion all along and look at where we are now. Why don't we give it a shot without and see what happens? In the religious masses what have you? Docile crowds that do not ask questions and do not think for themselves, because they have ultimate faith, and god would not steer them wrong. Bush? a hiccup. Global warming? Bullshit. Muslims? They're terrorists. and Brown. brown people are muslims and terrorists. Just about any other fucking problem you can think of? Don't worry, it's okay, have faith, it's god's plan. He's got our back. ______________________________ ___ Relgion fosters this kind of mentality. It encourages the masses to be docile and manipulable, and it servers no greater good except for convenient distraction for those in power. Religion is not just useless. It is harmful.
Ghandi by Larry of Arabia	Sep 6th, 2008 07:10:18 PM
Ghandi almost became a christian in South Africa. He so admired the pacifist teaching and life of Jesus that he was willing to become a follower. The day he came closest he had all but decided to convert except for a few nagging questions so he visited his close friend who was a priest. He emerged with a stronger Hindu faith. Two things stopped him. First he had an issue with only one God, but tat was fairly easy to get around (God at one point even states that he is jealous of people worshiping other gods, which can be seen as an acknowledgment of their existance). His biggest problem was the fact that he could not find a single one that practiced the faith. Instead the christians he knew were out of the British Empire and repressed the blacks in South Africa and committed atrocities in his home India. His best friend and often partner was a pacifist Muslim, who mobilized a pacifist army that the redcoats mowed down and massacred galvanizing public opinion against them.
Currently reading Christopher Hitchen's... by Half-Baked-Goggle-Box-Do-Gooder	Sep 6th, 2008 07:13:44 PM
"God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything". Interesting read. Nothing I didn't already know in one way or another, but fun to watch a calm, intellectually rigorous analysis and deconstruction of the emotional need for a Big Brother In The Sky. Me, I'm of the opinion that one of the main indicators that religion and faith are entirely a man-made idea is the way religions are constantly being created specifically to suit somebody's unhappiness and unease. Most people (At least in the West)shop around until they find a belief system that suits them - instead of confronting their own biases and hang-ups through the kind of self-examination and honest self-appraisal that many faiths call for. Instead, it's just browse the aisles until you find a faith that screams "We LOVE You JUST THE WAY YOU ARE!! Come On In!!!" Highly revealing, if you ask me... Now, nalapou.......you WERE being facetious, weren't you?
No, everyone is not agnostic... by Knugen	Sep 6th, 2008 07:14:29 PM
and "believing" that there is no god is not the same as believing in a god. The possibility of the existence of God is not backed up by any evidence at all. Jahve, Zeus and Xenu are all the same - fairy tales.
Sorry for the crudeness of my post. by C0ns	Sep 6th, 2008 07:22:33 PM
If anyone read it, that is. And not the crudeness of the message, but of the post itself. No paragraphs and a ton of typos and spelling errors. Oh well, the message still came through pretty good.
The source of evil by Ingeld	Sep 6th, 2008 07:28:24 PM
Those who point to the religions as the source of evil of the world join a long list of scapegoaters. "You know the world would be great if it wasn't for religious people." "You know the world would be great if it wasn't for Jews." "You know the world would be great if it wasn't for religious capitalist." "You know the world would be great if it wasn't for whitey." "You know the world would be great if it wasn't for religious muslims." "You know the world would be great if it wasn't for atheists." The source of evil is not in any ism but in the nature of every human heart.
Taking away religion won't lessen violence by destruit	Sep 6th, 2008 07:30:20 PM
People will just find another reason to be violent. I can never understand how people think all those wars in the name of religion wouldn't have been fought for some other excuse.
"atheistsExhibit A.) gridbug by blue1622	Sep 6th, 2008 07:30:48 PM

goddammit by blue1622	Sep 6th, 2008 07:32:57 PM
Was going to point out that gridbug thinks 9-11 Truthers have valid points worth considering, but the prospect of a creative intelligence is just silly... This makes me smile.
At least it wasn't focused on Christians only by CrazyGnome	Sep 6th, 2008 07:33:18 PM
If we as a people can't move from capitalism to true communism because we can't overcome greed, then we still need the lessons taught by religion. Religion didn't cause wars, power seeking politicians did. Religion was just used in the Marketing to sell it. on another note: If you drove around and saw a car with a bumper sticker saying "Jews are a Joke" or "Muslims beliefs are a sham", the driver would be harassed for spreading hate speech. Yet the 'Dwarwin' fish symbol is completely tolerated. All that means is this driver thinks "Christianity is BS". I know it is freedom of speech, but I don't go around using the "n" word because I know it offends people. Someone driving around saying my faith (which is more of an identifier then my race) is bunk, causes me to take great offence. and yes I can't spell or use good grammer. I am young, and not as smart as most people on this site.
I don't believe in Christoper Hitchens by Ingeld	Sep 6th, 2008 07:34:15 PM
Empirically, I cannot prove that he exists. A human being is merely a collection of atoms. A person, however, is nothing more than idea, a convenient fiction that we use to temporarily identify that ephemeral collection of atoms.
Knugen thinks there is no evidence backing up the existence of G by blue1622	Sep 6th, 2008 07:35:46 PM
All I have to do is point to Jessica Biel...a watch implies a watchmaker, and all that stuff.
Ah, Ingeld.... by Half-Baked-Goggle-Box-Do-Gooder	Sep 6th, 2008 07:38:11 PM
But just because YOU cannot empirically prove he doesn't exist....doesn't prove that he doesn't exist. Yes, I'm completely aware that I just walked into a favorite "trap" used by the faithful...the old "Can't Prove A negative" conundrum...
Fuck nalapou by Super Nintendo Chalmers	Sep 6th, 2008 07:39:43 PM
I'm sure you're great, but anyone who says things like you should be shot for making comments without regards for the truth. I find it funny how many here make "fuck liberal Bill Maher" statements. This was sort of covered earlier, but Maher doesn't consider himself "liberal," he considers himself libertarian. Libertarians would actually have more in common with conservatives, if they hadn't sold their soul to the Christian right.
Christopher Hitchens by medicinaluser	Sep 6th, 2008 07:42:50 PM
Is HE in this?? I just finished GING:HRPE and loved how he put Maher in his place the last time he was on his show.In fact would much rather have had a Doc done by him than the smug oaf who still cant get laid at the playboy mansion Billy Maher
I'm HOPING that nalapou was making a joke... by Half-Baked-Goggle-Box-Do-Gooder	Sep 6th, 2008 07:43:18 PM
You know - "ALL EXTREMISTS SHOULD BE KILLED!!!" Funny, in a seventh grade kinda way...
This talkback will rule... by WhinyNegativeBitch	Sep 6th, 2008 07:44:31 PM
...I'm past questioning religous folk. I just write them off. When the shit goes down, and decisions need to be made, you just lock them in the broom closet.
Most people aren't "bad" by WhinyNegativeBitch	Sep 6th, 2008 07:47:29 PM
I hear this shit all the time. If left to our own devices, etc, etc. Most people don't kill other people or steal. A minority do. And thats how its always been and always will be, because we ARE godless animals. Most of us will attempt to socialise and get along with our fellow man. But the whales better watch out.
Tis somewhat true that its hard to believe.... by WhinyNegativeBitch	Sep 6th, 2008 07:49:01 PM
...That happenstance created the body of Jessica Biel. Then again, you are sort of implying that a weights set and a personal trainer/nutrionist are God. I think you can get stoned for that still in some parts of the world.
I love it when atheists refer to God as a fairy tale by Ingeld	Sep 6th, 2008 07:51:03 PM
that religious believe in to feel good. If the universe is utterly meaningless, as the atheists tell us it is, do atheists believe their lives have meaning? Do they live their lives as if what they do mattered and is important or significant? I am betting that they do, and if so, then they live their lives according to their own individual fairy tales. A meaningless life cannot be lived--yet meaning is something that atheists believe in that does not exist. Atheists can be such hypocrites.
I'm an existential-nihilist, but believe in my dog... by The Dum Guy	Sep 6th, 2008 07:53:26 PM
Although he's dead. Yes, "Dog is dead". But, seriously, didn't South Park portray how things would be if religion was entirely erased from human conscience. Left to our devices, humanity will always find a way to kill each other and hate each other for out differences. The solution: make sure humanity doesn't exist.... so otters can rule the world in peace.
Dum by Quint	Sep 6th, 2008 07:57:23 PM
Science damn you!
Tom by Quint	Sep 6th, 2008 07:59:28 PM
I meant only that deep down nobody knows what happens when we die, if God exists. We can believe one way or the other, but nobody knows, nobody can prove you don't move on after death, nobody can prove you do. So there's always a question. That's all I mean. Didn't mean to offend. You saw the flick? What'd you think specifically besides "zzzzzzzz"?
Regardless of whether religion existed or not... by Galactic	Sep 6th, 2008 08:00:15 PM
Some people would still be doing good things for each other. And some people would still be killing each other. If a religious fanatic would bomb a bunch of people over his religious views, he was going to bomb those people anyway, he'd just find a different reason. Atheists who believe these fanatics wouldn't be doing what they were doing if religion didn't exist are fooling themselves.
If there is a God... by Simpsonian	Sep 6th, 2008 08:01:53 PM
...He is an Asshole.
CrazyGnome by Cedar_Room	Sep 6th, 2008 08:01:58 PM
the price of having Freedom Of Speech is that people have the right to say something that may offend you or indeed anyone else. Its not the Freedom To Say Only Those Things Accepted By An Indefinable Majority.
Ingeld by symon	Sep 6th, 2008 08:03:59 PM
To believe something doesn't have meaning just because it is finite is ludicrous. Of course my life has meaning, but it isn't defined by a fairy tale or based on the hope of some big reward at the end. Were you the same kid who was only good during the year so Santa would bring him presents?
The Dum Guy by Cedar_Room	Sep 6th, 2008 08:05:21 PM
I'm an agnostic dyslexic insomniac. I lie awake at night wondering whether there's a Dog.
So... by Barry Convex	Sep 6th, 2008 08:06:54 PM
Quint, what are you sure about that you actually should be agnostic about?
Quint by Cedar_Room	Sep 6th, 2008 08:08:29 PM
surely you're missing the point here - it is agnostics who say "we will never know what happens when we die". If a Christian were to say that he would be betraying the very principles of the religion he is supposed to believe in. A Christian is supposed to KNOW that when he/she dies he will go to heaven (or hell, if they've been Jerry Falwell).
TerryMalloy by skani	Sep 6th, 2008 08:10:29 PM
Why can't we just find it in our human nature and goodness to do charity, etc.? That's a good question. I think because we are by nature selfish. True love for humanity. True forgiveness. Compassion for people outside your immediate circle of family and friends. I don't think that happens outside of God's grace. I think mostly what you get is self-righteous intellectual masturbation--and that goes for "religious" and "nonreligious," the political right and the left, etc. The vast majority of Americans today want to numb out, eat out, play video games, watch movies, talk smack in chat rooms, talk about AIDS, sex traffic, the plight of the poor and all this other stuff on an intellectual and political level. But money talks... and actions speak louder than words. Only the grace of God can lift us out of that and start mobilizing us to help and heal each other and those really in need. As it is, what you get is pretty much all the vitriol, ignorance, and internet addiction to which this talkback attests.
Half-Baked by skani	Sep 6th, 2008 08:13:39 PM
So, when you're saying that you read this God is Super Awesome book, you pretty much got what you were expecting. So, was it really "revealing" or was it just a comforting support for your pre-existing worldview?
doing good - the Dawkins theory by Cedar_Room	Sep 6th, 2008 08:16:16 PM
I think he expounds upon this in his Selfish Gene book much better than I am able to do - but basically his point is that the very reason we do charitable deeds is precisely because we are selfish. In the earliest days of human development we lived in close groups consisting of family members and/or people we would likely meet again. Therefore anytime we did someone an act of charity it would likely be returned to us at some point. This instinct still exists in us, despite the fact that we now spend our lives amongst strangers. Its a misfiring impulse - like the fact we still have sex despite contraception and the fact that it doesn't always result in reproduction (and various other better examples). Ultimately we don't do charitable deeds because of God or religion is his point, all can be explained by the way human behavious has evolved over thousands of years.
Symon by Ingeld	Sep 6th, 2008 08:24:21 PM
It is not that we are finite that we don't have meaning. The belief that your life has meaning is just that a belief, no more empircally verifable than the existence of God. All the things that give life meaning are abstract, intangibles that are nothing more than human constructed phantasms--love, family, friendship, loyalty, trust, hope. Not one can be examined empirically. For atheists they can never be more than fictions. Come out of Plato's cave. You will enjoy the sunshine.
Dawkins by skani	Sep 6th, 2008 08:25:10 PM
Dawkins and evolutionary psychology have come under a lot of criticism, even from evolutions like Steven Gould. The problem is that survival of the fittest as a concept is essentially a tautology, because whoever or whatever survives is the fittest by definition, which means that "fitness" just means you survived--wow, that's an illuminating explanation! Basically, a guy like Dawkins makes a career out of finding evolutionary explanations for everything. If we rape, its because rapists make more babies. If we nurture our family, it's because animals who nurture are more likely to see their kids grow up and have their own kids. If we work together, it ensures our mutual survival, if we fight, it ensures the tough guy's survival. Blah, blah, and blah. Finding a selfish gene explanation for anything--even two contradictory behaviors is not science. I'm not debating the evolution of species, but Dawkins is a storyteller.
Ingeld by C0ns	Sep 6th, 2008 08:25:44 PM
Bluntly put, i think you are blind and a coward. Blind in that you can't see the meaning in your family and friends and in the experience you can have here in this life in this universe without the existence of a god. Do you have no meaning to your family and friends? and Vice versa? Do you have no meaning to yourself? Why does there need to be a god for there to be meaning? The human condition should bestow all the meaning that one should need, and it does. But for some, they need more than that, and that's what makes you a coward. A coward in that you require god to be there, and without him you see yourself and everything as meaningless. You need your lies in order to function. You cannot accept the possibility that there is no god. That is not healthy and it's one of religions worst crimes for propagating this mindset. And i do not think atheists demand meaningless at all. Do not mistake random and coincidental as meaningless. Meaningless to the rest of the universe and everything else perhaps (well, for sure), but not meaningless to us.
"evolutionist" by skani	Sep 6th, 2008 08:25:56 PM
Sorry, "evolutions" sounds like a rejected title from my new best-of CD.
Speaking of hypocritical zealots . . . by follyway	Sep 6th, 2008 08:26:06 PM
Im not a fan of John Moore, but the MPAA has is so much bullshit I had to smile when I saw his comments about his upcoming Max Payne film over at 1up.com ""We're suffering from what I call Batman blowback. The [MPAA] gave The Dark Knight a PG-13 rating and basically sucked Warner Bros. cck," said Moore in regards to his attempt at securing a PG-13 rating for the Max Payne film. "The MPAA changes their rules willy-nilly and it depends on who's seeing your actual movie at the time. It's very difficult to get a hold on what's acceptable. The only thing you can use is current standards. So I go and see The Dark Knight and I say, 'Gee, that's pretty gnarly for PG-13,' but I felt good about Max Payne after coming out of the theater. I thought Max wasn't going to have a problem. And that's not the case. They're coming down on us pretty hard." What really seemed to irk Moore is the reason the MPAA initially gave him when denying a PG-13 rating. "They said to me, the movie feels R. And I said, 'What the f** is that, a group therapy session?' You can't do that. They're meant to judge content, not intent. They said the movie felt dark."
With all Due respect to South Park by WerePlatypus	Sep 6th, 2008 08:27:32 PM
This post is about the "Cartman in the future plotline", where three Atheist groups attempt a holy war over their own "flavor" of logic: Satirizing how people might use logic to promote their own animal desires for violence in an Atheist future is extremely funny, and it also says alot about jingoism and human nature. . . but it does NOT mean that logic itself is some kind of failure, or that it is another form of faith. The delicious irony was that a logcial society can't work any better than a religious one, it was that the three atheist groups were esposing ultimate logic by being ridiculously illogical. Logic was not on trial, human nature was. Also, while I'm talking aobut South Park. . . Trey and Matt are not infallable either, and everythign they put on South Park is not some kind of weird conservative gospel . . . I SAW the towlie episode where Oprah's Vagina holds her hostage, okay? It sucks as both satire and comedy.
Ingeld by C0ns	Sep 6th, 2008 08:30:51 PM
I do not believe god not only because he can't be proven, but because he can't be experienced either. On the other hand all of things you mentioned can be, and have been, and will always be experienced in a similar fashion by any human. Big difference here.
Ingeld by WerePlatypus	Sep 6th, 2008 08:34:01 PM
Is it possible to have moral meaning in your life and not believe in a God of Abraham-style all powerful deity are two different things. . . I don't see the hypocrisy.
Why is there anything at all? by skani	Sep 6th, 2008 08:36:23 PM
I've always felt (yes, felt) deep in the core of my being that if there is no God, then why the heck am I or anything else here? Why was there ever anything? The very conditions of life---matter, anti-matter. Why is there not just an empty unfathomable void? I find it much easier to believe that there is some guiding force beyond my comprehension than to believe that all of us and whatever we evolved from truly just sprang up out of nothing. I can't even fathom nothing. Like everyone else, I struggle with the problem of pain and suffering and evil. I wonder, where did God come from? How did he "start?" before God? All those weird questions you ask yourself in childhood and then revisit when it's 2:30 am and you can't sleep. But again, I find it much easier to believe that there is a force that is infinitely greater than I can fathom behind things than believing that there are all these amazing things (or ANYTHING AT ALL, for that matter) that were brought into existence out of the unfathomable nothingness by....nothingness? All right folks, you've been great. I will probably check out this movie. I have a real life that I must return to. Peace and The-fairytale-that-you-don't-b elieve-in-but-I-do-because-I'm -a-small-minded-weak-coward Bless!
The Amazing G by WerePlatypus	Sep 6th, 2008 08:37:59 PM
Religion will not always be here. . . in the 12+ billion year history of the universe and the 1+ billion year history fo the earth, religion has been around for less than 3 million (and that's super generous). Are you telling me that religion will be here in another 3 million years?
COon by Ingeld	Sep 6th, 2008 08:38:42 PM
Atheists argue that human beings created God in order to explain life and provide some kind of comfort. God you say is not necessary for meaning you say. Okay, if that is true, then where does meaning come from? If it is created by human beings than everything that that atheist says about God is true about meaning itself. Human beings create it in order to explain life and provide comfort. Cowardice has nothing to do with it. It is about arguments. The atheist's argument deconstructs itself.
Hard to argue with the harm that faiths have caused.... by FlickaPoo	Sep 6th, 2008 08:40:12 PM
...historically, but specifically godless, totalitarian type regimes have caused much more harm pound for pound (at least in the 20th century)I think. Between the Soviet Union, Communist China, and Cambodia I think you have a high-score body count that's tough to match.
Religion: The crutch of the weak minded. by Yamato	Sep 6th, 2008 08:41:32 PM
Jessie Ventura nailed that one right on the head.
Also by Yamato	Sep 6th, 2008 08:43:11 PM
There is a difference between being an atheist and anti-religion. I believe in a god, I don't believe in people who claim to speak for god, or to know what god wants.
Ingeld by WerePlatypus	Sep 6th, 2008 08:44:26 PM
Meaning comes from signs. A sign is composed of a "signifier", i.e. some kind of guesture, phrase, word, etc. . . and a "signified," the phenomena that exists both internally and externally to your consciousness. We agree upon signs and call them language, and when we put lingustic elements together. . . then presto! Meaning, culturally mediated but definitely agreed upon for use in logical discourse. **You're argument is that God created meaning, I argue that we create it through lingustic structure** In either case, if God did do it, I just explained HOW he did it. So what's your point?
FlickaPoo by WerePlatypus	Sep 6th, 2008 08:45:32 PM
Nationalism is a form of Religion. 'Nuff said.
WerePlatypus...can't argue with that either. by FlickaPoo	Sep 6th, 2008 08:47:48 PM

I grew up in a by FlickaPoo	Sep 6th, 2008 08:48:47 PM

Fuck Super Nintendo Chalmers by nalapou	Sep 6th, 2008 08:50:29 PM
so much you just said makes no sense. "Libertarians would actually have more in common with conservatives, if they hadn't sold their soul to the Christian right." What? Libertarians sold their soul to the christian right? or conservatives? either way that statement is retarded. And i don't care what Bill Maher's politics are, he is what i said he is, a closed minded fuck that thinks he's right about everything. Just laughs off others opinions, all he ever does on his show. He's a joke, the left wing Bill O'Reilly, just an idiot with a tv show. Maybe you should get your own show too SNC...
Evolved is a provocative and misused term. by Reelheed	Sep 6th, 2008 08:51:14 PM
Humans haven't evolved beyond religion as we're the only species on the planet to have the damn thing anyway. I think we have advanced intellectually and emotionally to a point where many can live their lives without the everyday need of ancient writings to determine how they interact with their fellow humans. However religions do now present a threat to our continued advance and even to those who chose to live without them as they are mostly designed to assimilate outsiders and an increase in secular influence in society makes it harder for them to do so. So religions are fighting back. The most insidious tendril religion has poked out at the moment is the "science is a theory" hook. This has to be countered everywhere it is met. The Earth IS billions of years old. Its also round and orbits the sun. Evolution IS the force which has created all species. Including us. These facts are enough for some people to chose to reject all spirituality (but it makes me wonder at how freakishly amazing it is that I have been created with a brain that is able to understand how slim the chances are of there being any life and how very infinitely low the chances are that I should be). Anyway my point is that I will be very disapointed with this film if it fails to say what religions are which is a set of superstitions shrouding a code of ethics designed to coerce the general population to act in accordance with the interests of its preachers. I'm not saying those interests are necessarily selfish tho. For example "lets not kill each other" is the best idea religions have promoted IMO but I'm tired of pussy footing aethists but I'm even more pissed off with the notion that religions should be compared to science as if they were different versions of the same thing. As if science is only "real" if you chose to "believe" in it. Its not. The fact that this has become a common misconception shows a trend in our society towards increased religious influence in education and government. This is a BAD THING.
Half-Baked-Goggle-Box-Do-Gooder by nalapou	Sep 6th, 2008 08:53:20 PM
i should've realized that jest can't be taken on the internet, but no i don't feel that all extremists should be killed. I just feel that they should all stop talking because no one really cares.
Try that again. I grew up in a very religious family, but... by FlickaPoo	Sep 6th, 2008 08:54:55 PM
...it's hard to shake the feeling that people's deep seated feelings about God don't come from subconscious memories of an all powerful Mommy and Daddy who will make everything all right. Especially now that I have a one year old daughter....we're the sun, the moon and the stars to that poor little kid...all powerful gods. Of course, then you get into the problem of pain...why some people's lives are complete misery while other people's biggest problem is whether to buy the silver or the red iPod....of course once you stop believing literally in the bible the whole thing falls apart.
Half-Baked-Goggle-Box-Do-Gooder by nalapou	Sep 6th, 2008 08:55:12 PM
to put it another way, this movie isn't breaking any box office records, i assure you.
Wereplatypus by Ingeld	Sep 6th, 2008 08:56:25 PM
My point is simply that atheists who cluck with disdain at the the "weakminded" religious who believe in a human created fiction as God are as guilty as those they condemn. Sure, they don't place their faith in a "fictional" deity; instead they put their faith in their fictionalized beliefs of worth and meaningfulness. The religous minded believe in an external objective fairy tale. The atheists believe in an internal, subjective one. No one can claim a higher intellectual/enlightened ground.
As an atheist by nyj_et	Sep 6th, 2008 08:59:34 PM
I with more people believed in hell. True, it may not stop large-scale war, but the rapist, murderer or child molester might think twice if he truly believed that an eternity of pain and suffering posthumously awaited him. I believe this is why religion was created in the first place. If you have people in a society unafraid of man's justice, what better way to scare them into behaving? Nothing but an all-seeing, all-knowing entity that created everything and will abandon you to his polar opposite to experience pineapples shoved into your bodily orfices until the end of time. For that much and more, I find lots of use for religion.
By the way... by nyj_et	Sep 6th, 2008 09:02:03 PM
...it's refreshing to see my conservative compatriots not up in arms about this movie, unlike those on left-hand side in regard to American Carol. I'm very proud of that.
Well said Reelheed by WerePlatypus	Sep 6th, 2008 09:02:33 PM
Although to be precise, evolution is not a force, and it didn't necessarily "create" anything. Mutations, environmental changes, adaptable behavior, and many other still undiscovered variables produced special variation on their own. Evolution is merely the humble science that tries to explain the process via physical observation. I Totally agree that religious influence in America's schools and government buildings is a BAD THING.
Nyj_et by WerePlatypus	Sep 6th, 2008 09:04:39 PM
I guess your team wins. You're trophy is fabulous.
I hate Bill Maher by Charlie_Allnut	Sep 6th, 2008 09:05:01 PM
He rubs me wrong in every way imaginable. I think it stems from when he advocated for de-criminalization of statutory rape about ten years ago. I could care less what his opinion on religion is - what business of his is it what Mormon's, Christian's or whoever choose to believe?
nyj_et....I hope the difference is quality... by FlickaPoo	Sep 6th, 2008 09:05:52 PM
...as a lefty I think that Bill Maher (agree with him or not, and I don't always), is pretty damn funny. AMERICAN CAROL on the other hand was a pathetic attempt to ape Michal Moore...who really isn't all that clever of funny in the first place.
Notice how conservatives here aren't touching this one? by IndustryKiller!	Sep 6th, 2008 09:07:57 PM
At least in any serious way? I think that's a great sign. they are rea;izing, consciously or not, that they can't keep riding on this religious horseshit if they are going to move forward as a people because it's simply impossible to defend. i look forward someday int eh future, for a politic in which religion is a total non issue. I'm not cynical, we'll get there....eventually.
Charlie_Allnut by nalapou	Sep 6th, 2008 09:10:04 PM
Thank you for echoing my opinion on Bill Maher.
Guilty of what? by WerePlatypus	Sep 6th, 2008 09:17:14 PM
Nevermind that. . . My real question is this: What do you mean by "external objective" and "internal subjective?" I don't want to assume anything here, so I'll give you a chance to clarify what you mean by this.
I think what finally forced me to give up on... by FlickaPoo	Sep 6th, 2008 09:18:33 PM
...Christianity was seeing my family pray for stuff like sunshine on a certain day for a family picnic...meanwhile I'm watching the news about entire villages in Rwonda getting their arms chopped off with machetes and I'm thinking..."...any God who would provide us sunshine for our family reunion picnic while ignoring this African kid getting his arm chopped off is pretty fucked up..."...I realize this isn't a particularly deep or original observation, but a tough one to shake nevertheless.
Question for the Believers by YakMalla	Sep 6th, 2008 09:20:05 PM
I mean this respectfully. Does "I believe" mean a) I know b) I have a feeling, or c)I'm working on it ? I always thought it meant "a", which is why I'm agnostic. Honestly, I have no flipping idea whether or not God exists. Again, I mean this respectfully: How does ANYONE?
Maher is a dick... by codymr	Sep 6th, 2008 09:20:15 PM
But that is what makes him so funny... Kinda like Lenny Bruce or even Andy Kaufman. His humour is clever, even if I don't care for him as a person.
It's amusing when you see atheism refered to as a belief by O_Goncho	Sep 6th, 2008 09:25:02 PM
When it is in fact the lack of belief, and nothing more. What a person chooses to believe on top of their atheism (i.e. meaningless universe, religion is EVAAAAL, invisible spaghetti monsters, etc) is down to the individual, it doesn't come with the territory... I'z just sayin'.
I'm an athiest to the RELIGION OF GLOBAL WARMING by Thanos0145	Sep 6th, 2008 09:28:50 PM
Oh, and what a shocker, Bill Maher is going to vote for NObama!!He's a hypocrite.He says he's an athiest,but buys into the BS religion of NObama.
Obama mania is dead, ran it’s course and ran out of gas 2-miles by Thanos0145	Sep 6th, 2008 09:30:31 PM
Palin mania has just begun, with fresh legs and plenty enough fuel to last for several years. Palin mania has a plan, has solutions, and is much more than “just words, just speeches.” The country was indeed smarter than you elite Liberals gave us credit for; huh Obama!
Nyj_et by WerePlatypus	Sep 6th, 2008 09:31:36 PM
Tanos0145 has spoken. . . now I'm taking the trophy back.
re: Wereplatypus by Ingeld	Sep 6th, 2008 09:32:38 PM
Is meaning something discovered or created? If it is discovered it is external and objective (and not relative). If it is created (by humans) than it is internal--a product of the individual mind-- and subjective.
YakMalla...I could never figure out the definition of... by FlickaPoo	Sep 6th, 2008 09:35:13 PM
..."believe". As I mentioned, I grew up in a VERY religious family. People would say things like "you have to love Jesus", or "you have to believe in Jesus". As an eight year old and to this day I have no idea what they were talking about. What does "do you love Jesus" mean? I loved my baby sister...I certainly loved my mom and dad...but what the hell did "loving or believing in Jesus" mean?...people say this stuff all the time but I don't think they really know what they mean...
re: Yakmalla by Ingeld	Sep 6th, 2008 09:36:18 PM
If you say you life has meaning does it mean? a) I know b) I have a feeling, or c)I'm working on it Sometimes its a, b, or c. Or a combination of them. It depends on the day you are having doesn't it? That is how I, a religous person, would answer your original question.
Uh, Skani...? by Half-Baked-Goggle-Box-Do-Gooder	Sep 6th, 2008 09:37:07 PM
......I REALLY don't understand your question...
Thanos0145...this talkback was pretty interesting... by FlickaPoo	Sep 6th, 2008 09:37:49 PM
...so we are going to try very very hard to ignore you....
I see where you're coming from by WerePlatypus	Sep 6th, 2008 09:48:43 PM
However, I only agree that the product of an INDIVIDUAL mind is subjective, and I think based on that, you're not considering the nature of personal religious revelation. Because so many dogmatic constructions are produced through the personal medium, I think it makes religion both subjective and socially internal. On the other hand, the product of many minds working through a shared logical discourse is essentially objective - Human discourse, human-created laws, and other agreed upon social contracts. They are objective, in the sense that they use facts, reasons, and opinions which can be SHARED and understood through language. They are external because they exist in more than one mind, and their construction is mediated through a shared set of cultural customs. Many people over hundreds of years can come together to work/refine/exploit them. A religious experience/belief is the opposite. It is utterly subjective for each individual. Say you have a vision/mystical experience, and believe it to be God. No one else can see it, no one else can experience it. What you know isn’t definable or relatable to anyone else, unless you also share preinterpreted rubrics of religious dogma. All those who share such relgious belief accepts it as fact, in itself, even as they hear it second-hand and fail to experience it themselves. Ultimately, your "testimony" is essentially amendable by only one person: yourself. No one else, through discourse, language, or culture can ever touch it except yourself, and those who claim to interpret it for you. Furthermore, the sets of ancient laws are literally handed down by Authority, serve only to make human experience utterly irrelevant. Such intractable laws are unrefinable, and produce top down authrotiarian structures of priest/pastors/interpretors serving absolutes to an ignorant flock. This makes religion, as opposed to science and logical discourse, a subjective internal, closed system.
I'll be seeing it... by TheOriginalBubblehead	Sep 6th, 2008 10:00:50 PM
...Yes, I'm a Christian, and I would like to think, an "extreme" one, but even I can acknowledge, and find humor in, the many, many apparent contradictions and ironies of modern faith and religious tenets. I rather think God's sense of humor is far more sophisticated than ours will EVER be, and that no one can appreciate the sublimely ridiculous more than He. I don't mind Maher; he, like Bruce and Carlin and Monty Python, court their greatest successes in holding up a mirror to ourselves and pointing out the glaring errors, the obvious weirdness, the sheer in(s)anity of what it is to be human. He's a provocateur, and a damned fine one, no matter his personal "religulous" or political or ideological leanings; I rather suspect the only "-ism" he subscribes to, at the end of the day, is "absurdism". Good on him. The world can always use another person who's not afraid to point out our fallibility, our gullibility and our outright stupidity. Bubblehead.
One Major Concern by ugh	Sep 6th, 2008 10:01:34 PM
"Religulous" was originally suppose to have been released Easter weekend 2008, then post production pushed it to June 20th. Then July 11th. Now it will be released October 3rd. Why does this concern me? Because Election Day (U.S.) is November 4th. And regardless of your own religious beliefs and/or who you choose to vote for, a documentary that should not have any place in the national election debate will probably be fabricated into a major distraction by our own media. One subject should not define an individual's vote. Sadly, it's almost the norm these days in the U.S. and in turn, devalues the electoral process more than hanging chads, compromised electronic voting machines by Diebold, and limited resources in polling places within low income communities. Let's all do our best to not let this happen.
i hope he disses EVERY religion equally, EVERY one then. by shogunshin	Sep 6th, 2008 10:04:14 PM
unless this guy was an atheist, i do not think he should run around trying to point out inaccuracies in religion. of course there are contradictions. did he just point out muslim and christian religions to diss? what religion is Mahar if he is going to diss other religions? just wondering. i say let everyone live and let live. if you want to worship a tulip, i say go for it. but i will never disrespect a group for their beliefs. Mahar sounds like a typical ELITIST here.
Hatred and intolerance... by antibody	Sep 6th, 2008 10:07:08 PM
The level of hatred and intolerance towards religious people on this talk back is astounding. Where is this self-righteous arrogant attitude coming from? Why do you feel the need to belittle people just because they hold a strong belief in God and try to live their lives according to His standard?
Maher was a catholic. by Thanos0145	Sep 6th, 2008 10:08:15 PM

I'm also a fan of the recently discovered "Faith" gene... by Half-Baked-Goggle-Box-Do-Gooder	Sep 6th, 2008 10:09:14 PM
...Studies show that we are hard-wired to believe in the unprovable - which has nothing to do with whether or not the thing we believe in is actually real. Example given was a few million years ago, a proto-human is out prowling for food on the Serenghetti. This guy sees - or maybe just THINKS he sees - something move in a bush. Something too big to be food. Something that could eat HIM. Does he A) Stick it out, wait to see if there's really something there, and if it's safe move on with the hunt, or B) ASSUME that there is something terrible in that bush and proceed to run like hell, to hide and hunt another day. Evolutionarily speaking, the one that ran like hell was more likely to survive and pass his genes on to his descendants - even if there was never anything more in that bush than a gust of wind. Anyway, who says that life has to have any greater "Meaning"? What's so bad about the idea of accepting that we only have so long on this dirtball, and making life easier - rather than harder - for everybody else is it's own reward, instead of letting your hopes for an unprovable Happy Hunting Ground in the Hereafter guide your every thought and deed?
Antibody by WerePlatypus	Sep 6th, 2008 10:18:43 PM
Because you vote. There are leaders in this country who use your faith to push agendas that have nothing to do with you or a monotheistic God, and they do it specifically to get your vote. Will you give it to them? Will you take your most sacred, chrished beliefs and whore them out for some circumstantial moment on a dying earth? Or will you ignore the petty power squabbling of the sinful and favor your own spiritual business? I would like nothing more than to leave you alone. . . but dammit, you vote.
I'm excited to see this film! by Orionsangels	Sep 6th, 2008 10:24:11 PM
I'm also an avid watcher of REAL TIME with BILL MAHER on HBO. I enjoy his style of interviewing. My view is keep your beliefs to yourself. Don't preach to me. I can't stand organized religion. Religion to control, get money and gain power. Using Religion as a means to get away with some sexual ifliction you have, like having 10 wives that are 13 years old. Oh it's part of my Religion. BS! I just hope everyone watches the film first before passing judgement. I also hope that FOX NEWS doesn't decide to attack this film. Although a part of me does. So it'll get more attention.
Anyone noticed... by Orionsangels	Sep 6th, 2008 10:29:09 PM
That only Fox News runs TV ads for that Michael Moore movie spoof ‘An American Carol’ What a surprise. I guess they know who their target audience is, The films also been featured on Hannity and The O'Reilly Factor. They laugh at it of course. In their minds thinking. Oh we got those Liberals good. I wish politocal parties would be abolished!
Wereplatypus by Ingeld	Sep 6th, 2008 10:29:50 PM
I disagree. The mystical/religious as an experience is as an individualistic and shared experience as are a host of any other human experiences. Your separation of it as a subjective experience unto itself and unable to be part of a shared human experience is simply untenable. People share religous experiences; people separated by cultures and time find common ground in the descriptions of these experiences. You might as well say that each experience of love is so utterly unique and subjective that it is impossible to come to some understanding of it unless it is filtered through cultural social rubrics. Nonsense. You wish to brand spiritually as something so idiosyncratic yet you have no real way of knowing if any two people experience any thing similarly other than by means of commicating that experience through the imprecise tool of language. If there a failing, it does not point to the non existence of God, but in the nature of the tool (language) to describe what is transcendent. Hell, language is woefully inadequate in describing an orgasm; yet I am pretty sure most of the people on the earth have had one. Beyond that reason is not absent in the discussion of God and in the basis for religous expression. Just ask Augustine, Boethius, Anselm and Aquinas. Fides et ratio go hand in hand.
Religion is irrelevant by snuffleupurass	Sep 6th, 2008 10:31:50 PM
I was raised a Catholic but gave up on it when I was 16. My older sister became an extremist and hammered me hard for years because she believed I was damned. I eventually relented and studied the bible with an organized group of mostly radical fundamentalists. A few years later I came to the conclusion that I don't need a savior and I don't need religion to teach me about moral responsibility. Perhaps there is a God but it makes no difference to me because He has no influence in my moment to moment existence. And as far as I can tell He has no direct influence over the world either. Monotheism is merely another level of social control.
Think about the incredible universe we live in by mercuryx23	Sep 6th, 2008 10:43:16 PM
And then ask yourself how you can believe that some entity created it. Of course, many believe that the universe is a ruse...that carbon dating and science are just a funny test their deity has thrown at us to separate the faithful (who believe the universe is a few thousand years old) from the heathens. Some believers try to have it both ways, but you cannot. Once you throw out little bits of a religion, the little bits that don't suit your increasingly rational mind, then the rest cannot work because if you allow that you can remove one little bit then you have to allow that all the little bits are questionable. The universe we live in does not support the whole of any current belief system and if you think you can have your religious cake and your infinite galaxies together for dessert, well, you cannot. And no, Quint, we are not all agnostic. I think there is as much a possibility that the Flying Spaghetti Monster (all hail his noodly majesty!) created a midget, a mountain and a tree than I do some cloud dwelling all being made the earth in six days before resting and then getting pissy for a few thousand years because the people he created could never quite get it right (if you're perfect, why would you have such a flawed design for your primary creations...flawed physically, mentally, spiritually and emotionally. Wisdom teeth? Really? Really?). We are not all agnostic. Not at all.
Ingeld by Reelheed	Sep 6th, 2008 10:46:04 PM
Where you write "they put their faith in their fictionalized beliefs of worth and meaningfulness" others think "they have freedom to define their own rules and goals in life." Its not really clever to use religious language to subvert analytical thinking but it is a common trick. Atheists don't put their faith in anything. Thats really the point. Also I think you have your objectives and subjectives the wrong way around. Religions can't be objective external stories (or someone elses fairy tales) for those that believe in them. A persons faith tells them who THEY are and where THEY came from. The stories have to be about their life in some way for them to believe them. It's when the stories don't work that religions fall apart for the atheist. Although a half clever religious follower might excuse these problems saying "well obviously some of the teachings are allegory" meaning the rest is true because the fairy tales bits and real bits are not the same thing. In Christianity, for example, its hard to argue that all of the stories in the old testament are historical fact because some of them are so outlandish, however it is easy to take the ten commandments as a clear set of rules by which to judge your worth in the eyes of God. Most modern Christians would follow those and take what they can from the rest of the stories. BUT. The moment you think of moderating your belief in parts of your religion then you must ask yourself when would you stop questioning it and why would you stop? This a slippery slope towards secular thought. But you ask is that a higher intellectual/enlightened ground? Yes it is. Isn't the Christian (its late and my parents were christian so excuse me not using religions I don't know as examples) who believes -OK, Noah didn't really manage to get 2 of every species of animal onto a gigantic floating zoo that he hand built- not more intellectual/enlightened than one who believes he actually really did it. Noah actually rounded up 1.8 million species. In pairs. And also, I guess, he must have put all the fresh water fish into a really big tank. And bought along a few "spare" animals so that some nasty viruses would survive - you know a couple of rabid foxes, monkeys with aids, people with small pox, that sort of thing. Sure he did! What do you think? It could be you are very much smarter than someone who thinks the opposite is 100percent true. Do you have faith in your fictionalized fairy tale or, in this case, is there a blazing obvious truth? Religions are very dangerous because they allow people to believe that reality is maleable because they appear to be. Reality isn't, regardless of how much our perception of it is. The true story of the origins of everything has always been the same and it always will be even if we are too stupid to ever understand it. However it would be a shame if we didn't WANT to understand those truths if they mightn't be what we were told to expect hundreds and hundreds of years ago.
The essential problem comes down to.... by rbatty024	Sep 6th, 2008 10:48:17 PM
those who believe in only one interpretation of their sacred text. When you believe only in one interpretation then you become intolerant to other, whether you are Christian, Muslim, or Hindu. Religions should be treated like literature. There are many interpretation and nuances. You have to actually study the work to truly understand the work. You can't just get all you need to know from a pastor. It takes discipline and time to truly understand a sacred text. That being said, I don't believe. So long as someone else isn't trying to convert me, then I have no problem with their own belief system. I get my ethics from my own moral compass and from art.
Ingeld by WhinyNegativeBitch	Sep 6th, 2008 10:54:56 PM
Where is the hypocrisy present in athiesm?
Skani by TerryMalloy	Sep 6th, 2008 10:58:27 PM
"I don't think that happens outside of God's grace" I can attest that true compassion and forgiveness does happen outside of God's grace. Besides the inordinate amount of compassionate friends that I have who are non-religious, I have not changed my charitable activities since a) I converted to Christianity or b) I converted to agnosticism. If the only thing stopping you from being a selfish asshole is God, then that just makes you a shitty person. In my opinion.
Ingeld - nice response! by WerePlatypus	Sep 6th, 2008 11:00:40 PM
I partially agree. I’m willing to say that both religious and secular human experience are both essentially external. There are pluralistic elements to any religious experience and that is worth considering. Good point, because it suggests that content of religious experience can be essentially shared, i.e. you can effectively share your understanding with me. However, you do seem to agree with me that religious is more subjective than secular discourses, because logical rules and linguistic discourse are not enough to provide a complete picture of what is going on – you say individual faith must be a factor to see the complete picture (and cite Augustine, Boethius, Anselm and Aquinas, all of whom agree with this). But as such, this makes the secular view the essentially OBJECTIVE one – it considers physical and logical laws only, and does not require faith to see truth. For example, Love. Love is a logical truth, not a metaphysical truth. I love my wife conditionally, in the sense that I love her more than I love a neighbor down the street, and it is especially precious to me BECAUSE OF (not in spite of) its essentially circumstantial nature. I may not have met my wife, I may not have loved. I may not have lived at all, but I still value my life. Here I am, not absolutely required in this universe, but a possibility who enjoys being possible. That’s what makes all of use special. As for every naturalistic/scientific reason WHY I am here, I am not too concerned with saying “I don’t know.” Just because you have AN explanation for everything does not make you more correct, and frankly, I think it begs the question HOW god created the universe, and us? Did he create initial physical laws, and then circumvent them when he made humans? Or did he set things in motion 12+ bilion years ago, and let reality itself “make” humans? You don’t know any more than I do. . . the only real difference is, I am not postulating an additional “magical” element to explain reality. I use logic and observable physical laws – you can use neither nor can you trust either because God circumvents them both.
Your exsistance has whatever meaning you choose to give it... by WhinyNegativeBitch	Sep 6th, 2008 11:01:51 PM
...Or, if your unlucky, whatever meaning someone else decides to give it. For instance, if you were a homosexual russian jew during Hitlers tenure as chief of staff in Germany, your life had no meaning to a great many krauts. My life is mine to do with what I please. In the grand scope of things, universe wide, my exsistance means nothing. But I enjoy fucking and listening to music and watching movies, so thats the meaning I give it. Off topic, internationally speaking Mrs. Palin is seen as one of the funnier jokes the U.S. has come up with. If she is elected, your nation can write itself off for good.
And I mean "you" as in anyone by TerryMalloy	Sep 6th, 2008 11:02:39 PM
Not a personal attack, skani
Bill Maher is flatout wrong... by zinc_chameleon	Sep 6th, 2008 11:06:04 PM
About us outgrowing religion. Religious experience is built right into our nervous systems, and has been for at least 100,000 years. One of the classes I teach is called "Neuroscience and Religion"; if anything, I go out of my way not to negate religion or support it, but to demonstrate how incredibly flawed and un-evolved human language-based reasoning is, and how most of what we are is emotional, and not rational. Get rid of religion, and people for crazy for the 'Matrix' and 'Lord of the Rings'. Same stuff, different package.
Zinc, I absolutely agree. by jmyoung666	Sep 6th, 2008 11:12:21 PM
You probably know more than I do, but I previously read about religious belief being prgrammed into our genes. And I notice that among my atheist friends (of which I am one too, or by Quint's definition, I am probably an agnostic) they have their own beliefs, whether it's a particular philosophy, conspiracy theories, UFOs, particular diets, etc. However, I believe because we have the ability to reason we can overcome if we truly try.
Does this film..... by Thot	Sep 6th, 2008 11:13:18 PM
...advance or retard inter-religious dialogue and tolerance? Maher is indeed a bit of a bomb thrower and seems to have a problem using reason over his own emotion when dealing with the subject.
Mercury x23 by WerePlatypus	Sep 6th, 2008 11:14:42 PM
Flawed creations indeed. . . consider the Sun as our primary source of energy. Humans can't get at it directly, they have to use a food chain, essentially consuming dead cellular matter and "burning" it like a cheap coal furnace. It's terribly inefficient, and leads to scarcity. This scarcity of food also requires us to either organize or die, and create top down modes of food distribution. Some 1/1000th of the sun's energy absorbed by our consumed living matter actually reaches us directly. Ridiculous! If I were creating humans, I would have used some kind of internal nucular process, as well as a cooling system that doesn't require the loss of so much water. Jeez. . . at least some kind of photosynthetic skin that allows us to produce our own glucose.
Paragon, by jmyoung666	Sep 6th, 2008 11:16:33 PM
The problem is that there is actual evidence in support of the theory of evolution and none in support of the existence of God. Certainly does not prove there is not one, but why assume there is? What is the positive aspect of Faith. Yes, I know it helps some people, but they could be just as good if they believed in themselves first and foremost.
Atheism is just as much a matter of faith as believing in God by HoichiTheEarless	Sep 6th, 2008 11:18:04 PM
True, there is no empirical evidence God exists. But that is not evidence God doesn't exist. There is no empirical evidence either way. I guess I'd call myself agnostic... I'm open to the possibility that God exists but also open to the possibility God doesn't exists. If you truly want to stick to evidence, that is the only viewpoint to have. But I certainly lean towards existence. I also have a very broad definition to what God may be. I'm certainly not inclined to believe in a bearded man in the clouds or a God that has walked on Earth as a man. But, and I consider this no more an article of faith than believing God doesn't exist, I believe in some kind of force or power that permeates everything. This is something that on a certain level, perhaps one humans could never understand, could have a scientific rational. But something with an intelligence, and a design. I'm not just spouting off free association thoughts. There are too many stories, ones I've read about, heard about, or experienced myself, to dismiss the possibility of things that our current understanding of science would consider farcical. Though it should be noted, quantum physics seems to be bridging that gap. I have no problem with believing that everything has a scientific rational, so long as it is accepted there is strange and amazing science out there that make a farce out of some of our current understandings.
Also, our asses by WerePlatypus	Sep 6th, 2008 11:20:04 PM
Why do we have to wipe again? The upright stance causes our buttcheeks to push against one another. To remove excess fecal matter, we have to use our hands, or at least a tool, in some fashion to crudely remove it. As God supposidly created all these harmful bacteria and leaves them in our poo, we are put in a possibly harmful situation. Plus, it's gross.
How can something have always existed? by Orionsangels	Sep 6th, 2008 11:23:40 PM
This question reveals some misconceptions common to almost all humans. Compare it to the question of how anything could not have existed always. The stuff that stuff is made of or at least converted from existed already. Our perception of existent versus nonexistent does not help us to answer the question of the universe's existence. It helps us to do most other things. That's why we have it. If you didn't have it and couldn't use it most of the time, many simple tasks might be impossible for you. It may be an illusion of sorts that we perceive that things exist and then don't exist. But for the sake of functioning in our daily lives we need to work with it. I'm not going to try to explain that part in too much detail. I just add it so that I will hopefully not be mistaken for saying that we should always stay in the frame of mind that all things always have existed. It's just useful to have this frame of mind when contemplating things that even by our definition of what they are have always existed. Most things, by our definition of what they are, have not always existed and might stop existing at some point. Let's take a half-full/half-empty glass of water. In our minds, the glass did not exist before sand was melted and shaped into the shape of a glass. It did not exist as a glass anyway. The thing we call this particular glass came into existence when it was made, as far as we are concerned. Before we put water in it, it was an empty glass. After, it became a half-full/half-empty glass. If you think about it, in our minds the half-filled/half-empty glass of water did not exist before we half-filled this glass. Before that, it was something else. After we empty it, the half-full/half-empty glass ceases to exist as it was. It's now an empty glass again. The half-full/half-empty glass is just a memory of something that no longer exists as that. If we break the glass, the glass no longer exists as far as we are concerned. There was a glass, but after it is broken it is no more. Now there exists a broken glass that cannot serve the function it was made for or fit our definition of a glass anymore. It's useful enough to think this way. If you think the glass still exists as a glass after it is broken you might make a mess or something. Things exist while they fit our definition/concept of what the thing is. Most things will not fit our definition/concept of the thing forever and their constituent parts did not fit the definition/concept before they turned into the thing. We are used to things as we define/conceive them not existing, then existing, then maybe not existing anymore. The universe, as in all of existence, is a concept of a thing that is the whole of all parts and all things that exist. What it's made of didn't have to come together a certain way or transform in order for the universe to exist as we define/conceive it. The parts that make things already existed before the things. The hydrogen and oxygen already existed and joined to make water. They still exist after the water is emptied. The elements in the sand already existed before they became sand as we know it, then melted into glass as we know it, then shaped into a glass as we know it. They still exist after the glass breaks. A thing fitting our definitions/concepts of them is what can be ephemeral. That's how things can, as far as we are concerned, not exist. Something that can be defined as all of existence can have always been even according to our definition/concept of it.
The problem with the religious is that they are more concerned.. by rbatty024	Sep 6th, 2008 11:24:33 PM
with pushing their viewpoints on others. Bush is currently waging his "crusade" against the Muslims and many Christians believe that we should inundate our children with prayer (even if their parents are atheists). I have seen absolutely zero evidence that religion is a positive thing. I think the best you can argue is that religion is neither positive nor negative. In fact, I have met more moral atheists than I have met moral Christians. It's just a personal observation so take from it what you will.
Reelheel by Ingeld	Sep 6th, 2008 11:27:36 PM
No tricks, just reason. Atheists is not simply a lack of belief in a deity. It is an assertion of something as true despite the fact that it is not a logically arrived at truth--one cannot prove a negative. To say there is a God requires faith in that assertion. To say there is no God requires faith in that assertion. What we quibble about is which faith based assertion seems more likely. Atheists point to a lack of evidence; yet there is actually no evidence that they would accept. Individual experience is too anecdotal and science can never be anything but mute on the subject. Science can only discuss something that is quantifiable, measurable. God by its/his/her very definitition is infinite--not quantifiable. As William of Ockham and others would suggest God cannot be constrained even by the boundaries of rationale thought or logic. God is superlogical. As such we cannot know God like we know anything else; we can employ reason but we can only reach him/her/it. God, however, being God can reach us. That is the nature of revelation. We imperfect human beings constrained by imperfect language express this revelation in sacred texts. In regard to Hebrew scripture, one has to learn how to approach it. It is a library of texts from the ancient world. If you entered a library would you read every book you encountered the same way? Myth, fiction, biography, phil, science. That would be foolish. Yet does not each express some kind of truth or understanding? We should not look to scripture and wonder why it is not what we expect it or want it to be; rather we should approach scripture and ask ourselves what kind of reader am I suppose to be. Peace
Whinynegativebitch by Ingeld	Sep 6th, 2008 11:36:54 PM
My point was simply this: 1. Atheists often disdain religious people for creating a fairy tale to give their life meaning. 2. Atheists believe that the universe is essentially meaningless. 3. Atheists, however, live their lives believing that their own lives are meaningful. It feels meaningful, but, fo course, that is a fiction as the universe is meaningless (see 2). Atheists, therefore, are people who disdain religious people for believing in fiction to give their live meaning, yet are themselves doing the very same thing. This is the nature of hypocrisy.
Ingeld by WerePlatypus	Sep 6th, 2008 11:44:03 PM
You lost me. I am willing to have a reasonable discussion on the merits of Rational/Natural Theology, i.e. Augustine, Boethius, Anselm and Aquinas-style arguments. But that last part about the library is pure Revealed Theology, nothing more. . . and Revealed Theology is Brute because God is an irrational given, requring a human mind to adapt itself to that "Truth." It goes against everything I believe in, as well as everything that is essentially human. Brute - Always has been, always will be. And BTW, you suggesting that there is no evidence that an Atheist would support, that is untrue. You're using a Strawman and assuming that our skepticism always supplants reason. This gentleman has produced a marvelous video that explains EXACTLY how to convert an Atheist to Theism. It's the perfect argument on this matter: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =_rqUsC2KsiI It's about 8 minutes, and it's a much quicker way to get my point across. (I'd also add that I've spent much more than 8 minutes of my life reading the bible, so you'd have to meet us halfway here and at least look at it . . . )
No no no Religion is used for Power by Orionsangels	Sep 6th, 2008 11:50:50 PM
To keep people in line. Religious groups always have leaders. They benefit the most from religion. By using people. By manipulating them. 9 out of 10 times there's always an angle. What's sad are the ones that actually believe and give their lives and money to these crooks.
Just my take by attackpatterndelta	Sep 6th, 2008 11:51:01 PM
I really could not quote from a bible, but I went to christian churches as a kid. I can only speak from a personal level. I think people get caught up in Christianity, Islam, and whatever other religions are out there (Scientists, anyone?). I think it comes down to, do you believe their is a Creator of this universe? The more I've thought about it, the more it makes sense that something (I don't know what) created the matter, and everything we see touch and hear. My reasoning is the fact the universe seems to have structure and order, physics that CAN be measured in science! To me, that suggest's this shit ain't some random nonsense. I think the fact that scientist and physicists can break things down with math, and SHOW us why many things are here suggests that it wasn't and accident. I think the more science learns, the more it will point to SOMETHING at the very least hitting an "on switch" for us. Can you really have nothing from nothing? Life or matter from nothingness? I've even heard some scientists have had problems with the Big Bang Theory. And how would an all knowing creator do it? I don't know! I could imagine "it" setting up this place we live in on a complex SCIENTIFIC level. If the universe can be broken down to scientific formula, calculations and thing you can predict... WHY? It suggests that it isn't random nothingness, it suggests that things form the way they were instructed to? In my opinion, the science will point to a creator, ultimately. That our universe does what it was...in a way...programmed to do. Form planets, moons, stars, life. The proof is the very science we use to explain it, the fact that we can even use science to explain it...has made me wonder if it is someones/somethings creation. I hope I don't come off sounding crazy, just thought I'd put in my own personal thoughts. And I have read at least a few articles by people way smarter than I, that are close to what I believe. And I acknowledge I could be totally wrong about all of this.
Wereplatypus by Ingeld	Sep 6th, 2008 11:51:05 PM
Religious discourses are not more or less subjective than any other. One starts to realize this when you realize that the mere act of compartmentalizing or putting things into simple binary categories of secular and religious are actually arbitrary and not necessarily objective realities--they are convenient constructs--not absolutes. Furthermore, you should keep in mind that in order to arrive at any logical deduced truth, fact, etc one must make an assumption or a faith based assertion. All syllogisms begin with a premise. The foundation for all rational/logical based discourse is a faith based statement. That cannot be stressed enough. That you love your wife maybe be arrived at by some logical syllogism, but that still begs the question of what exactly is love and can we truly have the same understanding of what it is? You continue to assert that religion is in some kind of illusory and elusive category by itself that that raises all sorts of troublesome you red flags, but have not shown that the intellectual problems and uncertainties that plague it are unique.
Quint - good review, saw it myself by theBigE	Sep 6th, 2008 11:54:59 PM
You published my review of this last month on this site. Your review was pretty spot-on, and I agreed that I wish Maher had spent more time on Mormonism and Scientology. My big complaints were: I've heard most of these anti-religious arguments before , the editing was suspect, and how the heck did Maher reach such a drastic conclusion? It didn't follow from the previous 80 minutes. The movie is funny, just not very fresh. I did like that chatty priest outside the Vatican. He wasn't saying there were errors in his faith, he was saying there were errors in the way people interpret Chrisianity. (Like Italians praying more to 4 other saints than they do to Jesus.) I also liked the astronomer preist too - he agreed with my beliefs on science and religion.
Wereplatypus by Ingeld	Sep 7th, 2008 12:01:47 AM
My best response to your rejection of revelation is found in the question and answer to Tertullian's question of what does Athens have to do with Jerusalem. The best and clearest response I can offer is Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel and the creation of Adam. It is the visual representation of my perpsective and point of view in regard to the relationship between the human and divine. Humanity (Adam) seeks out God employing human reason (phil. and rational thought). God seeks out, reaches down to Adam (Divine revelation). Yet there fingers, so close, do no touch. In that space is the leap of faith. My religiious understanding is a mixture of faith and reason. With that I thank you for an interesting conversation. Good night and peace. You may have the last word.
Yes, but what does any of this have to do with me? by The Dum Guy	Sep 7th, 2008 12:50:37 AM

jesus by werewolfbynight	Sep 7th, 2008 12:54:21 AM
that was probably the most poignany movie review i have ever read.
If creationism is taught in schools by HoichiTheEarless	Sep 7th, 2008 01:08:00 AM
They should teach every religions version of the creation story. Wouldn't have a problem with that at all but I'm realistic to know that'd never happen. I vehemently disagree with teaching only the Judea-Christian version of creation and evolution.
Bill Maher is a smarmy cunt by williammunny	Sep 7th, 2008 01:22:46 AM
To me it doesn't matter what his opinions are, its the way he acts as if he has all the right answers and he is the only person on Earth that really gets it. He's a smarmy cunt, and he hasn't figured after years of hanging out at the playboy mansion that he only get laid because Hef tells the bunnies to sleep with him. He actually thinks they want to, that's how much of a self absorbed asshole he is.
I think he gets laid because he's rich. by Lucasblows	Sep 7th, 2008 01:24:22 AM
And there's nothing wrong with that.
Creationism is retarded. by Lucasblows	Sep 7th, 2008 01:25:24 AM
And should not be taught in schools.
And the reason for the negativity toward religion here is... by bullet3	Sep 7th, 2008 01:26:28 AM
that religion is being forced on most people in this country. I have no inherent problem with what others believe in, but the seperation between church and state has broken down in this country. I have big problems with creationism being taught in schools, and I personally have problems with parents that push religion on their kids at a young age. Kids at that age can't think for themselves, and it's irresponsible to push spirituality on them. I'm also angry at the seeming disdain for atheism across this nation. No atheist or agnostic presidential candidate would get elected, and it seems like religion is being pushed on me everywhere I go (from churches on every block with their witty slogans, to people preaching in the streets of cities and on campuses). Obviously people are within their rights, but I wish there was an equal movement on the part of the atheists/agnostics.
Being Agnostic Like Maher is Its Own Religon by Tthenomad	Sep 7th, 2008 01:50:14 AM
I love how Maher fervently defends his non-belief. Making him a believer in nothing (his religon). Personally you can believe what you want if it improves your life. Otherwise your belief in God is replaced by a belief in Work(workaholic), Drugs(adict), viewS(lib or conserv),etc. Those groups having just as much extremes as faith. I personally believe in a just benovolent God. As a PHD chemist to believe anything else would just make me unhappy and empty.
Faith and Religion by malcolm_mccallum

Talkbacks

Quint has seen Bill Maher and Larry Charles' RELIGULOUS!!