Religulous - Bill Maher [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

3-LockBox

03-01-2009, 11:09 PM

I looked forward to this movie for many reasons, one of them being that I am in many ways, anti-religion. Not saying I don't believe, or do believe, in one thing over another, and to a point, never feel the desire to state my religous views, and nor does Maher, only that he questions organized religion. Fine, so do I. Except here, Maher can't help reveal his one true object of worship...himself. He comes across just as smug and self-serving as the religions he attempts to scewer. Instead of a real expose of the world's religions (their differences, their similarities, their doctrines) we get Bill Maher's constant insistance that he's smarter than everyone he interviews.

As a documentary, it fails. This film doesn't make anyone any smarter, in that most religious people familiar with Maher are going to avoid this film like the plague. For those of us who find this topic fascinating, it spins its wheels. Much of what's in this film can be discovered on the web, so as a form of entertainment, its somewhat redundant to those of us who've yahooed or googled this stuff years ago. He touches upon the tenants of a few religions, but only long enough for a sound bite. Everything sounds like a setup for a punchline. But even as a comedy it fails, because some of his vitriol is misplaced, and you wind feeling sorry for some of his interviewees. He does bring up some interesting points, but not enough of them. There's a few chuckle worthy moments, but Maher seems to want to make his subjects look awkward, and this comedic device fizzles after the first few times we see it. As a monument to Bill Maher's disdain for all things not Bill Maher, I suppose it works, provided you don't get his cable show, because that too, will make this film redundant.

If you are unaware of who Maher is, and you're curious about other religions or have your own doubts about religion, this movie might work for you, provided you like your info with a generous helping of sarcasm. But in saying that, its doubtful you'll find much reason to change your mind if you are religious, and if you are religious, you already got the memo to boycott this movie anyway, so the info contained therein is inconsequential.

FWIW: if he seems to reserve most of his venom for Christianity, take it with a grain of salt - he obviously got the Rushdie memo. :smilewinkgrin:

RGA

03-02-2009, 06:30 AM

ForeverAutumn

03-02-2009, 07:23 AM

I suppose it depends on your view of Maher - I like him because well he agrees with me most of the time which probably makes him one of the smartest people in the room :)

Religion is about as fascinating to me as road kill. Well maybe not religion but the people who still believe in the sheer nonsense. I have not seen this film yet but I suspect it will be an attack on defenseless wits. Roger Ebert is a Catholic and he liked Religulous http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081002/REVIEWS/810020306/1023

If you want informative debate on religion from an Athiest see here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe7yf9GJUfU the fact that anyone believes in a sky God that listens to your prayers is equivalent of believing in the tooth fairy or being abducted by aliens - even though theologans like to create various sometimes well articulated red herrings and straw men.

UNLEASH THE ATHIESTS!!!

I love that line, courtesy of our good friend Trollgirl/Laz.

I'm curious to see Religulous. We'll probably rent it at some point, but I never expect much from movies like this. Bill Mahar is about as capable as presenting a documentary as Micheal Moore is. Still, I'm curious as to what this movie has to say.

RGA, I really want to watch that You Tube vid. But at 37 minutes it's not something that I can do at work. I'll have to try to find a half hour to put aside at home for it.

Feanor

03-02-2009, 08:35 AM

...

As a documentary, it fails. This film doesn't make anyone any smarter, in that most religious people familiar with Maher are going to avoid this film like the plague. For those of us who find this topic fascinating, it spins its wheels. Much of what's in this film can be discovered on the web, so as a form of entertainment, its somewhat redundant to those of us who've yahooed or googled this stuff years ago. He touches upon the tenants of a few religions, but only long enough for a sound bite. Everything sounds like a setup for a punchline. But even as a comedy it fails, because some of his vitriol is misplaced, and you wind feeling sorry for some of his interviewees. He does bring up some interesting points, but not enough of them. There's a few chuckle worthy moments, but Maher seems to want to make his subjects look awkward, and this comedic device fizzles after the first few times we see it. As a monument to Bill Maher's disdain for all things not Bill Maher, I suppose it works, provided you don't get his cable show, because that too, will make this film redundant.
...

FWIW: if he seems to reserve most of his venom for Christianity, take it with a grain of salt - he obviously got the Rushdie memo. :smilewinkgrin:

3LB, great review. Thanks to it, I'll drop Religulous down a few positions on my Zip.ca list. Nevertheless anything that makes fun of religion can't be all bad. Sarcasms works for me too in this context.

Reglion might be acceptable as a personal delusion, but when it comes to politics it is a great deal of what's wrong with the world.

Auricauricle

03-02-2009, 09:33 AM

What a shame… When this movie came out, I really thought that Maher had really, actually located the pulse to this oh so sensitive matter and had proceeded to address it head on. Too bad that Maher had to, instead, use the movie as a platform for his grandstanding and preening; too bad that serious-minded people of deep feeling and great intellect were reduced to objects of ridicule and derision; too bad that movie watchers will laugh the occasional uncomfortable laugh of the smug and not be provoked to actually think….

I, like you all, am not a religious person and prefer to take a spiritual path that proceeds from neither ritual nor creed; but that does not prevent me from having great respect for truly intelligent and well-meaning persons who have taken up a lifestyle that espouses such things. I’ll not lie and say that I am wholly tolerant and that I never make jokes regarding things religious, but I am cognizant of the fact that good-natured kidding and ridicule are two different things. (It sounds as though) in this movie, Maher’s usual well-liked kidding banter slipped, betraying his intent to foist his own agenda—his own religion if you prefer. Pity.

We can say all we want about religious intolerance and the history of bloodshed and violence perpetrated “in the name of God”, but I think such dialog misses the point that religion is simply a codified way of expressing one’s beliefs with people who share a similar point of view. While religion has become a very organized thing in and of itself, working its way into the fabric of our lives with intrusive urgency, I would like to propose that religious things, in true form and essence, could be distilled to matters of faith, not zeal.

Some years ago, I was listening to a Bishop, who told the story of St. Thomas. While the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are held up as the true accounts of Christ and His legacy, the story of St. Thomas is worth considering. Thomas' account is noteworthy not because he believed in Jesus and that He had ascended to God, but because he (Thomas) asked for proof that He did so. If you are He, Thomas said, show me your wounds.

In this, Thomas embodied a deeper faith than that that embraces tenets and credos full on. The story of Thomas shows that faith and religion are, in fact, intellectual and emanate from considered and intense searching. I suspect that any religion in its true form, without all the trappings of the "Divine" can be distilled to these fundamental "Human" beginnings. To mock these things without considered commentary on their own, considerable merit, is condescending and insulting not only to upholders of faith, but to even those of us who view such things with wary—and maybe humorous—skepticism and disdain.

3-LockBox

03-02-2009, 11:53 AM

Both Maher and Michael Moore are narcissistic, but Moore plays dumb a lot to lure the interviewee into saying something stupid, or at least more than they wanted to say, while Maher is confrontational and can't wait to jump on something someone says. Moore will let people talk themselves into a corner where Mahler immediately puts people on the defensive. Its harder to feel sorry for the people in a Michael Moore interview.

nightflier

03-02-2009, 02:46 PM

3LB, good analysis on the Maher-Moore differences. Never thought of it that way. I happen to like any movie/show that brings a good deal of humor, and both Maher and Moore do that in spades. Maher's sparring with Coulter is priceless and so is Moore's clip of Bush talking about Terrorism before taking that swing. Different styles but good laughs.

I had a lot of hopes for Religulous, even if I'm still having trouble pronouncing it. I'll still rent it, though, but I think W is going to come first. Josh Brolin is supposed to be great in it and he was pretty good in NCFOM, so it can't be that bad.

RoadRunner6

03-02-2009, 03:18 PM

Reglion might be acceptable as a personal delusion, but when it comes to politics it is a great deal of what's wrong with the world.

Amen, hallelujah! Feanor sums up my exact fealings in one succinct but profound statement.

RR6 (mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa)

Auricauricle

03-02-2009, 03:43 PM

I have no reservations about seeing that religion and politics are very possibly opposite sides of the same coin...I just think that sometimes people knock other folks' faith without giving credit to the person for their rationale for doing so. Even if it is miguided, backasswards and amoral!

3-LockBox

03-02-2009, 03:56 PM

I would like to propose that religious things, in true form and essence, could be distilled to matters of faith, not zeal.

That'd be great if you could swing it...but you'd have to kill a whole lot of people first...

just kidding of course, but there is a reason religion isn't perfect...its run by greedy control freaks.

Auricauricle

03-02-2009, 04:06 PM

Hey if you wanna get rich, there are few better ways to do it. Just ask Jim Baker, Tammy Faye, Jimmy Swaggart, Jerry Falwell, Jim Jones and Osama Bin Laden all about it....

Wait a dern minute....Did I say Osama Bi....? What's wrong with me??

RGA

03-02-2009, 05:10 PM

RGA, I really want to watch that You Tube vid. But at 37 minutes it's not something that I can do at work. I'll have to try to find a half hour to put aside at home for it.

Part two is an 1 hour and 10 minutes. It's well worth watching especially when the Liberty University folks start asking questions. The bit where that university is revealed to have 3000 year old dinosaur bones and Dawkins' reply is rather hilarious.

Auricauricle

03-02-2009, 05:33 PM

Thing I wanna know is, is it possible to come up with a religion without the prophet? Can we come up with a way of oraganizing ourselves around a body of faith without a human or other vehicle? Oh, that's spirituality. Never mind....

RoadRunner6

03-02-2009, 06:02 PM

Faith is the whole problem in a nutshell. There is no proof at all of the major writings and dogma of any religion. One is told to accept all on faith. That in itself disproves the basis of Christianity and all other religions.

Could you imagine if we were asked to accept all scientific discoveries as a matter of faith.

nightflier

03-02-2009, 06:10 PM

Could you imagine if we were asked to accept all scientific discoveries as a matter of faith.

...isn't that what intelligent design is all about? Or was it the primary mover? No wait, was it that than which nothing greater can be thought? ...I don't know what to believe anymore.

ForeverAutumn

03-02-2009, 06:14 PM

You may all worship me.

nightflier

03-02-2009, 06:15 PM

Yeah but don't you worship cats? That would put us pretty low on the hierarchy.

dean_martin

03-02-2009, 06:16 PM

I often watch Real Time with Bill Maher on HBO for the political analysis and "new rules" is a funny bit, but I've often turned the channel when he starts his anti-religion rants because they're full of hatred. I think he can make the same points in a more civil manner. When he goes into his anti-religious rants, he's as zealous as those he criticizes. He seems to take it personally rather than methodically exposing idiocy, hypocrisy, etc.

ForeverAutumn

03-02-2009, 06:28 PM

Yeah but don't you worship cats? That would put us pretty low on the hierarchy.

I also worship ferrets and guinea pigs. :out:

Feanor

03-02-2009, 06:41 PM

Auricauricle

03-02-2009, 06:45 PM

Heh heh heh....You wanna toga with that, Socrates?

RGA

03-02-2009, 08:13 PM

If you're an atheist then it's sometimes not to be argumentative because you are discussing with people who may be bright but have decided to compartmentalize their brain on the matter. And then it is said we must be more respectful of their faith. But their faith is dangerous whether they know it or not.

There are good people and bad people of any religion or non religion. But for good people to do bad things - that takes religion.

Usually their arguments turn into red herrings like Stalin was an atheist or that atheists ar too mean to religious people. A defense of that http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huEMVJb4Js8&feature=related

Feanor

03-03-2009, 03:29 AM

If you're an atheist then it's sometimes not to be argumentative because you are discussing with people who may be bright but have decided to compartmentalize their brain on the matter. And then it is said we must be more respectful of their faith. But their faith is dangerous whether they know it or not.
...

... is that religous faith seems so obviously ridiculous: unsupported by evidence, dogmatic, delusional, intolerant, hypocritical, and often self-contradictory. How do you have patience with this? How do you not mock it?

ForeverAutumn

03-03-2009, 06:33 AM

... is that religous faith seems so obviously ridiculous: unsupported by evidence, dogmatic, delusional, intolerant, hypocritical, and often self-contradictory. How do you have patience with this? How do you not mock it?

Very well said.

3-LockBox

03-03-2009, 06:42 AM

Groundbeef

03-03-2009, 06:46 AM

There are good people and bad people of any religion or non religion. But for good people to do bad things - that takes religion.

Why as an atheist do you feel that you must "confront" people that have religious faith? If you don't want to belive then don't.

I'm religious, go to church. I am not however preachy, or attempt to convert those that belive other paths, or that don't belive at all.

But to say that "religion" is the reason that good people do bad things? Well that's just ignorant and no more of a red herring than arguements that the religious make about atheists.

Bad people do bad things. Good people do bad things. Have bad things been done in the name of religion? Sure. Have good things been done in the name of religion? Sure.

Feanor

03-03-2009, 09:38 AM

Even science has its limitations. While every religion has an origin story or a Genesis if you will, science's origin story is no less a leap of faith, based on study and what few facts we have, but faith nonetheless. Genesis suggests a higher being spoke and "it was so" regarding creation, science gives us the Big Bang Theory, which also suggests 'something from nothing'. ...
No. Science -- as practiced by good scientists -- is the antithesis of faith. You develop a thesis based on observed, documented, and measured phenomenon. Then you try to destroy that theory through objective and controlled experimentations. This is most unlike religious faith in general.

(In the past much more than today apparently, it was common of various theological schools to debate -- in an armchair sort of way -- various theological hypotheses, usually constrained by very rigid "givens" about the character of God, etc. Even this narrow, scholastic questioning is clearly abandoned by e.g. by Fundamentalists who seem to prefer the pronouncements of self-proclaimed authorities.)

...
Evolution works on many levels explaining the origins of things, until you explain just how perfectly simple cells that could reproduce independantly of anything decided to 'become' male and female, for some reason, and still evolve at the same rate so as to propigate the wide variety of sepcies we have now, perfectly. Science wants us to believe in both 'random' and 'selection' with regards to life. It could make sense, but it is at times, convenient.
Evolution requires random change, disproportionate survival of some of those changes, and propogation of the surviving changes through some mechanism, not necessarily biological.

Again, good science doesn't want us to believe anything. It proposes hypotheses or theories and wants us to pick holes in them. The strong theories survive and the weak perish: thus theories evolve and propogate.

emaidel

03-03-2009, 12:59 PM

I too am a man of faith like GroundBeef, and not by any means a prostelatizer. I was raised a Roman Catholic, but left the church in my late teens, and remained at first agnostic, then full-fledged atheistic until a little over 3 years ago when I joined the Lutheran Church. I chose the Lutheran faith because I admired Luther's intentions which were not to create a church of his own, but to reform a truly corrupt Catholic Church at the time. To me, the Lutheran faith is very much "Catholic Lite."

I still don't accept many church teachings, and flatly refuse to believe in creationism, as some in my faith would have me do. I also detest and despise Bill Maher and every hair on his body, and thus have no interest whatsoever in seeing "Religulous." May I suggest a more literate film condemning many anti-semitic actions of the Catholic Church, and the invasion of ultra right-wing evangelical "mega-churches' into our military, and that is "Constantine's Sword."

nightflier

03-03-2009, 01:20 PM

While debate is certainly something many people feel is a worthwhile pursuit, especially in the US where this has grown out of our own revolutionary war and subsequent constitution, we shouldn't forget that for many people that isn't the case. In many faiths, debate, questioning, or even depicting god and religion is blasphemous. In Islam, questioning god and faith is completely unacceptable, it is a religion of complete submission to the will of god. Confucianism, Hinduism, and even Buddhism have many of the same underlying themes and consider life as a period of acceptance and submission. This is a large part of the misunderstanding between East and West. We should also not forget that Western Christianity is not the belief of the vast majority of the world, that it is actually in decline, and that the fastest growing faith is Islam. Maybe we should step back and realize that our way is not the only way, even if it seems so logically better to us.

Ironically, submission is also well ingrained in the Christian faith. Not only is this what today's fundamentalists, literalists, and evangelists believe very strongly in, but it is the foundation with which the Catholic church sought to suppress protestantism and related populist movements throughout its checkered history. Even here in our own brief 200 year American-Western history, we've struggled with this dichotomy which is in essence a refutation of most of our cultural values related to individualism, wealth-building, and independence. At the risk of too much hyperbole, one could even argue that this is at the crux of a fundamental debate we have had in our whole 8000 years of human civilization. Faith is submission. It can't be measured or explained in scientific terms. It just is. More importantly it isn't going away. Many people believe it is ingrained into our genetic make-up, and maybe there is a reason for that too.

One theory that is ironically in line with most popular religions as well as evolution, holds that the big bang is one of many, perhaps an infinite number of bangs, a universe endlessly expanding and contracting, if you will. The idea is that before the last bang, there was a civilization much like ours that had discovered that it would also be destroyed at some point. Before this could happen, they designed something imprinted at the molecular level that would survive the almost infinite contraction of the bang and eventually engender a new form of life on the other side. We may be just one of an infinite number of civilizations that one day will have to design the same imprint to 'survive' the inevitable bang and give something lasting to the next civilization. Maybe those who came before us are what we refer to unknowingly, as 'god,' and they called their progenitors 'god.' In this light it no longer matters how far back this goes and we may be better off just accepting it; that is, submitting to it. Perhaps Thomas Acquinas' attempt to define, categorize, and measure the primary mover was futile. After all, the only thing that can pass through this bang, "the eye of the needle" so to speak, is something we currently do not have the capacity to understand, and in fact may not need to be understood to actually pass through. At least until Neo can find a way to survive along with the Matrix, LOL.

In all seriousness, if this is indeed how the pieces fit together, then faith may be the most precious vestigial trace of who we are and what we need to do in this life. Maybe the place to start is with some compassion for others, animals, plants, and this fragile little rock we call Earth. Considering how much we do know about genetic imprinting and considering how many years it took us to get here, we may actually be pretty close to that next bang.

ForeverAutumn

03-03-2009, 01:27 PM

emaidel, with nothing but respect for your decision to return to the church, do you mind if I ask…was there a specific incident in your life that led you back? You needn’t go into details if there was.

I was raised in a somewhat religious household but came to my own atheist conclusions at a very young age. I have known many people who have once believed in religion and later denounced it. But I have met few atheists who have turned to religion. And those few that I have met had a tragedy or situation in their lives that they were trying to make sense of. Somehow it seemed that believing in god and some “higher purpose” made otherwise random tragedies more sensible.

Auricauricle

03-03-2009, 03:57 PM

If you ask me, and apparently you do since I am still allowed to post here, the difference between faith and science is a matter that pertains to methodology. As Feaner correctly asserted, Science uses observable and tactile (empirical) data to draw inferences about phenomena. Faith, on the other hand, is born from considered appraisal of the metaphysical which includes one’s appreciation of the Transcendant. Although many religious people have experienced and experience these things by way of their sense organs, their interpretation includes supposition of notions that cannot be quantified or operationally described. Critics of science assert that even that knowledge base is fraught with uncertainty and involves just as many “useful fictions”, but for the sake of this discussion I hope to simplify things to the sensory and the extrasensory, the physical and the metaphysical.

Our literature and folklore describe man’s search for knowledge in many fables and parables. Of all things that make us human, I think that the quest for knowledge is fundamental to the human experience. I am a sentimentalist, and although I am a man of science, I am also a man who wonders about things. I have not infrequently walked outside to peer out and into the starry night and put aside the knowledge of books that has told me of the swirling gases and dust. I have also gazed at these beautiful objects with awe and wonder. Does this make me less than a scientist?

I reckon that early man must have felt this sense of wonder too, when he ventured out of his cave and saw the sun rise. This is the sentimentalist in me talking, I know that, but I get some notion that some glorious thing stirred deep within that cave-man’s soul that told him that his little life was only part of a bigger Something. In 2001: A Space Odyssey, Arthur Clarke describes the stirring of Moon Watcher, sentinel of the hominid clan whose senses picked up on this Something. In the novel and movie, this Something led him to the monolith, and so to the moon and Jupiter and Beyond….

Yet Man just couldn’t be satisfied with his sentiment, for as a rational and reasoning creature, Man knew there had to be More out there than monoliths and strange music. We are sensual creatures and are endowed with organs that allow us to appraise the world not only in emotional terms but also in languages informed by smell, sight, touch, hearing and taste. As we became aware of our facility to use these faculties, our metaphors were enriched. As these metaphors became similes and as similes became knowledge, we learned to question ourselves.

It has been noted that the birth of science heralded the Birth of Man, and so the separation of Man and God. In our Holy Books, the Birth of Reason is described just as sadly. In the Bible, the rift is described in the story (or account) of Adam and Eve, who turned their backs to unquestioning faith as they faced audacious self-affirmation. The serpent is described as a loathesome creature whose guile lured Eve towards the tree of knowledge. While the bite of the apple may be described as a fall from grace, it marked Man’s awakening (remember how Adam and Eve’s eyes were opened?) and break from blissful ignorance into the tortured path of knowledge and, eventually, wisdom. So was that serpent so loathesome, or was it an agent of the Divine? Who knows....?

We can spend a lot of time, here and elsewhere, discussing these things and more, but I think it is important to remember that science and religion are, in fact, different sides of the same coin. Both bodies of work may differ in language, machinery and metaphor, but when it comes down to it both are concerned with the same thing, which is figuring out who we are and where we’re all going. Everything else is, as a friend of mine used to say, just window dressing.

I like to think there’s a way that religion and science can be reconciled, but I haven’t figured it out yet. Both religion and science embody great believers and fervent upholders of the faith. This faith, whether in an Almighty God that sees all, knows all and loves all or in Rationality that registers all, measures all and knows a little more, seems to pretty much cover the same territory. As far as the bloodshed and the prejudice and the pain, it’s all just pride.

Just a few thoughts from an old fool, Oh Best Beloved…..

3-LockBox

03-03-2009, 04:20 PM

The only thing I'm sure of when it comes to religion is that no one has the answer. The Bible is a good book and a marvelous, philosophical guide, but the version we have is a highly edited, agendized version of the original text. To take it literally is foolhardy and to a degree, irresponsible. The Bible is often referenced for things that aren't even in the book. Hell is mentioned seldomly, and rare is any references to homosexuallity, yet many christians are sure that homosexuals are hell bound, and so is anyone else who doesn't follow strict dogma.

If anyone thinks I'm stirring the pot by posting disparaging things about both sides...I am:D

Auricauricle

03-03-2009, 04:25 PM

Disparage away, heathen! I like a spicy stew!

3-LockBox

03-03-2009, 05:14 PM

Disparage away, heathen! I like a spicy stew!

I just hope the thread isn't yanked like so many others.

The movie, for me, wasn't all I hoped it would be, but I wouldn't suggeste others not watch it. Too much time was spent on christianity while other religions were barely touched. There was some food for thought though, like some of the unspoken tenants of Mormonism and Scientology.

Maher did make some funny comments about certain aspects of prophetizing, in which God bestows knowledge to one individual. "If the message was so important, why not impart it to everyone? Why just one guy?" Especially since we (humanity) have such a history bad treatment towards prophets.

Auricauricle

03-03-2009, 05:21 PM

I just hope the thread isn't yanked like so many others.

Which means ya gotta give me a kick under the table when I start up.

emaidel

03-04-2009, 04:21 AM

emaidel, with nothing but respect for your decision to return to the church, do you mind if I ask…was there a specific incident in your life that led you back? You needn’t go into details if there was.

.

I am a compulsive gambler. I became addicted to gambling while living in Colorado, being retired, and having a bunch of casinos only an hour's drive from my house. Upon realizing my addiction, and the mess it caused, I joined Gamblers Anonymous. Part of the GA program (which is based on the highly successful AA program) is a belief in a "Higher Power."

At first I thought the program couldn't work for me, as I didn't believe in any such thing, but then realized that a Higher Power could be more than just God, or a god, but even the members of the various rooms I attended meetings in. Then I met my new nextdoor neighbor who was a Lutheran minister. Not only was this person a "man of God," but one of the nicest, smartest and funniest people I'd ever met in my life. After spending time with him, and attending a few services he conducted, I joined the Lutheran Church.

So, in a way, you could say that a gambling addiction brought me back to the fold. At least something good came out of such reckless and irresponsible behavior. It also helped that the person who lead the path back to a church was such an intelligent man, and not one who merely quotes scripture and believes that "if the Bible says it's so, then it is so," a concept I still bitterly disagree with.

Auricauricle

03-04-2009, 06:33 AM

ForeverAutumn

03-04-2009, 06:57 AM

I am a compulsive gambler...

Thanks for sharing that. I'm glad that you were able to bring your addiction into focus and overcome it. I have cousin who had a similar experience (return to religion and spirituality) when she joined AA.

While I, personally, believe that the only high power is the power that comes from within. I'm glad when I hear of people using their religious beliefs to better their own lives and the lives of others. Those are important values and the motivation for holding those values dear shouldn't matter.

bobsticks

03-04-2009, 08:41 AM

nec dubitamus multa esse quae et nos praeterierint; homines enim sumus et occupati officiis.

ForeverAutumn

03-04-2009, 09:10 AM

nec dubitamus multa esse quae et nos praeterierint; homines enim sumus et occupati officiis.

There he goes, speaking in tongues again.

Auricauricle

03-04-2009, 09:14 AM

"...namque tu solebas nugas esse aliquid meas putare."

bobsticks

03-04-2009, 09:17 AM

There he goes, speaking in tongues again.

Lol, that's Pliny the Elder sprechen; loose translation being:

Nor do we doubt that many things have escaped us also; for we are but human, and beset with duties

I got two words for ya, "campfire stories"...

Auricauricle

03-04-2009, 09:21 AM

Good ol' Camp Vesuvius!

nightflier

03-04-2009, 09:51 AM

...and this one day, in Latin camp....

Auricauricle

03-04-2009, 10:04 AM

Don't make fun of...Flautus Epidermis!

Feanor

03-04-2009, 10:53 AM

...
Maher did make some funny comments about certain aspects of prophetizing, in which God bestows knowledge to one individual. "If the message was so important, why not impart it to everyone? Why just one guy?" Especially since we (humanity) have such a history bad treatment towards prophets.

How then would a televangelists make a buck??

Auricauricle

03-04-2009, 11:15 AM

Televangelists are there just to spread the Word. Prophets do the, um, profiteering?

nightflier

03-04-2009, 11:58 AM

Sticks, I'm impressed with the Latin. Catholic School? That would explain some things.

bobsticks

03-04-2009, 01:16 PM

Sticks, I'm impressed with the Latin. Catholic School? That would explain some things.

Nope. I was raised on a steady diet of rattlesnakes and tongues, Buckley and Gallsworthy...took a class or two in college though.

I got in a barfight with a couple fellas from Bother Rice once. That's about as close an encounter I ever had with the devout.

nightflier

03-04-2009, 02:13 PM

Latin? Ockham's Razor? I'm going to guess that the explanation to who Sticks might be, is anything but the simplest. More like an onion, I'm thinking....

Sugar Beats

03-04-2009, 02:19 PM

I think that is the take-home in all of this, em. When you get down to the fundamentals, religion, philosophy, spirituality, psychology and all distill to that essential Search for Meaning. Unfortunately, many of us--myself included--have to take a pretty hard road to come to that realization. If we have sufficient opportunity to reflect, on the other hand, we can rebuild ourlives into something richer and healthier. Like I was saying about Thomas: Faith is not a matter of crossing your fingers and agreeing to believe in the supernatural. It is a commitment, involving lots and lots of soul searching and mental effort to believe in something richer, deeper....

By small & simple things are great things brought to pass.

The course of our lives is seldom determined by great, life-altering decisions. Most of the time our direction is often set by the small, day to day choices that chart the track on which we run. The subtance of our lives is then made up by making choices. What do you base your choices on?
Many of us through the years & our individual experiences reflect on those things; both large & small.
IMO, Faith is the confident belief in the truth of or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. In a religious context, faith then refers to a trusting belief in a transcendent reality, or in a Supreme Being's role/purpose in the order of things & events spiritual in nature.

There exists a wide spectrum of opinion with respect to the epistemological validity of faith...

I would hope, as mentioned above, that in the Search for Meaning (which I believe we all go through) in this Life, in this World, that every person holds hope & the belief of a deeper meaning & purpose to something "greater than youself" (& whatever that means to you) close to your heart, mind & spirit.

Your spirit (I believe) & the knowlege you gain~ in this life~ is the only thing you are taking w/ you when you pass on to whatever comes next.

So learn well...and possibly not "knock" what you don't understand...

Then again, that's just me... Take it or leave it, you know?

Sugar Beats

03-04-2009, 02:25 PM

Latin? Ockham's Razor? I'm going to guess that the explanation to who Sticks might be, is anything but the simplest. More like an onion, I'm thinking....

Yea, Yea flier, I know... layers.

Don't forget I knew sticks when he was but a wee lad (with not such a great haircut & you should have seen his...opps! Sorry sticks! Don't get mad @ me!) & so you guys and all of the "assessing" of just "who" he is ~ is HILARIOUS to me!

Thanks for the laughs!

nightflier

03-04-2009, 02:32 PM

Whoa, didn't know that about you two. Sticks, I think you've got one hell of an ass-whomping coming from GM and Tex, if that's the case. SB, you naughty girl you.

Sugar Beats

03-04-2009, 02:40 PM

Whoa, didn't know that about you two. Sticks, I think you've got one hell of an ass-whomping coming from GM and Tex, if that's the case. SB, you naughty girl you.

Sticks is damn lucky, imo, that I like him as well as I do! The things & info I could blast about him & be really Naughty with! Oh, so many possibilites! He's soooo lucky I've been discreet & responsible. Two things that aren't much fun to be (at times!) HA! If you guys only knew!

bobsticks

03-04-2009, 02:53 PM

Latin? Ockham's Razor? I'm going to guess that the explanation to who Sticks might be, is anything but the simplest. More like an onion, I'm thinking....

I'm just a cook.

nightflier

03-04-2009, 03:11 PM

Aikido as well, now that's a new layer.

Luvin Da Blues

03-04-2009, 06:17 PM

I'm just a cook.

Let's see....

I'll have a double bacon cheese burger, onion rings and a coke. Do you use Canadian bacon?

ForeverAutumn

03-04-2009, 08:05 PM

I'm going to guess that the explanation to who Sticks might be, is anything but the simplest. More like an onion, I'm thinking....

Nah, that's just his breath.

3-LockBox

03-04-2009, 09:24 PM

Me, I'm just a lawnmower. You can tell me by the way I walk.

I actually want to hear more about the space aliens in religion...they're much more intriguing to me. What do I gotta do to get a planet with those killer rings around it, that's what I wanna know.

Auricauricle

03-05-2009, 02:22 PM

The rings were a side order....

I just post here.

nightflier

03-05-2009, 04:49 PM

There are space aliens in this thread? Or are we still talking about Sticks?

bobsticks

03-05-2009, 05:43 PM

Who dat?

bobsticks

03-05-2009, 05:45 PM

Nah, that's just his breath.

Hey!!! Uncalled for....:nonod: ...;)

ForeverAutumn

03-05-2009, 06:15 PM

Hey!!! Uncalled for....:nonod: ...;)

Aw, you know I love you Stickyman.

....onion breath and all. ;)

Troy

03-05-2009, 10:47 PM

Loved the movie, but I'm a Maher fan from way back. I loved "Politically Incorrect" and watch every episode of "Real Time". The man is as self-absorbed and narcissistic as a man can be, but, as a major-league skeptic on virtually every subject too, I agree with him on most things.

No, no one will be converted by his movie, either way, but if you, like so many people today, don't believe, and are disillusioned because you feel like the whole rest of the world is insane and delusional for believing in their "space god", then you will get a kick out of this movie. If you are hung up on the rote dogma of your faith of choice, stay away.

While Maher did spend a lot of time on Christians (probably because it's the dominant religion in the US, which is also the film's main audience), there was a lot of time spent capping on the Muslims too.

I've been saying for years what Maher said with in his closing monologue: If mankind is to survive as a species, we have to get over the whole God thing and understand that all religions are basically the same: a tool for controlling the minds of the controllable masses. As long as we ascribe to the theory that "My god can beat up your god" and have the weapons in our quivers to kill billions in an instant, we're basically doomed. And that, my friends, is really what this movie was about.

bobsticks

03-06-2009, 02:52 AM

I've been saying for years what Maher said with in his closing monologue: If mankind is to survive as a species, we have to get over the whole God thing and understand that all religions are basically the same: a tool for controlling the minds of the controllable masses. As long as we ascribe to the theory that "My god can beat up your god" and have the weapons in our quivers to kill billions in an instant, we're basically doomed. And that, my friends, is really what this movie was about.

Thanks Troy. I was gearing up for yet another king hell diatribe on the matter and you've managed to summarize it far more eloquently and succinctly than I ever could've...

<object width="445" height="364"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/P74WkSoAJeo&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x2b405b&color2=0x6b8ab6&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/P74WkSoAJeo&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x2b405b&color2=0x6b8ab6&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="445" height="364"></embed></object>

Feanor

03-06-2009, 03:06 AM

Nobody has mentioned any God-bashing books. Couple of good ones I've read in the last little while are:

Richard Dawkins: The God Delusion (http://www.amazon.com/God-Delusion-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0618918248/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1236337235&sr=1-1)
Christopher Hitchens: God is Not Great (http://www.amazon.com/God-Not-Great-Religion-Everything/dp/0446579807/ref=pd_sim_b_1)There are about a 100M books attempting to refute the above if you're interested; (I haven't the patience).

ForeverAutumn

03-06-2009, 07:16 AM

I'm actually very interested in reading that Dawkins book...I just don't have much time for reading anymore.

Since we've already gone off topic from the originating movie review, has anyone seen the atheist bus campaign? It started in the UK but has been spreading throughout the world. Buses here started carrying the ads last week. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist_Bus_Campaign

bobsticks

03-06-2009, 07:45 AM

...I'm not bashing God...just people...

...and your God if you decide to tell me about Him or Her.

Auricauricle

03-06-2009, 09:09 AM

We can knock religion and the various ideologies all we like, but I think that the central spiritual thread that runs through all of them might be the leverage we need to break through the divisiveness. If we can look at religious affiliation as a vehicle for like-minded individuals to congregate and share a common faith, all is well and good. I think denigrating such a practice is unfortunate. When that practice is used to foist an agenda onto a people whether they like it or not, that's another tragedy altogether.

In the midst of all this chaos, it the adherent's choice, whether to accept the tenets of a religion or to reject them that makes faith such an important matter. While religions have often forced their agenda, the religion was in actuality a thinly veiled disguise to obscure another issue altogether: greed. We have said it before, in the name of God, wars and destruction have been wrought.

In sum, maybe it shouldn't be religion that we knock, but man's insatiable appetite for blood and lucre....

Feanor

03-06-2009, 10:03 AM

...I'm not bashing God...just people...

...and your God if you decide to tell me about Him or Her.

Dawkins and Hitchen are actually just bashing people too -- after all, according to them God doesn't exist, so how could they be bashing Him/Her? They certainly don't cut believers a lot of slack, though.

Auricauricle

03-06-2009, 10:13 AM

Are you referring to the Four Horsemen vid?

Sugar Beats

03-06-2009, 10:30 AM

In sum, maybe it shouldn't be religion that we knock, but man's insatiable appetite for blood and lucre....

Personally I agree w/ Auri.

Faith & Religion are very personal and sometimes private & deeply personal subjects. Why knock what you rightly agree you don't believe or understand? It's one thing to state your opinion, another to degrade someone else's belief system or try to get a "hardy-har-har" out of it. Not everyone (present & on this site included) is an "atheist."

ForeverAutumn

03-06-2009, 11:09 AM

If we can look at religious affiliation as a vehicle for like-minded individuals to congregate and share a common faith, all is well and good.

But even when that happens it doesn't really happen. There are various degrees of worship within the same faith/religion. And those who are more devout look down on those who are less so. It doesn't matter that you believe in and pray to god. If you don't do it well enough, often enough, and in the correct manner, you are not religious enough. This type of hypocrisy offends me.

Why knock what you rightly agree you don't believe or understand? It's one thing to state your opinion, another to degrade someone else's belief system or try to get a "hardy-har-har" out of it. Not everyone (present & on this site included) is an "atheist."

I am not about bashing god or those who choose to believe in god. You are free to believe and think whatever you want. In doing so, I ask that you give me the same respect. It is those people who will not give me that respect that I have a problem with.

About four years ago a collegue that I had worked with for a couple of years asked me if I was jewish (he was). I responded that although I was raised by jewish parents I did not consider myself to be of any religion. He asked what I meant and I replied, "I'm an atheist". He said, "oh, you mean agnostic". I replied back, "no, atheist". He argued, "no, you mean agnostic". To which I emphatically responded, "NO, I mean atheist". He looked confused and started to explain to me that atheist meant not believing in god at all. I looked him in the eye and replied, "yes, that's correct". That was the last time he ever spoke to me.

I don't hide my non-belief. I also don't wear it on my sleeve. But if someone asks the question I'm going to answer honestly. In doing so I've had several experiences similar to the one above. I've been prayed for, I've had people try to convert me (to several different faiths), I've even been told that being jewish is a birthright that has nothing to do with believing in god :shocked:.

Don't talk to me about degrading a belief system when I've experienced it far more than I've ever dished it out. In my experience, religious people are far less tolerant of atheists than the other way around.

What the world really needs is more tolerance...in every respect.

ForeverAutumn

03-06-2009, 11:46 AM

Don't talk to me about degrading a belief system when I've experienced it far more than I've ever dished it out. In my experience, religious people are far less tolerant of atheists than the other way around.

This sounds much more confrontational than I meant it to sound.

Sugar Beats

03-06-2009, 12:08 PM

Personally I don't want to read or hear anything about some great "God Bashing" books as stated above. I feel I try to keep my opinions to myself as well. I don't believe anyone here knows what "religion" I profess to be, as I keep that fact out of these threads.

"God bashing" however may have it's place (I don't know where the hell that would be?... but that's my opinion!) and feel the need to at least comment as much since I am a believer.

I do hold to be true and try to live my life in a matter where I can stand by this statement... "Be true to your convictions." Everybody on the planet is inherently endowed with the ability to decipher "right & wrong." We know when we are doing the proper thing and when we are not. I trust we all know this. If someone wants to take this basic info a step further and mix "faith, hope" and other things which are felt but can never be seen in, then I say, go forward & do so.

I don't believe I've ever "disrespected" your opinion or beliefs FA. I apologize if I have.

I am simply stating that I believe in rising above mediocrity and indifference & speaking for that which I believe is right. And yes, we all have a right to do so... And if in that belief we express gratitude for a "higher power" so be it. I personally do not want to be involved in contirbuting to something or someone that chooses to poke fun or make light of my deeply rooted religious beliefs for the sheer benefit of a laugh.

ForeverAutumn

03-06-2009, 12:35 PM

I don't believe I've ever "disrespected" your opinion or beliefs FA. I apologize if I have.

No, no, no. I didn't mean to imply that. You have never disrespected me, nor has anyone else here. I was speaking in general terms.

nightflier

03-06-2009, 02:58 PM

Dawkins and Hitchen are actually just bashing people too -- after all, according to them God doesn't exist, so how could they be bashing Him/Her? They certainly don't cut believers a lot of slack, though.

Isn't that the fundamental problem with Atheism? If one does not believe in God, then how can one disprove that God exists?

Auricauricle

03-06-2009, 03:27 PM

....I think this is where it breaks down, the whole spiritual-religious magilla....As I said, religion is just an organized and ritualistic expression of faith. Problem is when people use reiligion as a smoke screen to veil a political cudgel.

Atheism is still an expression of faith.

Feanor

03-06-2009, 04:07 PM

Isn't that the fundamental problem with Atheism? If one does not believe in God, then how can one disprove that God exists?

It's a lot like using DBT to prove that differences in sound don't exist: it can't be done.

Nevertheless Dawkins has a lot to say on that subject.

Feanor

03-06-2009, 04:14 PM

...
Don't talk to me about degrading a belief system when I've experienced it far more than I've ever dished it out. In my experience, religious people are far less tolerant of atheists than the other way around.

...
As an understatement, that was huge.

Auricauricle

03-06-2009, 04:23 PM

They just have more to lose....

bobsticks

03-06-2009, 04:34 PM

It's my understanding that both the Dawkins and the Hitchen's books are scholarly affairs, steeped in philosophy. I'm not sure who it was assumed to be attempting to "degrade someone else's belief system or try to get a 'hardy-har-har'".

nightflier

03-06-2009, 04:49 PM

Atheism is still an expression of faith.

Maybe my attention span is waning, but I don't follow.

Auricauricle

03-06-2009, 05:24 PM

Feanor

03-06-2009, 07:08 PM

Faith as defined as any belief or confidence devoid of religious affiliation. Although atheism does not endorse contemplation of a supreme being, even that tenet is a belief.*

*Belief = faith
Faith = belief

Inninit just maddening??
It's a misconception that atheism is just another belief/faith -- not necessarily true. A great many atheists, probably the majority, are profoundly skeptical. These atheists question assumptions and subject all propositions to scrutiny. I would say most often their skepticism preceded their atheism.

Granted, this might not have been the case in the Soviet Union or the Peoples' Republic of China where Atheism, (capital 'A'), was/is the official doctrine -- taught in Sunday school as it were. But in western democracies many people come to atheism despite a religious upbringing

I believe that Dawkins would agree that atheists cannot absolutely disprove the existence of God. He would say that they don't have the total conviction (belief/faith) that God doesn't exist, but simply that, on account of the vast prepondrence of evidence, they deem it highly improbable that he/she/it exists.

It is almost inconceivable to some folks but there are people who are free of faith.

Auricauricle

03-06-2009, 07:37 PM

In using the word "faith", I refer to the use of the word that applies to a guiding principle. Although atheism does not avow reference to an object of adoration as such, it does apply energy towards addressing whatever is implied in meaning by the nonexistence of a theistic deity. I do think that skepticism is often a prerequisite for atheistic leaning, but having passed that hurdle, the atheist is left pondering what remains. Whatever this is, is a source of meaning and is referred to. Atheism is not nihilism, which has no point of reference whatsoever.

Sugar Beats

03-06-2009, 08:07 PM

ForeverAutumn

03-07-2009, 06:35 AM

Faith has many definitions:

faith [feyth] Show IPA
–noun
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.
—Idiom
9. in faith, in truth; indeed: In faith, he is a fine lad.

So, I suppose that Atheists do have faith under some definitions of the word. I have faith in people's abilities. I believe in a code of ethics. I, myself, am faithful to people. But when discussing the traditional definition of faith as it applies to religious beliefs, I would argue that Atheism is not a faith.

As for the question of, if one does not believe in god then how can one disprove that god exists, I respond that atheists have no reason to disprove that god exists (aside from those academics who choose to explore this). I don't believe in Unicorns, why would I waste my time trying to prove that they don't exist?

I live my life as a good, moral, person without religion. If the religious are offended by my views then the onus is on them to prove me wrong. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind.

Feanor

03-07-2009, 07:09 AM

... Atheism is not nihilism, which has no point of reference whatsoever.

Thanks for that, Auri. It is bigotry to suppose the atheists are evil or necessarily people without principles. And on the flip side, there are people who believe, (I suppose as matter of superstition), but whose behavior is far from good religious principles.

I certainly agree with the "Golden Rule" of Christianity, "Do for other people what you would like them do for you". (This principle is implicit in virtually all of the major worlds religions, not just Christianity, and atheists are as likely to subscribe as anyone else.)

Auricauricle

03-07-2009, 01:08 PM

Thank you, Feanor.

FA, maybe my definition of "faith" is a bit broad, but I think that even espousing a guiding principle or a moral compass without invoking the existence of a supreme being is still a "'faith" (in my mind). For me, "God" is a nice way to encapsulate my inability to adequately describe the origins of these altruistic intentions or the source of Wonder, etc. I think that you are living proof that atheists are just as capable as theists to be spiritually informed and committed to righteousness. So, I agree: this definition is not "traditional", but is a valid one nevertheless, methinks.

3-LockBox

03-09-2009, 05:43 AM

I certainly agree with the "Golden Rule" of Christianity, "Do for other people what you would like them do for you". (This principle is implicit in virtually all of the major worlds religions, not just Christianity, and atheists are as likely to subscribe as anyone else.)

That is a major problem in the world - that many religions hold firm the belief that others who don't follow their tenents are going to hell. Many religious people hold other religions in contempt. Its this level of intolerence that cause the lionshare of the problem. Its why I eschew organized religions (I refer to all religions here, not just Christianity).

I believe in autonomy. Many of the world's religions and governments hate that philosophy.

Auricauricle

03-09-2009, 10:58 AM

I don't think it's the reluctance to embrace their tenets that gets some religious folks in such a state; I think it's when folks don't join their gang so they all can all whup up on the "heathen". Strength in numbers sort of thing. "Hey, let's all become Christians so we can beat the snot outta the towel-heads"*; "Hey, let's make up a Protestant Club so we can kick some Catholic asp" sort of thing, knowwhatimean?

*This is an offensive term used to make a point. It by no means expresses the writer's actual sentiments regarding the Islamic faith or those who reside in the Middle East.

nightflier

03-09-2009, 03:25 PM

*Belief = faith
Faith = belief

Inninit just maddening??

Not as maddening as that new avatar, LOL. I preferred the dude.

In any case, I think it is possible for people to consciously believe that there is no faith of any kind. Call them pure naturalists, in the sense that there is no higher power, no soul, no spirit in the trees or animals, and everything is just a reaction to everything else, from the smallest sub-atomic particle to the largest cluster of galaxies. In my opinion that is a bit disconcerting, but to each his/her own.

Auricauricle

03-09-2009, 03:50 PM

I kinda like that philosophy, m'self....Even if you are put off by the new hat an' matchin' mustache!

BradH

03-10-2009, 01:30 AM

Call them pure naturalists, in the sense that there is no higher power, no soul, no spirit in the trees or animals, and everything is just a reaction to everything else, from the smallest sub-atomic particle to the largest cluster of galaxies. In my opinion that is a bit disconcerting, but to each his/her own.

But here's the thing: pure naturalists can't explain why there is something instead of nothing, how there could be time after there was no time, how there could be space after there was no space. These are questions children routinely ask by walking the dog back - you know the drill..."Where did the world come from?"...and one question leads to another until you're back to "Why is there something instead of nothing." And no one has an answer. Not that science should give up on these questions, mind you...they should never give up. I just find it odd that very few people remark on the bizareness of the particles of the universe being arranged so that the universe becomes aware of itself. That's what's happening when humanity studies the cosmos. Pretty weird when you think about it.

I'm not much of a fan of Dawkins. Too much of a wannabe rock star with the leather jacket and now the silly bus tour. I totally disagreed with the way he and Dennett went after Stephen Jay Gould over co-adaptation. They were Darwinian fundamentalists who were too concerned over how Gould might be misenterprated so they rounded the wagons and called him crypto-religious.

As for Maher, I never saw any evidence that he had two brain cells to rub together. Politically Incorrect was vomit-inducing 90's celebrity opinion worship. Like I gave a f*ck what Florence Henderson thought about NATO expansion or something. Really? Maybe he thinks he's making the world a better place by ridiculing religion but I think he's naive. Religion is a belief structure that will always be there. It's only dangerous during times of great social stress when it stops being an internal world view and becomes an external ordering principle for society at large. But bashing religion just seems like an adolescent pursuit to me.

Feanor

03-10-2009, 02:25 AM

But here's the thing: pure naturalists can't explain why there is something instead of nothing, how there could be time after there was no time, how there could be space after there was no space. These are questions children routinely ask by walking the dog back - you know the drill..."Where did the world come from?"...and one question leads to another until you're back to "Why is there something instead of nothing." And no one has an answer. Not that science should give up on these questions, mind you...they should never give up. I just find it odd that very few people remark on the bizareness of the particles of the universe being arranged so that the universe becomes aware of itself. That's what's happening when humanity studies the cosmos. Pretty weird when you think about it.

...

Please acknowledge that the "something from nothing" problem is not solved by insinuating God or an intelligent creator. The obvious question arises: where did the creator come from?

Auricauricle

03-10-2009, 08:24 AM

But why should it be necessary to posit a "prime mover"? Seems to me that it still boils down to a logical, but possibly erroneous hunch. Further, why imbue that "God" with anthropomorphic attributes? Is there any possibility that such an entity would have characteristics that are beyond our ken, and that we're putting so much at stake by supposing that "God" is composed of familiar and fathomable elements? I forgot who coined the phrase, but "useful fiction" comes to mind all of sudden. What sayest you?

Sugar Beats

03-10-2009, 09:19 AM

As for Maher, I never saw any evidence that he had two brain cells to rub together. Politically Incorrect was vomit-inducing 90's celebrity opinion worship. Like I gave a f*ck what Florence Henderson thought about NATO expansion or something. Really? Maybe he thinks he's making the world a better place by ridiculing religion but I think he's naive. Religion is a belief structure that will always be there. It's only dangerous during times of great social stress when it stops being an internal world view and becomes an external ordering principle for society at large. But bashing religion just seems like an adolescent pursuit to me.

Well said (IMO).

I thought this was an interesting little tid bit. An article I read asked "How often do you pray?"

The results are as follows:

At least 66% of people in Malaysia, the Philippines, and India say they pray every day. It's the opposite in Europe. 65% of respondents in the Czech Republic never do, followed by those in the Netherlands, France & Spain then the UK (it ranked w/ only 25%). The trend stops across the Atlantic where 55% of Americans pray daily. Mexico came in w/ 33% saying they pray daily & Brazil with 50%.

BradH

03-10-2009, 01:00 PM

Please acknowledge that the "something from nothing" problem is not solved by insinuating God or an intelligent creator. The obvious question arises: where did the creator come from?

Exactly, that was my point about the simple questions that no one can answer. But this cuts both ways. Atheists have utterly failed at answering these same questions. They take it on "faith" that they have it right. Personally, I don't think it's all that healthy to obsess over it because it's a conundrum that can't be unravelled by the human mind. Sometimes it seems like there's a god and sometimes it doesn't. So it will always be.

I once had a friend who said he was an atheist and I told him I was agnostic. He replied that agnostics were just atheists without balls. I asked him why atheists needed balls if there was no god for them to defy? Stumped him. Of course, we were probably wasted at the time...

Auricauricle

03-10-2009, 02:32 PM

Funny, BradH....Lots of folks seem to sort it out better when they're wasted....Mebbe you needed to go with the "homegrown" 'stead o' the twigs 'n seeds....

nightflier

03-10-2009, 03:26 PM

Brad, maybe pure naturalists don't really care what came before. Maybe they're too busy with the things in their immediate world that the philosophical and metaphysical questions we're asking here are of no consequence. Perhaps being a pure naturalists is more liberated state of being as a result. Isn't that ironic?

ForeverAutumn

03-10-2009, 04:02 PM

I once had a friend who said he was an atheist and I told him I was agnostic. He replied that agnostics were just atheists without balls. I asked him why atheists needed balls if there was no god for them to defy? Stumped him. Of course, we were probably wasted at the time...

That was a silly statement for your friend to make. There's nothing wrong with not knowing what to believe or not believe. This is a subject where people have very strong convictions. Those who are religious are convinced that they are right and it is seldom that something will change their minds. Those who are atheist are convinced that they are right and it is seldom that something will change their minds. So which camp do you want to pitch your tent in? I can see how it would be easy to sit on the fence between both camps.

Agnostics are in the unique position of being able to see both sides of the coin.

Auricauricle

03-10-2009, 04:03 PM

So are you saying that in renouncing one's faith and countenancing a more pragmatic position allows one to espouse hedonism?

If that be the case, I'm gettin' in the pool!

BradH

03-10-2009, 08:16 PM

Mebbe you needed to go with the "homegrown" 'stead o' the twigs 'n seeds....

I was probably supplying the tequila.

Brad, maybe pure naturalists don't really care what came before. Maybe they're too busy with the things in their immediate world that the philosophical and metaphysical questions we're asking here are of no consequence.

It seems to me that "pure naturalists" have spent quite a bit of time and energy publicly expounding on their view of what constitutes moral behavior. Have they stopped to consider why they have these views about moral behavior and where they come from? Also, the debate over morality as a survival mechanism is a thriving topic among evolutionary historians. I don't believe all "pure naturalists" are uninterested in that debate.

Perhaps being a pure naturalists is more liberated state of being as a result. Isn't that ironic?

Depends on who's making the rules. There's been some interesting research on the nature of rituals and how some people need a belief structure more or less rigid than others. It's not a one-size-fits-all proposition and it doesn't necessarily have to involve religion. I would argue that Dawkins and Maher are exhibiting behavior very similar to fundamentalist proselytizing. It looks the same to me.

Also, your use of the term "liberated" belies a modern viewpoint. The reality is that science was originally seen as revealing the workings of god. Darwin himself was religious. Contrary to what the Carl Sagans of the world would have us believe, the antagonism between these two viewpoints is a recent invention, probably because of the Scopes trial. Also, I think it was you who stated there had been a tension throughout American history between spiritual values and material prosperity. That's absolutely false. Again, these were not opposing viewpoints but seen as the same thing. It's only in the 20th century when material well-being reaches a point in America where concerns get ratcheted up a notch or two on Mazlow's Heirarchy of Needs. Before that, the church was where the women's sufferage and slavery abolition movements started. After all, they were restricted from most other avenues of public activism. Women saw the church as a major liberating force and used it as such to extend their good works toward the slavery issue, eventually culminating in the anti-corruption Progressive movements of the 1880's. Even long after this, you had King in the black Southern church system spearheading the civil rights movement. Mind you, they were all using the arguments of religion to make their case.

Here's another thing, the Western idea of personal liberty and human rights is a meme that rode like a parasite with the Protestent Reformation as host. Saying your personal rights came from God instead of another human with holy blood ordained by the Holy Roman Empire was stunningly radical for its time. Now, personally, I'd almost rather be hit in the nads with a board rather than go to church but I think it's absurd when people say that religion is responsible for all the evils of the world. History shows that it's just not that simple.

Auricauricle

03-10-2009, 08:35 PM

As you say, science in it's early days arose from desire to enhance the appreciation of God and His handicraft. I think of Galileo, whose telescopic vision ran afoul of Church doctrine. Yet, remember that doctrine was founded, in large part, upon the writings and musings of the pre-Socratic writers. These include luminaries such as Heraclites and Archimedes, who posited the conceptualization of a perfectly-endowed creator as evidenced by his perfectly wrought work. When Galileo dared to pronounce that the surface of the moon was, in fact, not smooth but uneven and very probably much less round than was thought, he was called as traitor and put in the nearest prison at the quickest possible moment.

In sum, I think I'd like to get on board here and posit that churches and other institutions have not infrequently used their spritual-religious appeal to invoke their political agendas. This goes far beyond Scopes, I would guess....

nightflier

03-12-2009, 02:38 PM

It seems to me that "pure naturalists" have spent quite a bit of time and energy publicly expounding on their view of what constitutes moral behavior. Have they stopped to consider why they have these views about moral behavior and where they come from? Also, the debate over morality as a survival mechanism is a thriving topic among evolutionary historians. I don't believe all "pure naturalists" are uninterested in that debate.

What evidence is there that they've been obsessing over this? Maybe they just go about their business without giving it so much thought. Now I'm sure they have philosophers among their ranks too, but my guess is that many of them just don't worry about it too much.

Morality as a survival mechanism? Morality is a very modern concept, and perhaps also a very Western one. If anything that's putting the cart before the horse. I would guess that when we were still walking around naked in the bush, we first looked out for ourselves and our group (survival) and that morality, if it applied, was a convenient consequence. In the bush, it wasn't about outrunning predators, but rather outrunning the next slower member of the group, because once the predator had his meal, the chase was over and everybody went about their business again. I would hardly call that moral, but it certainly was survival.

Also, your use of the term "liberated" belies a modern viewpoint. The reality is that science was originally seen as revealing the workings of god. Darwin himself was religious. Contrary to what the Carl Sagans of the world would have us believe, the antagonism between these two viewpoints is a recent invention, probably because of the Scopes trial.

Science was seen as one of the ways to reveal the workings of god in classical times, I'll give you that, but we've been on this earth a lot longer than that. Actually this understanding of science is also a very modern concept since classical times, let's say the last 8000 years or so, are also very recent in relation to how long we've been here. Back to my example of running from predators in the bush, I seriously doubt that the discovery of a tool to beat off a predator was considered the working of god. Even the harnassing of fire to preserve meat was something early man stumbled on from wildfires. I can think of countless other examples of science, that may not have had anything to do with the supernatural world. I'm sure early humans had plenty of time to ponder these concepts, but it's quite possible to make the case that god did not come first, so to speak.

Also, I think it was you who stated there had been a tension throughout American history between spiritual values and material prosperity. That's absolutely false.Again, these were not opposing viewpoints but seen as the same thing. It's only in the 20th century when material well-being reaches a point in America where concerns get ratcheted up a notch or two on Mazlow's Heirarchy of Needs.

Well that may be your opinion, but that doesn't make it a fait accomplit. I think you're misinterpreting American history. The debate over the rightness of material possessions, was one that was carried to the states from Europe and was quite the hot topic in the Reformation and Counter-Reformation. In any case, the debate didn't just spring out of nothing in the 20th century, it's been part of our history all along.

Before that, the church was where the women's sufferage and slavery abolition movements started. After all, they were restricted from most other avenues of public activism. Women saw the church as a major liberating force and used it as such to extend their good works toward the slavery issue, eventually culminating in the anti-corruption Progressive movements of the 1880's. Even long after this, you had King in the black Southern church system spearheading the civil rights movement. Mind you, they were all using the arguments of religion to make their case.

It's a little presumtuous to make the case that these movements arose out of the American Protestant church. Issues of slavery and women's rights are as old as humans, and I would argue that the Church that you refer to was just a transitory vehicle to carry the message, a message that was there well before and will likely remain there if the Church ever goes away.

Here's another thing, the Western idea of personal liberty and human rights is a meme that rode like a parasite with the Protestent Reformation as host. Saying your personal rights came from God instead of another human with holy blood ordained by the Holy Roman Empire was stunningly radical for its time. Now, personally, I'd almost rather be hit in the nads with a board rather than go to church but I think it's absurd when people say that religion is responsible for all the evils of the world. History shows that it's just not that simple.

What's not so simple is the origin of these issues of human rights and personal liberty. Couldn't it also be possible that they existed all along and that the Church, for better or worse, was a vehicle that was conveninent for a portion of our human existence. These issues certainly go further back than that, no?

Auricauricle

03-12-2009, 03:30 PM

Interesting comments, nf, but I am not sure that I see eye-to-eye with you on everything.

First of all, I too espouse the notion that "morality" has some basis in evolutionary parlance. While Morality, as such, may not have existed the capacity for clemency* can be described as a strategy for maximizing resources and minimizing conflict. I don't think it much of a stretch to see man's sociality as a product of these strategies being played out.

I think that "science" predates even the pre-Socratics and before, but hearkens to the inquisitiveness of early man. Science is not technology, but methodology, and I think going with this, any experiment that made a stick sharper or a rock more lethal was a scientific one. Refutation of God came later.

You might be onto something in stating that interest self-assertiveness predates American history. I would place it near the Enlightenment and the Renaissance. Shame the Black Plague made folks turn ugly, making it necessary to start things up from scratch (not Old Scratch!).

How did the American Protestant Church system get into this argument?

Whoops, looks like we agree....It goes, way, way back.

Nevermind!

*Hate using such anthropomorphic terms in making these arguments....

3-LockBox

03-12-2009, 03:49 PM

"Refutation of God came later"...after a century (or so) of censorship and supression. Remember, science was allowed to be practised as long as it didn't refute biblical tenents. The Church had a habit of punishing practisioners of science who did this (Galileo anyone?). They took centuries before accepting anything other than an earth-centered universe. The refutiation of God was equal parts clinical thought, and backlash against church policy.

Auricauricle

03-12-2009, 05:06 PM

....And if you read a coupla posts early, you see I bring Galileo in, too. I don't think that science had such a political agenda, initially, as you posit. I take the position that science was an outgrowth of philosophy which questioned authority from its birth (Socrates, anyone?) :)

nightflier

03-12-2009, 05:14 PM

We should also leave open the possibility that these were questions for men (and women) well before the written record, i.e. pre-history (Quest for Fire anyone? ...said he with a snicker).

Auricauricle

03-12-2009, 05:25 PM

You had to go there...! :) I thought Kubrick and Clarke did a pretty de(s)cent job summing it up, too!

BradH

03-12-2009, 10:44 PM

What evidence is there that they've been obsessing over this?

Who said they were obsessing over it? I said I didn't believe they were all unintersted in the debate.

Morality as a survival mechanism? Morality is a very modern concept, and perhaps also a very Western one. If anything that's putting the cart before the horse. I would guess that when we were still walking around naked in the bush, we first looked out for ourselves and our group (survival) and that morality, if it applied, was a convenient consequence.

There are many instances in crisis situations where one human will risk his or her life to save another human without even thinking about what they're doing, almost like a panic response. Why do humans do this? That's the sort of thing the debate revolves around - although I'll admit I haven't followed it in a few years.

I seriously doubt that the discovery of a tool to beat off a predator was considered the working of god.

I seriously doubt that the discovery of a tool to beat off a predator was considered the working of science and, in fact, may very well may have been viewed as a fortuitous gift from the gods. I also don't see how any of this matters. My point was about how science was originally viewed by scientists.

I think you're misinterpreting American history. The debate over the rightness of material possessions, was one that was carried to the states from Europe and was quite the hot topic in the Reformation and Counter-Reformation. In any case, the debate didn't just spring out of nothing in the 20th century, it's been part of our history all along.

You're misinterpreting American history if you think there was any widespread or serious debate in America over this issue. The prevailing view was that self-improvement was God's will and it was to be realized through education, material well being, settling and improving the land, etc. They wrote about it, tallked about it, fought over how to achieve it. No, this debate you envision has not been a part of our history all along and yes, it did spring out of the 20th Century, or more accurately, it started to arise in the 1890's. All of this has been amply documented. There's no need for you to have a "hunch" about this or a "guess" about that. The proof is overwhelming, it just doesn't fit easily into the modern lens of how the world should work for us in the modern era.

It's a little presumtuous to make the case that these movements arose out of the American Protestant church. Issues of slavery and women's rights are as old as humans, and I would argue that the Church that you refer to was just a transitory vehicle to carry the message, a message that was there well before and will likely remain there if the Church ever goes away.?

Having an issue or a message is not the same thing as having a social movement. Yes, the issues were already there but the sufferage and abolitionist movements came out of the American Protestant church. That's a well documented, provable fact.

What's not so simple is the origin of these issues of human rights and personal liberty. Couldn't it also be possible that they existed all along and that the Church, for better or worse, was a vehicle that was conveninent for a portion of our human existence. These issues certainly go further back than that, no?

Same point. You're basically saying the same thing I did about the liberty "meme" using religion as a host. The church was the vehicle, not the mens clubs or the taverns or Tamany Hall or West Point. All I'm saying is that without those churches it's not at all clear where those movements would've been kindled and nourished. Certainly not in the Southern churches. They used the same book to preach a different message. So, to bring it home, you get the good and the bad, not the simple view that Maher promotes.

Feanor

03-13-2009, 02:30 AM

...
You're misinterpreting American history if you think there was any widespread or serious debate in America over this issue. The prevailing view was that self-improvement was God's will and it was to be realized through education, material well being, settling and improving the land, etc. They wrote about it, tallked about it, fought over how to achieve it. No, this debate you envision has not been a part of our history all along and yes, it did spring out of the 20th Century, or more accurately, it started to arise in the 1890's. All of this has been amply documented. There's no need for you to have a "hunch" about this or a "guess" about that. The proof is overwhelming, it just doesn't fit easily into the modern lens of how the world should work for us in the modern era.
,,.

Whatever upswelling there might have been in the 1890s, the fact remains that concept goes back to the Protestant Reformation, particularly to John Calvin. It was brought to America by various waves of immigration being with the Pymouth Brethren.

Calvin believed in predestination, that is, that people received God's grace entirely by God's will and not by either good works or faith. On the other hand, those who had received God gace, "the elect", would typically evince this grace through righteous behavior and personal prosperity.

Yes, the Protestant Ethic is a very fundamental part of, or at least contributor to, the American ethos.

BradH

03-13-2009, 06:00 PM

On the other hand, those who had received God gace, "the elect", would typically evince this grace through righteous behavior and personal prosperity.

I thought about the Calvinists when I was typing that other post. Yes, they had their own ideas about grace but look at your above statement and you'll see why I'm saying there was very little conflict at that time and place between spiritual values and material well being.

Feanor

03-14-2009, 02:10 PM

I thought about the Calvinists when I was typing that other post. Yes, they had their own ideas about grace but look at your above statement and you'll see why I'm saying there was very little conflict at that time and place between spiritual values and material well being.

Yes, that's more or less my point. Calvinists and other Protestants influenced by Reform theology too often feel righteous about their wealthy -- despite the fact the Jeus said that the rich man would have as much trouble getting into heaven as the camel getting through the eye of an needle.

BradH

03-14-2009, 05:44 PM

Yes, that's more or less my point. Calvinists and other Protestants influenced by Reform theology too often feel righteous about their wealthy -- despite the fact the Jeus said that the rich man would have as much trouble getting into heaven as the camel getting through the eye of an needle.

Yes, nf said there was a tension between those viewpoints and you say there was none. But in both cases you guys are projecting modern viewpoints about materialism onto an era that was not exactly the Age of Plenty. Make the case against modern consumerism if you will but I see that debate as a modern issue that doesn't warrant being stretched into America's past to make some kind of "original sin" argument about what's wrong with society today or what's wrong with capitalism or what's wrong with the church or choose your weapon.

RGA

03-17-2009, 01:01 AM

It's a misconception that atheism is just another belief/faith -- not necessarily true. A great many atheists, probably the majority, are profoundly skeptical. These atheists question assumptions and subject all propositions to scrutiny. I would say most often their skepticism preceded their atheism.

Granted, this might not have been the case in the Soviet Union or the Peoples' Republic of China where Atheism, (capital 'A'), was/is the official doctrine -- taught in Sunday school as it were. But in western democracies many people come to atheism despite a religious upbringing

I believe that Dawkins would agree that atheists cannot absolutely disprove the existence of God. He would say that they don't have the total conviction (belief/faith) that God doesn't exist, but simply that, on account of the vast prepondrence of evidence, they deem it highly improbable that he/she/it exists.

It is almost inconceivable to some folks but there are people who are free of faith.

on the first page 2nd link I posted a presentation Dawkins gives about his book the God Delusion - instead of guessing about his arguments listen to what he says. Of course he can't and states that he can't disprove the existence of God - he can't disprove that there is a Green tea cup floating around the earth and talks and is immune to anything that tries to take its picture. It's very much worth watching because unlike most Christians Dawkins has actually read and understands BOTH versions of the bible in full. He did not just get the cherry picked bits that sound good in a sermon.

But he's largely on losing ground - he isn't going to convince the believers - though many have seen the truth and got out from under the religious thumb.

The main point is that there is no need for God. No amount of wishful thinking is going to make it any more true. Poor people "hope" for a better afterlife which is why they're more susceptible in believing such nonsense. Wealthier countries (or areas of a country) tend to be more secular. If I am God I really don't need people groveling to me every Sunday or 5 times a day or such nonsense - live your bloody life you snivelly babies would be my reply.

Feanor

03-17-2009, 02:15 AM

on the first page 2nd link I posted a presentation Dawkins gives about his book the God Delusion - instead of guessing about his arguments listen to what he says. ...

But he's largely on losing ground - he isn't going to convince the believers - though many have seen the truth and got out from under the religious thumb.
...

I have viewed that presentation and read The God Delusion. I recommend others do so, although personally there were no arguments I hadn't hear before or thought of myself -- and none I disagree with fundamentally.

But I agree that believers won't be convinced. It's been clear to me for decades that human beings can believe any thing they really want to believe -- the earth is flat; the moon is made of blue cheese, etc. -- in contradiction of any facts or rational arguement. It has long amazed me that believers will attribute everything good that happens to God, but nothing that's bad.

Auricauricle

03-17-2009, 07:01 AM

Feanor

03-17-2009, 08:32 AM

RGA, If I follow what you are saying, belief in a higher power is a whim borne from duress. If we look upon God as a sentient, humanoid being that is capable of all of our passions and thoughts, the proposition of such a God might engender certain theistic ideologies ...
Well the Greek gods were anthropomorphic, weren't they?

... however, I don't think that the relief of suffering or its absence is necessarily conducive to non-belief.
Apparently it isn't, (though maybe it should be). Question then is what is God good for? No use on earth but good for Heaven maybe? Pertaining to Heaven, as a good Calvinist I would believe that God has preordained the Elect and nothing I do or belief will change that. The two together would make God's utlity zero and his existance or non-existance functionaly irrelevant.

; There is a phrase, "useful fiction" which is used to describe putative posits to describe the undescribable, to ponder the imponderable. Might God be such an entity? Does the presence of God-as-idea or "useful fiction" make God less extant?
How useful are "putative posits" anyway if they pertain to the imponderable? Not at all, I should say. Then again to say we can't or shouldn't ponder God is a bit of a cop-out, isn't it?

Auricauricle

03-17-2009, 08:44 AM

Feanor

03-17-2009, 08:51 AM

I think that we are on the same page--it happens when you discuss things for a while. On the other hand, while I think the existence of God is moot, the belief in such an entity serves a purpose, hence the horrible phrase (putative posit). I don't think using such thought experiments are useless, but important springboards for hypothesis generation...
Scientists would insist that hypotheses are useful in so far as they can be subject to objective evidence, usually, though not necessarily, obtained by experimentation. Does the God Hypothesis meet this critieron of usefulness? (We are talking now about the espistemological search for the metaphysical.)

GMichael

03-17-2009, 09:21 AM

(Mike pokes his head in, listens for a minute, and develops a huge headache)

Anyone have an aspirin?

Auricauricle

03-17-2009, 09:40 AM

GMichael

03-17-2009, 10:09 AM

(And that's when Mike's head exploded)

Feanor

03-17-2009, 10:13 AM

Isn't there a point in science when even the most fundamental principles and partricles dissolve into an unknown singularity? Remember when Einstein came ever so close to reconciling the forces of nature? When pressed to explain he said, "God does not play dice"? While I am not saying that the invocation of God is necessary, I do think that the conceptualization of a unifying force that gives a sense of cohesiveness and comprehension to our universe is useful. Or is God simply Lord Occam's immortal razor?

Some would say that God is antithetical to Occam's Razor, (the scientific principle of parsimony of hypotheses). This is, postulation of a god is unnecessary to scientific explanation.

When Einstein famously said "God does not play dice", he was referring to idea of quantum randomness which was relatively new at the time and at odds with the Special Theory of Relativity, (or was it the General Theory?). Einstein was a very secular Jew and it should not be construed that he was advocating God as a prime mover.